The CX Blog

For the past few years, the discussion around how to integrate Web 2.0 technologies into enterprise KM has been hot and heavy.  Sides have been taken, lines drawn.  A lot of this came out of knee jerk reactions to a disruptive new technology–wikis, google-type search, folksonomies (is anyone using that term anymore?) etc.

Just read a good post (Organic Knowledge: Social networking technology) that reviews an article on how web 2.o is being incorporated with some facility into the manufacturing world (IDC Manufacturing Insights), and there are a couple of notes that seemed worth highlighting:

• Traditional KM efforts have been largely unsuccessful. The investments in KM that took place in the 1980s did not deliver the desired results and ended up costing more than anticipated. The reasons? “Intentions were good, but the approaches didn’t work very well,” Friedman says. For one, the applications were rigid in nature. For another, companies tended to approach them as corporate fiats (”You have to contribute or else!”), and they were often viewed as patronizing.

This problem (intentions good, approach wrong) is actually one of my favorites–though it shouldn’t be because it’s darn hard to solve. But Atkinson points to a key issue: rigidity.  And I would go so far as to say this: it’s not just the rigidity of the application or technology, though that’s a biggie.  It’s the rigidity of the team that usually takes on KM.  They tend to be highly organized, systematic thinkers who distrust organic knowledge sharing.  And with good reason: the big problems with organic knowledge sharing is consistency and manageability.  Consistency of information across all points, manageability of updates, measurements, etc.

His corporate fiat warning is a good one, too, and he expands on that well. I’ve been involved in roll-outs of wikis where there is a corporate fiat in place, and the health of the project suffers…to say the least.  If ever there was mismatch of intent and technology, it’s trying to mandate use of a wiki.

Corporate over-management of socially maintained KM has got to be viewed as a hugely counter-productive approach.  Atkinson wisely counsels a balanced approach between traditional KM centralization and organic knowledge growth:

• Traditional KM efforts have been largely unsuccessful. The investments in KM that took place in the 1980s did not deliver the desired results and ended up costing more than anticipated. The reasons? “Intentions were good, but the approaches didn’t work very well,” Friedman says. For one, the applications were rigid in nature. For another, companies tended to approach them as corporate fiats (”You have to contribute or else!”), and they were often viewed as patronizing.

Recently I’ve seen more comprehension around the idea that you select your super users (not a new idea, but a working knowledge of social networks has to be in place) and build out from there.  Any others seeing a more balanced approach to KM in their future?