For some time, a seemingly
universal mantra implored exactly the opposite.
The belief was that simply providing a technology infrastructure would
not result in effective knowledge sharing. In fact, "If you build it, they will not
necessarily come" is one of APQC's most basic KM lessons
learned. However, in recent years, this topic seems to have
resurfaced as an issue for debate. Maybe a corollary question is even more
direct: Is the day of the knowledge manager over? Do we still need legions of
people whose jobs are specifically focused on moving knowledge around an
organization? Or has Web 2.0 obviated the need for this intermediate step of
vetting, publishing, moderating, and archiving?
It wasn't my intent to ask
these questions in my previous
post, but in describing a community environment that I'm currently part of--a
community where a knowledge manager role does exist--a discussion about the need
for such an artifact sprang up. I've been involved in this area for quite some
time, certainly before peer-to-peer apps (the Web 2.0 stuff) came on the scene.
While things certainly have changed over my years in the knowledge-sharing
arena, at the risk of sounding like the old curmudgeon, I'm in the camp that
believes human mediation of knowledge is still a "necessary evil" (emphasis
added to acknowledge those who believe otherwise).
I do agree with those who
believe that a dis-intermediated world of knowledge flow is preferable to the
current state--I just don't think we're there yet. And frankly, I hope that we
never do get to the logical endgame of only peer-to-peer: the Borg. [Sorry,
that's a Star Trek reference. Try this if you're not familiar with the term: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borg_(Star_Trek)].
The following comment was posted by John Tropea in our KM Edge LinkedIn group:
Just like librarians, I think they will be more facilitators, and run technique workshops like anecdote circles, etc...
KM is giving way to networks and sense-making:
http://libraryclips.blogsome.com/2008/07/21/has-km-died-and-resurrected-as-social-computing/
http://libraryclips.blogsome.com/2008/07/22/knowledge-and-its-facilitators/
Jim.. I was thinking the other day that, except in extreme circumstances... human beings exercise their free will as they choose in all situations... whether through action or inaction. This, plus all those things that make us human, necessitates some form of .. mediation.. as you referenced it above, but others might generally refer to it as facilitation. Often despite best of intentions, we have conflicting agendas, we don't communiate fully and/or transparently, and we have divergent positions on outcomes and how to get there. And so on. So, how can we realistically presume that collaborative / social technologies, or any technology for that matter, be the entire solution? There have been decades and decades of complaints about the negative consequences and outcomes of just throwing technology at a problem and not paying enough attention to the human side.
In a more contemporary setting, who hasn't seen bad behavour in everything from email exchanges, bulletin boards and listservs, to wikis, blogs and community discusson forms.
Someone has to pay attention to the people - awareness, capability building, encouraging productive contributions and behavours, helping identify and resolve disputes, etc.
Arguably, it is a manager's responsibility to support and to some degree manage the social systems in organizations to mobilize action (and thought) towards organizational outcomes. But, as discussed in many other forums, modern management is in transition from an industrial approach to a more faciltiative one.
Are we totally there yet? Doesn't look like it. Will we get there? Maybe at some point.
What do we do in the meantime? Managers are busy just trying to keep their heads above water, let alone change their management principles and practices. So, let's take people who genuinely like helping others, are innovative and process oriented, who are compassionate and empathetic, and enable them to pitch in and help encourage productive, purposeful collaboration and conversation in the online world of social computing in organizations.
Oh, and let's not forget the role these facilitators can also play in the real-world of face-to-face get togethers. What is your ratio of great, energizing meetings to pointless, de-energizing ones?
Maybe we have to dust off the John Cleese video "Meetings, Bloody Meetings."
Dale, I knew I could count on you for a thoughtful comment. What I take away from it is similar to my feelings that even in the view of some that un-mediated knowledge sharing might be considered “nirvana”, that we’re thankfully a long way from that vision. I guess my concern comes from a powerful, and perhaps even irrational fear engendered from something that has stayed with me from a younger time. It’s the potential for a world devoid of a human-to-human interaction; well at least as far as a specific bit of knowledge sharing goes. It’s the movie, “Colossus: The Forbin Project” (1970). http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064177/plotsummary For those of the post-boomer generation, this movie is probably unknown to them. For me, it’s something I’ve never been able to get out of my head.
Let’s face it, everyone likes brand new shiny toys. I’ll be the first too admit it, I’m a gadget junky. New shiny toys in the workplace and the excitement that they’re able to arouse in others are new opportunities for knowledge managers that should not be missed. Perhaps KM was a bit slow on the ball with the arrival of the internet and E-mail and the fact that we didn’t help people think critically about the knowledge processes and practices that surround those tools are they’re used in the course of everyday business. But we should not miss the opportunity that social software in the workplace could provide to support for CoPs, help people tell their stories, share information, and foster collaboration. Social software is powered by human-to-human interactions. What people crave most and what resides at the core of social software is new avenues for communication and the ability for people to connect with one another. What more could a knowledge manager ask for? In the workplace, by making a strong business case that reveals the KM potential of these tools, knowledge managers can be leaders invited to table early on to help make the most effective use of these tools and make those interactions meaningful. This is an opportunity to get people talking about “How” they work and remind people that all tools have at their core the people who use them and exist in much larger information and knowledge resource context. Opportunity is banging on our door! Let’s answer it!