Continuing the theme of my last post on digital devices, I really enjoyed the PBS.org documentary Digital Nation, which talks about the growing dominance of digital media and interaction on all our lives.   My husband and I had to pause the TiVo every five minutes to process what we were seeing. Both the entire documentary and short segments are available at this link.

My last two sentences are an ironic commentary on the message of the documentary itself: Are all our digital devices making us dumb, prompting us to think in sound bites instead of essays and willing to settle for just good enough instead of great when it comes to knowledge and information?

Or is the current transformation just a case of a new generation finding its own way? After all, every generation in recent memory has been more productive than the last.

However, that tide could be reversing.  Even though each generation of Americans in the past century has lived longer and been healthier than its parents, the next one promises to be sicker, given the unhealthy quantity and quality of food we eat and the emergence of gaming over playing. And paradoxically, this decline is all a result of our affluence and access to "the good life".

I'd love to hear your thoughts. Are we doomed to dumbing down, or just taking some time to get used to this new world?

On Thursday November 19, I will be joining a KMWorld 2009 conference panel to share thoughts on "Envisioning the Enterprise of the Future." My goal will be to identify the driving forces shaping the knowledge-based organization of the future. Three of these forces are in play today:

1.      Multiple Generations@ Work
2.      Social Computing & Networking
3.      Decline of Attention Span

All three reflect a chasm between what used to define "productive" and what may define it in the future.  One thing we know for sure: Every generation is more productive than the last one, despite the dire predictions.  Managers complain about "social not-working" and the lost time on the job while people update their friends on Facebook. Maybe they are right...or maybe not. How could social networking actually make us more productive? 

I will be thinking about that and related profundities between now and November 19. If you have any ephiphanies, let me know.

More information on the panel, including the other participants, is available here. Slides will be up on the KM world site for registrations in a few days.

Whether you're telling a joke or changing lanes, context is everything. Web 3.0, also known as the semantic Web or the rise of the intelligent machine, has been in the buzz for a while, but is now getting enough traction that you might want to check it out. This is a great basic article from Information Management:

"Web 3.0: Rise of the Intelligent Machines" by Phillip Green

It seems to be a world-wide discussion. Check out this PowerPoint presentation from Romania:

"Why Web 3.0?" by Dr. Sabin Buraga

I continue to ponder what the emerging business models for sharing content on the Web might mean for knowledge management.

I see three characteristics of the emerging model that are relevant to knowledge management:

• Most content is free to the user, yet it cost someone else to create it.
• Access to others' content seems to bring high value to the user and to the "connector."
• Rare or expert content (that which can make you money) is still costly and often charged for.

Chris Anderson, editor of Wired Magazine and author of The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business is Selling Less of More, declares in his new book that the emerging online business model for content is Free: Give away your best content online, build a brand, and make your revenue on the ancillary services generated. In Anderson's case, his money comes from the book and his speeches. At $50,000 a pop, not a bad model for him. But what if you aren't "branded"? Is helping your colleagues by answering their questions a way that employees can build their personal brands within communities of practice? There is no additional money to be made by helping your colleagues, at least in the short term. The value must come from being seen as helpful and having good content. Then it must lead to reciprocity and, eventually, a promotion.

Please join us for APQC's next knowledge management community call featuring a presentation from Kevin Hans, manager of knowledge management for the American Red Cross. During the one-hour call, Hans will discuss the initial implementation and subsequent expansion of SharePoint at the American Red Cross, including the upgrade to Microsoft Office SharePoint Server (MOSS) 2007. The presentation will conclude with a look at current SharePoint trends in governance, taxonomy, training, and workflow and how the American Red Cross is addressing these issues.

The one-hour call will take place this Thursday, July 16, at 10:30 a.m. central time. Click here to register.

What is it we want out of knowledge management implementations?

• We want organic growth of information, but we also want an "official version."
• We want to promote innovation and open usage, but we cannot risk exposing proprietary intellectual property.
• We want fast, intranet-based tools, but we don't want to spend money.
• We want everything in beta, but the tools still need to be stable.
• We want free-flowing information, but without negatively impacting legal, e-discovery, or litigation.
• We want integration with large legacy systems, but we also want low implementation costs.
• We want grassroots adoption, but with executive sponsorship.
• We want to increase KM effectiveness, but with little or no additional funding.

Ok, I'm sure you get the point.  I think we've all faced these tradeoffs--and many more--when undertaking KM implementations. We've preached for many years, "Integrate everything and get it out at the right time to the right users." But solving this dilemma has been elusive at best.

At IBM, leveraging knowledge has always been an important part of our business.  Last year, we undertook a massive overhaul of the technology and approach we use for knowledge management, moving from a centrally managed, linear, taxonomy- and repository-based system to one that leverages the best of Web 2.0, including social software, user participation, and key market-driven concepts like sponsored links. We see this as a shift from "knowledge management" to "knowledge sharing."

A few weeks ago, as the stock market bounced along on the bottom, I leavened the gloom by speaking with Chris Meyer, a keynote speaker at APQC's upcoming 2009 knowledge management conference.  With a background in economics and innovation, Chris's job as chief executive of Monitor Networks is to suggest new ways to sense and think about complex--and sometimes alarming--situations. (That's why we asked him to keynote, of course, and why I called him.)

We talked about what Chris is going to share at our conference. Connectivity, for instance: We think of it as good, right? Yet falling economic dominos attest to the dark side of our interconnectedness. 

We've probably all heard this comment before: "It's not rocket science!" But, what if it were rocket science? What if the knowledge you needed was essential to sending a person to the moon or keeping a satellite orbiting the earth? Well, NASA deals with this and other kinds of specialized knowledge every minute of every day. In 2008, in response to a need to improve knowledge sharing across all aspects the organization's workforce (e.g., NASA employees and contractors) and geographically (NASA has 11 centers across the United States), NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory conducted a small pilot (NASAsphere) involving enterprise social networking software to create an online social network for its dispersed knowledge workers. The purpose was to understand how NASA knowledge workers would use and apply online social networking in the NASA environment.

An old guy takes a young guy to a local bar to meet some of the old guy's friends. After the usual introductions, everyone sits around the table to enjoy an evening of socializing. After a bit, one of the old guy's friends shouts out, "15!" and everyone but the young guy bursts into simultaneous laughter. The young guy is puzzled by this, but doesn't say anything for the moment. Shortly, a different friend of the old guy says, "12!" and, again, the guys at the table are rollicking in laughs.

After a third friend says, "6!" and tears are streaming down everyone's faces from the merriment, the young guy can't take this odd behavior anymore. He turns to the old guy and asks him what's going on. The old guy leans over to the young guy and explains that these fellows have been together so long, and repeated the same jokes so many times, that they've decided to cut down the time it takes to tell the jokes and instead just refer to them by number.

At APQC, we often hear from organizations that are struggling to incorporate wikis, blogs, expertise location, and social networking applications into their existing collaboration infrastructures. To help address this problem, we are launching a new product: APQC's Web 2.0 Fast-Track Custom Workshop.

With guidance from a senior-level APQC adviser, workshop participants will quickly learn how low-cost Web 2.o applications can enhance or even replace their current collaboration tools. Organizations can choose between a three-hour virtual workshop or a day-long on-site workshop.

Savvy companies have been engaged in the management of knowledge for 20 years. More recently, communities of practice have become the platform for knowledge sharing. Many have been successful, but others have not generated the kind of enthusiasm needed.

Meanwhile, people are rushing to social networks in droves, pouring out their hearts and souls among friends and strangers, proving that people are eager to share. What can we learn from the network craze? And how can we tap this energy to do a better job of enabling knowledge work?

These issues will be the focus of APQC's next knowledge management community call, hosted by Jerry Ash, publisher of Smart People Magazine. The one-hour call will occur this Thursday, February 19, at 10:30 a.m. central time. Click here to register.

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?

KMWorld is an annual event that I always enjoy attending. No, not because San Jose is a beautiful, comfortable place to be during September (although it is both), but because it's a place to learn, to collaborate, to meet new folks, and to catch up with long-time KM friends. Jane Dysart and Hugh McKellar always put on a good show here in central California, and this year has been no different.

What is different from 2007 is the sense of what's hot, if that's an appropriate term to use in this area we call KM. (If you're wondering why I would even ask that question, note that "Is KM dead?" was also asked at the conference.) What I'm feeling here--or not feeling to be more precise--is the overwhelming number of sessions devoted to the topic of Web 2.0 social networking applications. To be sure, there are some breakouts devoted to connectivity via social tools, but overall, there seems to be more balance between technology and "softer" topics this year. Practical advice such as how to gain sponsorship, real world case studies, and techniques for improved knowledge sharing seem to be just as prevalent topics.

In Carla's latest blog post, she writes: "A year ago, I thought wikis would be the workhorses of Web 2.0, but it seems that the allure of social networking and blogging is winning out." That may be true--who am I to argue with Carla!--but I have noticed an uptick in the buzz around enterprise wikis recently.

Earlier this month, The New York Times wrote about Diplopedia, the U.S. Department of State's internal wiki, and how it's changing the way things get done at the organization. By providing specific examples of the information that can be found on Diplopedia--everything from biographies of political figures to instructions on how to get food delivered to the main State Department building--the NYT article demonstrates how a well-administered wiki can save employees time, facilitate the transfer of tacit knowledge, and encourage collaboration.  

McKinsey & Co. has just released its second annual survey on Web 2.0 usage and satisfaction, "Building the Web 2.0 Enterprise: McKinsey Global Survey Results." The two big stories from this global survey of almost 2000 executives are the expanded use of Web 2.0 tools (wikis, blogs, social networking) for knowledge sharing and collaboration, and the bipolar acceptance and satisfaction with these tools.

Organizations report using these tools to manage knowledge (83 percent), foster collaboration across the company (78 percent), enhance company culture (74 percent), train (71 percent), and develop products and services (67 percent). No surprises there. But I am pleasantly surprised--and maybe a little skeptical--about the reported internal penetration. According to the survey, about one in four employees in these companies now use Web 2.0 tools, with a higher level of usage in companies that integrate the tools into workflows, launch Web 2.0 along with other initiatives, and get senior managers to act as role models. 

Last month, I linked to a post about Enterprise 2.0 from Tom Davenport's Harvard Business Review blog. (Davenport is one of today's leading voices in KM--he holds the President's Chair in Information Technology and Management at Babson College, where he also leads the Process Management and Working Knowledge Research Centers.) Today I'm posting an excerpt and link to Davenport's thoughts on "Government 2.0," or the use of social computing inside government organizations. Davenport begins his post by discussing a May 21 interview with Wikinomics author Don Tapscott on NPR's "Talk of the Nation."

He [Don Tapscott] was talking ... about the transformation of government by Web 2.0/Enterprise 2.0. I don't doubt that these tools will have some impact on how governmental information and services are delivered. I also don't have any doubt that they will not drive as much change as Don (and his co-author Anthony Williamson as quoted in a CIO Insight article) apparently believe they will.

Although Davenport's post does touch on the future of Enterprise 2.o in government, his main focus is whether the overly optimistic or emphatic statements of "gurus" like Tapscott are helpful--or not. He ends his post with a question: "What do you think--should management and technology gurus moderate their expressed views, or is it the more utopian and visionary the better?"

Go to Tom's blog to read more, including comments.

Click here to listen to the "Talk of the Nation" interview with Don Tapscott.

For those of you who attended this year's KM conference, you know that one of the hottest topics was the debate around trust in and the value of Web 2.0. This came up again last week as the APQC team led the wrap-up session for the "Web 2.0 and KM" Practitioner Series.

The following paradox came up in the conversation: On the one hand, blogs, wikis, and social networking sites on the Web have allowed many of us to experiment, learn, and see the potential of social computing for business purposes. On the other hand, the way Web 2.0 looks on the Web makes many executives think that all blogs are about what the blogger had for breakfast, wikis are about rock groups or Disney fan clubs, and social networking is My Space or Facebook.   Hardly what they want to bring inside the firewall.

One participant in our Practitioner Series encourages his executives to actually read the blogs popping up inside his firm in order to see a fresh perspective on how the firm operates and what people are willing to share.  I'd like to hear from some of you about the reactions of your execs. Has Web 2.0 tainted their perceptions? Or does it excite them?

To join the Web 2.0 debate and read various reactions to new social computing tools, see the KM Edge page on Bob Wendover's conference keynote.

A key aspect of Web 2.0 is expertise location and social networking, which is the topic of APQC's latest consortium benchmarking study. View the study proposal to learn more.

For the APQC Practitioner Series discussed in this blog post, APQC lined up leading organizations IBM, MITRE, and Royal Dutch Shell to share their experiences using Enterprise 2.0 tools in the service of KM. This Practitioner Series is closed, but you can learn more about it here.

Below are brief descriptions of how three best-practice organizations are harnessing the power of social networking to facilitate expertise location. You can learn more about these organizations and their use of Enterprise 2.0 tools in APQC's most recent best practices report, The Role of Evolving Technologies: Accelerating Collaboration and Knowledge Transfer.

Accenture

Accenture provides consulting, technology, and outsourcing services to clients around the globe, including approximately 90 percent of the world's top organizations. Outsourcing, via data networks and online applications, accounts for a large portion of the firm's worldwide activities, which are supported by 160,000 professionals in 46 countries.

Accenture People, soft-launched in April 2007, is the primary application used to identify and locate people across the organization. This tool enables each employee manage his or her own "My Page," which is a personal workspace editable only by that employee. My Page is intended to serve as the primary place to create role-based portal pages. Enterprise search indexes these pages, which allows for a full-text search on expertise.

Accenture People profiles provide contact information such as e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, and locations. Also included on the profiles are brief descriptions of individuals' roles and responsibilities, educational background, prior work experience, and current projects. Reporting relationships are listed so that others can see who each individual reports to as well as who reports to him or her. This type of information enables people to identify working relationships they may have in common across the organization.

Each profile also includes a picture. Many find that this simple gesture helps facilitate more personalized connections, and employees often look up profiles in order to put faces to the people they talk to regularly. Individuals may choose to designate themselves as experts in industries or service areas and to indicate such expertise on their profiles.

Hewlett-Packard

California-based Hewlett-Packard (HP) is among the world's largest IT companies, offering a wide range of products and services spanning the printing, personal computing, software, consulting, and IT infrastructure businesses. HP operates in more than 170 countries and supports a global work force of 172,000.

HP uses an internally developed application called me@hp as its primary social networking tool. Representatives from HP's KM team compare this application to external sites such as Facebook, MySpace, and LinkedIn. There are currently 1,000 users of this opt-in application, and that number continues to increase. The organization notes that allowing people to personalize pages with profile pictures and areas of interest has increased adoption, in part because the existing company directory does not include such capabilities.

To facilitate expertise location, the KM team relies primarily on specialty discussion forums, rather than other, more formal expertise location tools. HP does have an expertise location system on its intranet, but this is more often used by resource managers to staff engagements.

Royal Dutch Shell

Royal Dutch Shell comprises a global group of energy and petrochemical companies active in more than 130 countries and territories and employing approximately 108,000 people worldwide, excluding contractors. In addition to producing energy resources and creating fuels and petrochemicals, Shell has a large portfolio of hydrogen, biofuel, wind, and solar power initiatives. The organization also serves as a consultant and provides research and development expertise in the energy industry.

For expertise location, Shell relies on its global networks (i.e., communities of practice). The organization's CoP program encompasses more than 22,000 members across 13 global networks.

Web-based discussion groups, hosted on SiteScape, allow network members to ask questions in high-traffic areas and receive responses within 24 hours. Every time a question is posted, an e-mail notification is sent to the members of that community. If community members are logged into e-mail at that time, they can immediately enter the community--no additional sign-in is required.

Shell notes that, with Enterprise 2.0 tools such as the global networks, experts naturally rise to the surface and become visible through their contributions and postings in the various forums. The importance of social networking and expertise location is reinforced by the organization's Ask-Learn-Share process, which encourages employees to seek guidance from coaches, peers, and experts before beginning new tasks.

In many organizations, there is a significant convergence of social networking and expertise location. Expertise locator systems (ELS) are designed to:

• connect people to people,
• link people to information about people,
• identify people with expertise and link them to those with questions or problems,
• identify potential staff for projects requiring specific expertise,
• assist in career development, and
  
• provide support for teams and communities of practice.
  

Some organizations use the same internal social networking site, intranet, or portal for internal expertise location as they do for communication and general networking. Many consider expertise location to be an extension of knowledge management, in that the goal is to capture and reuse the skills and experience of internal staff members in order to increase competitive advantage.

Implementation Guidelines

According to Anil Kumar, general manager of service and support for AskMe, a knowledge management software vendor, expertise location systems require cross-functional team representation for effective implementation. Key personnel who can contribute to a successful expertise location rollout include business development staff, professional services staff, and IT staff.

To ensure that the system aligns with business needs, Kumar recommends that organizations spend a significant amount of time analyzing goals and objectives during the planning process. Kumar is also a proponent of phased deployment, in which the expertise location system is introduced to one department at a time.

Benefits

The principle reasons why organizations are attracted to social networking tools are because they are user-driven, easy to use, and can be implemented and maintained at a minimal cost.

From an employee perspective, social networking offers the ability to identify and consult with experts in order to solve problems and find answers to questions. Social networking tools are usually the fastest, easiest way to locate individuals with specific skills or expertise. Users may search generally or by certain topics to find experts; search criteria are often flexible and customized. Although many professionals maintain networks of external contacts, most organizations would like to encourage employees to seek help and expertise internally before reaching out to people outside the enterprise. Often, employees search their external networks only to learn later that there were internal experts in close proximity.

Consider this example of social networking in action: An employee uses his organization's intranet to establish a social network by adding other employees he knows and has worked with on various projects. While working on a new project, this employee can send a question to his network via the social networking site. If a member of the network knows the answer, that individual can respond directly; if not, the individual may forward the query to another network. Whenever the answer is sent, it will be saved in the system for future retrieval.

Issues and Risks

Although social networking tools provide numerous benefits, there are some issues that impact effectiveness. For example, time is always a barrier to knowledge sharing and contribution, even with social networking. How do organizations convince employees to take the time to create and update profiles? What prevents employees from simply directing questions to colleagues they already know, rather than searching through profiles for someone with the requisite knowledge? Does the time investment outweigh the benefits of using internal expertise location systems? These questions must be addressed, and the value of social networking should be clearly articulated across the enterprise.

Another issue is consistency. Are all employees using the internal expertise location system, or are they turning to external sites such as LinkedIn for information? Some organizations indicate that employees prefer external sites to internal portals and intranets. Often, this is because external sites offer more freedom in terms of the type of information that can be posted, which makes them more flexible and attractive tools. For example, many organizations restrict employees from posting photographs, family information, and other personal data internally. External sites have no such restrictions and enable users to customize profiles using whatever methods they choose.

Social networking refers to systems that allow members of a specific site to learn about other members' skills, talents, knowledge, or preferences, regardless of geographic location. Popular examples include MySpace and Facebook, and professional examples include Ryze and LinkedIn.

In the business world, awareness and acceptance of social networking increased in 2005 when The News Corporation bought the parent company of MySpace. This trend has continued with recent transactions, such as Microsoft's purchase of a small share in the social networking Web site Facebook.

Inside organizations, social networking tools are often used to enhance communication among employees. Staff members leverage social networking applications to learn more about each other, including background information such as job histories and personal interests. When employees have access to this kind of detailed data, conversations become more valuable. Some organizations also employ social networking to help identify experts in specific topic areas.

Users find that the ability to invite others into their own personal networks is an appealing feature of social networking, especially since having more direct connections is often viewed as a status symbol. Many participants describe their networks as "communities," signaling the extent to which personal relationships and trust are engendered through these types of interactions.

Due to the recent explosion of interest in this topic, APQC is embarking on a consortium benchmarking study to uncover best practices related to social networking and expertise location.  The goal of this research is to help answer questions such as:

• How can organizations successfully identify experts and those with the necessary experience to staff projects or programs?
• What is an effective way to expand and manage networks of experts?
• Do organizations need formal expertise location processes and systems? What about existing communities of practice and networks?
• How do organizations differentiate between expertise and advice?
• How can organizations make it easier for highly skilled specialists without much flexible time in their schedules to collaborate?

"APQC set out to understand how leading organizations adapt Web 2.0 approaches to support the knowledge creation and capture needs of their workplace and employees. We were amazed to find just how many organizations have made the leap, how enthusiastic their IT groups were to experiment alongside KM practitioners, and the speed with which lessons were learned in terms of making these approaches productive and scalable." - Carla O'Dell, president, APQC

Key Findings

1. Wikis, blogs, and social networking generate the most excitement. There is a democratization of content between authoritative content and crowd intelligence.
2. Collaboration is at the heart of knowledge management (KM); yet, as the digital capability to connect people to people expands, the definitions of collaboration and communities of practice are blurring.
3. There is a growing focus on connecting people to people and a decreasing emphasis on collecting and managing content. The ability to connect users often complements the push to collect content.
4. The best-practice organizations give users the freedom to use collaborative technology and experiment with a variety of tools and approaches. Tools are user-driven and largely dependent on local content.
5. Using Enterprise 2.0 applications does not require policy changes or security updates. In addition, there is a willingness to allow less authoritative content to be published and made available across the organization. The best-practice organizations have not experienced significant problems with the abuse of tools or the sharing of inappropriate or proprietary information.
6. The relationships between KM and IT functions are extremely close; these partnerships are driven by a shared desire to understand user and business needs and to supply tools that align with those needs.
7. IT and Enterprise 2.0 applications are currently running in parallel. Integration will present challenges in terms of enterprise IT architecture, content management, search effectiveness, and the cost of running multiple non-standard applications.
8. Change management and deployment are remarkably consistent across the best-practice organizations. Study partners generally recommend slow rollouts, experimental use of applications, grassroots evolution, and the targeting of early adopters as champions.
9. To demonstrate the value of Enterprise 2.0 implementations, the best-practice organizations rely on activity measures, success stories, and lessons learned.

• View   the Executive Summary for free
• Buy the report here

I love the weather--so does Dr. Carla O'Dell.  In her talk today, she used the unpredictability of the weather as an analogy for the unpredictability of the new forces bearing down on KM practices.  She suggested that these new forces, while they have the potential for "disaster," also open the door to new opportunities. Social computing and networking are scary for organizations because using these tools involves giving up some control to users. However, these new practices are revolutionizing the way people collaborate and share their knowledge.

The question that keeps coming up for me is: Are we putting too much emphasis on the formality of managing knowledge, and should the new forces be allowed to merge into the "old way" of working and thinking?

Please visit the presentation page for Carla's keynote to read Cindy's full reaction and share your own thoughts about what Carla said.

Jon Husband studies the impacts of IT and the Web on the design and dynamics of knowledge work and is a co-author of Making Knowledge Work--The Arrival of Web 2.0 (you can read his bio here). On March 9, Jon posted "For All Those Who Have Said Blogging Was Just A Fad... " on the FASTForward Blog. Here's an excerpt of his comments on the effect of blogs and wikis inside organizations:

The spread of the use of wikis and blogs into the world of enterprises began being considered not long after the rise of blogging as a sociological phenomenon, and made clear the different dynamics and structural impediments that would be encountered as the tools and services spread into the organizational environment. Humans spend a lot of their time communicating with each other ... always have done, and always will do so. And wikis and blogs make it easier to do so in an interlinked environment in which humans use integrated information systems, keyboards and computer screens and software to enable their communications.

Go to the FASTForward Blog to read more.

Tom Davenport is one of today's leading voices in KM--he holds the President's Chair in Information Technology and Management at Babson College, where he also leads the Process Management and Working Knowledge Research Centers. On February 19, Davenport posted an entry titled "Enterprise 2.0: The New, New Knowledge Management?" to his blog The Next Big Thing. His entry begins:

I am speaking today at the FastForward conference in Orlando. I'm talking about analytics and how they relate to search, but I came early and caught Andy McAfee's talk last night about Enterprise 2.0. As usual, Andy was articulate and perspicacious. He justifiably shifted the focus in his talk from praising the glories of E 2.0 to a discussion of how to make it real within organizations. In doing so, he talked about the need for trust, cultural change, for senior management leadership, and even for some "slack" within organizations. "OMG," I thought. "He's talking about knowledge management!"

Go to Tom's blog to read more.

Note: If you're interested in E 2.0 and want to find out how best-practice organizations are harnessing Web 2.0 technologies to enhance KM, you may want to join APQC's 2008 Virtual Practitioner Series on this topic. Click here to learn more.