3 cases where KM doesn't need dialogue. Why knowledge transfer through discussion is 14 times more effective than writing. Knowledge can be transferred in two ways - by Connecting people so that they can discuss, and Collecting knowledge in written (explicit) form so others can find and read it (see blog posts on Connect and Collect). Connecting people is far less efficient than Collecting while being far more effective - but how much more effective? We can never be sure about the effectiveness of knowledge transfer without some good empirical studies, but there are 2 pointers towards the relative effectiveness of these two methods. These pointers are as follows; The often repeated (and sometimes challenged) quote that “We Learn . . 10% of what we read 20% of what we hear 30% of what we see 50% of what we see and hear 70% of what we discuss 80% of what we experience 95% of what we teach others.”David Snowden's principle thatWe always know more than we can say, and We will always say more than we can write down With these assumptions, the effectiveness of the Connect route is as follows.
Adding knowledge cafés to the repertoire of knowledge sharing techniques. Department of Information and Knowledge Management, University of Johannesburg, PO Box 524, Auckland Park 2006, South Africa Available online 16 October 2014 Choose an option to locate/access this article: Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution Check access DOI: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.09.005 Get rights and content Highlights Overview of existing knowledge sharing techniques. Knowledge cafes positioned within current knowledge sharing techniques. Delphi technique used to expand limited scholarly literature on knowledge cafes. Guidelines, advantages, pre-conditions, obstacles, successes of knowledge cafés. Abstract Knowledge cafés, a fairly new technique used to facilitate knowledge sharing, offer individuals within organisations the opportunity to interact on a face to face level with topics that are relevant to a particular organisation, and enhances knowledge transfer.
Keywords Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. Connect and Collect, two crucial dimensions of Knowledge Management. One of the earliest models in the history of Knowledge Management, and one that sometimes seems to get forgotten, is that there are two key dimensions in Knowledge Management, representing two routes between the knowledge suppler, and the knowledge user. These are the Connect route, and the Collect route. The Connect route supports knowledge transfer through connecting people. In the Connect route, Knowledge is transferred through conversation - either face to face or electronically mediated. It can be supported by processes such as Peer Assist , Knowledge handover , knowledge exchange , knowledge markets , knowledge cafes, action learning , after action review , mentoring, coaching , and communities of practice . It can be supported by technologies such as collaboration tools, people-finders, community forums , webex, telephone and skype.
The knowledge never needs to be written down; it can be - but it does not need to be, and knowledge can be transferred in tacit form. An organizational knowledge-sharing framework. There is a lot of knowledge in an organization, some of it easy to codify (capture), and much (most) of it difficult to do so. Understanding how best to commit resources for knowledge-sharing should be in some kind of a decision-making framework that is easy for anyone to understand. This is a first attempt to do that. [This post is a follow-up from my building institutional memory post]. Brian Gongol made an interesting observation on three categories of institutional memory.
Decision memories are probably the most important, and likely the most open to rationalization in hindsight. The good decisions always seem obvious after the fact. event memories, which are things like the construction of new facilities or the arrival of new employeesprocess memories, which note how things are done in order to save time and ensure their reliable repetition in the futuredecision memories, which explain how the institution chose one path or policy or course of action over another.
Knowledge sharing: Drive out fear. Eliminate ma... On brevity and the 140-character constraint | imaginarytime. It often begins with a tweet, doesn’t it? So, yesterday Jabe Bloom tweeted: “Might it be possible that instead of the world “getting more complex” our aging models don’t fit a world, we’ve radically changed, anymore?” As always with Jabe’s tweets and blog posts, it was another thoughtful and thought provoking question. Is the world “getting more complex” or is it a question of observational scope and trying to make everything around us fit into the models that we’re familiar with and which create the illusion of order?
“Certainly. Now, the wording in that reply was deliberate as I was trying to compress four aspects I felt were relevant into the constraints of Twitter’s 140 characters. Ari Tanninen, my new chum who’s as sharp as they come (and if you’re interested in Agile, Lean, SW dev, complexity, you’d do well to follow in Twitter & elsewhere), replied to me saying: “I understood some of those words!” Cheeky bastard. Coevolution. Temporospatial. Ontological. Bounded applicability.