Comments on: F5- A Proposed KM Framework

By: apintalisayon

apintalisayon — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 21:06:19 +0000

Hi Daan, you have a good point there on KM as hinging on a motivated, curious, loyal and innovative knowledge workers. This cause-and-effect KM framework is more suited as the basis for M&E. The expanded KM framework I proposed last February 28 (see Practical exercise #15: ingredients of effective group action) is the one you are looking for. Accordingly, I added the last paragraph in the text of the blog post above, of course with due credit to you. Cheers and thanks!

By: Daan Boom

Daan Boom — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:22:15 +0000

Dear Apin: Good work to try to formulate your KM framework. Partly offset by the used definitions of KM guru’s who are more or less defining KM as ‘better decision making’ i have albeit different views. I think i stick to the Nonaka although that one is very broad formulated. It covers however the most essential part. What I think is missing in the framework is a stronger relationship of a HRM component to create a workforce who is curious, stimulated by management behaviour to innovate, explore and is using its training programme effectively to build a workforce which contributes to objectives or strategic goals. Also with regard to the recent financial crisis I see examples of what I call effective KM and less good KM. Why is one company laying off its workforce and the other one cuts salary of all its employees by 20/30%. The latter obviously to keep its staff as along as possible connected to the orgnisation. I was also surprised to read that employees of a UK company (Dresdner Kleinwort) suing their company to get get their bonus? What kind of loyalty brings that to the organisation? I think the most critical part of any KM framework is an effective HRM policy to create a sustainable and effective workforce. All the other components of the KM framework will follow that principle.

By: apintalisayon

apintalisayon — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 01:27:59 +0000

I agree with you Charlie. The simple diagram fails to convey to readers the complex factors involved.

Based on your comment I am adding a paragraph to alert readers that (a) effectivity of action is very dependent on context including relationships (discussed in my blogpost entitled “F7- Interactivity and Context”), (b) value creation is dependent on users’ definition of what is valuable to them (discussed in my blogpost entitled F13- KM is for value creation: WHOSE value?”), (c) knowledge workers’ performance depends on their personal values and motivation, support from peers or boss, incentive system, etc. (discussed in my blogpost “F1- KM is Not Enough!”), and (d) learning and knowledge transfer depend much on power relations among many actors involved (discussed in my blogpost “F14- M&E of KM for development).

Thanks Charlie!

By: Charlie

Charlie — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 22:51:10 +0000

I think you miss some important factors – ‘Context’ being the biggest one. If I said “the score was 3 for 81″, would you know if this was a good or bad score in a cricket game? (would you even care?) So a concept of ‘value’ has to come inot play as well.

Experience, worldview, environment (I am different at work and home), values, beliefs, morals all have influence on knowledge, its creation, sharing, learning etc. You have put up a very simple model – for something that is complex.

Charlie

By: 10- KM4D: Three Viewpoints « The giraffe

10- KM4D: Three Viewpoints « The giraffe — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 02:37:39 +0000

[...] In an earlier post entitled “Proposed M&E Framework”, I have given illustrative examples of M&E at three stages: knowledge available (supply), action or user of knowledge (demand), and results of application of knowledge (output and outcomes). Those examples can be broken down further according to the three levels above. [...]