> I haven't had time yet to come up with some empirical proofs of need  
> for a Federal KM Center or KM in government.

> But I want to say something to you fans of the Initiative who might  
> be hurt or confused by all these demands for "proof of need." When  
> some folks demand empirical data and logical arguments from us, and  
> are willing to examine and analyze our replies, they are giving us a  
> great gift.

> In the real world, very few people will tell you truthfully what  
> they really think.  I talk to a lot of people about the Initiative,  
> and most of them are enthusiastically positive. I appreciate that a  
> great deal.

> A few have been bluntly inquisitory or argumentative. They force me  
> to defend my arguments, and give me counterarguments that provide  
> new data and a new viewpoint, often from real life experience. I  
> appreciate that very much, because it is a great learning  
> experience. My regret is that my mental maps often prevent me from  
> learning enough; I'm often stuck in my conceptions of what KM is,  
> what it provides, what the government might get from it. We're all  
> kind of stuck that way.

> If you're a "dyed in the wool" KM'er, when someone questions the  
> value of centralized KM or the need for it at all, the concept  
> challenges deeply held values and opinions, triggering an automatic  
> emotional response. But if we let ourselves "hold the uncertainty"  
> for a moment, that emotional response fades. We find ourselves  
> examining the idea logically, impassively. Our mental map can expand  
> to include that possibility, and build new connections that either  
> confirm or deny it.

> Listening -- really listening -- to other voices is one way to see  
> our mental maps for what they are. So take this gift of deeply  
> serious conversation gratefully, and think about the implications.

> These exchanges justify the existence of this listserv. Far from  
> weakening our Initiative, they are having the effect of forging and  
> annealing its points in the fire of serious discourse.

> Best regards,

> Neil

> Neil Olonoff   olon...@gmail.com
> Lead, Federal Knowledge Management Initiative,
> Federal KM Working Group hosted at  http://KM.gov
> Office:  703.614.5058 (US Army HQDA, G-4/Contracted by Innolog)
> Mobile: 703.283.4157 (Disabled during working hours)
> Personal profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/olonoff
> Blogging at http://FedKM.org

> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 2:56 AM, Snowden Dave <dave.snow...@cognitive-edge.com
> > wrote:
> OK Karen, if this is the case then please point me to the document I  
> should read - I assume it also has a succinct management summary.    
> I promise to read it and respond.  I have seen and read a lot around  
> this proposition over the last year or so, been an advisor in part  
> and had multiple conversations.   I haven't seen anything yet that  
> justifies your confidence, but I am always open to being convinced.

> I assume  by the way it will have something in it that will explain  
> why other attempts to set up centres of this nature (I remember IBMs  
> well) had limited impact and lasted for limited periods.  It would  
> be useful for some account of why strong advocacy of KM seems to be  
> a UK and Australian government phenomena at the moment and why  
> established programmes based on the sort of language I have seen  
> from you Neil and others had limited lifespans and appear to have  
> failed to survive the hard times.

> While you are at it, you might like to explain why Government have  
> become obsessed with Six Sigma even after organisations like 3M  
> severely curtained its use on the grounds it was destroying its  
> capacity to innovate.

> For the alliance of Davids who have been around this block too many  
> times to believe without evidence

> Dave Snowden
> Founder & Chief Scientific Officer
> Cognitive Edge Pte Ltd

> Now blogging at www.cognitive-edge.com

> On 27 May 2009, at 07:40, Karen Danis wrote:

>> Perhaps that fact that "multiple David's ...feel like we haven’t  
>> considered
>> sufficient justification for why we’re proposing to
>> make a hole with a drill…" is due to the fact that we have not yet  
>> shown
>> them the evidence that exists--or they had not reviewed it before  
>> submitting
>> their observations...clearly the case in at least one instance.

>> You keep returning to general statements like, "I submit we're  
>> guilty of the
>> same faulty logic here. We keep returning to "we want some sort of  
>> Federal
>> KM Centre" because we "want to promote more KM in government" as if  
>> that is
>> the sole content of the reports you are reviewing.

>> I know for a fact that it is not.

>> Perhaps you can share with us the logic that you find so  
>> persuasive.  At
>> least, then, we might have some sense of what the heck you're  
>> looking for.

>>        Karen

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: fedkm@googlegroups.com [mailto:fedkm@googlegroups.com] On  
>> Behalf Of
>> David A. Bray
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 11:28 PM
>> To: FedKM
>> Subject: [FedKM:117] Re: Why Should Congress Fund a Federal KM  
>> Resource?

>> Hmm... multiple replies below to multiple respondents:

>> (1) For Victoria Ward, sorry I sound like a broken record but we've
>> fallen into the problems of tactical-only thinking and forgetting the
>> need for strategic thought. Specifically that statement

>>>> no one goes into a hardware store to buy a drill because
>>>> they want a drill. They buy a drill because they want a hole

>> ... is incomplete. You don't go to a hardware store to get a drill
>> because "you want a hole" without first considering *why* you want a
>> hole (the problems to be solved by said hole made by said tool). If
>> you're nailing pictures, you don't *need* a drill, rather you need a
>> hammer because you want *that* kind of hole. You also assess if you
>> already have said tool in your toolkit that works well, else you
>> wouldn’t buy another.

>> I submit we're guilty of the same faulty logic here. We keep  
>> returning
>> to "we want some sort of Federal KM Centre" because we "want to
>> promote more KM in government" but like the drill to make a hole to
>> nail a picture faulty logic, we've not documented *why* we want to
>> promote more KM in government. Why would more KM in government help?
>> Do we already have tools in our toolkit for these problems, or do  
>> they
>> not work well (and how do we know this?)

>> Neil suggested this was for "positive action sake" which is nice, but
>> not how our government currently is designed to respond, particularly
>> when money is tight and when diverting money for KM means taking it
>> away from somewhere else. There needs to be a crisis or problem to be
>> solved. What problems necessiate the action (making a hole) and the
>> associated tools (a drill or hammer)...?

>> (2) For Karen Danis, to answer your question/comments where you cite
>> the KM Center's report says "The tangible benefits of the KMI program
>> include..."

>> ... none of this is supported by empirical or historical evidence.
>> This is strawman or "take our word for it" language that needs
>> justification, so it doesn't count as evidence Karen. I've waded
>> through all the documents that KMgov Initiative have written to date
>> as a member of the editorial board and only one document (to date)
>> provides sufficient justification for its part of the effort -- no
>> other one provides sufficient logic, historical examples, or evidence
>> to serve as a sufficient case analysis/justification for funding
>> them.

>> … specifically: I could write that the KM Center will help reduce the
>> federal debt, but that doesn't necessarily make it true.

>> (3) For Joe Firestone, be cautious, you're slipping into tactical
>> thought by saying let's propose an Act without assessing why an Act
>> would help. You're almost there, but I would suggest emphasizing why
>> an Act would help (why do we think we want to make a hole with a  
>> drill
>> and how do we know that a hole with the drill is the right action...
>> or are we going to try an put in a nail in our hole with a drill when
>> a hammer would have been better?)

>> (4) For David Heiser, agree completely: " government employees would
>> come forward with true life examples to help with the  
>> justification. "
>> <-- this is what we need and this will help provide either the
>> historical evidence or (if enough data points are collected)  
>> empirical
>> evidence to indicate the way forward. Thanks for chiming in and you
>> ask great questions!

>> (... also good to know I'm not alone in all the questions I'm
>> asking ...) I'm reposting the *great* questions you asked because I
>> think they deserve emphasis:

>>>> A Federal KM Center (or Institute as I prefer) needs
>>>> to justify its worth to taxpayers. The existence of
>>>> such an organization to going to do what? How do you
>>>> know it will be successful? How long will it take
>>>> to achieve said goals? Is the organization crucial to
>>>> the success of good government? If so, how? What
>>>> problems are being solved or new services are being
>>>> offered and why wasn't this recognized before? How
>>>> does the taxpayer benefit?

>> (5) For Karen Danis' latest reply, the documents you posted are
>> insufficient. They're language without references/historical  
>> evidence/
>> empirical evidence and thus blue sky language that could be made up
>> for all that policymakers know.

>> Again, I hate to break it to you but I've read all the documents
>> submitted to date by the KM Action Group and only one group provided
>> sufficient logic for their chapter. The others seem to spend too much
>> time referencing what KM is and not building a logical case why their
>> particular slant of KM in government was the best fit to solve
>> problems/help government with ABC.

>> I remain optimistic we can do this, but it seems that  
>> (coincidentally)
>> multiple David’s (Dave Snowden, David Heiser, and myself) feel like  
>> we
>> haven’t considered sufficient justification for why we’re proposing  
>> to
>> make a hole with a drill… (the problems to be solved) and some of us
>> are concerned that we may be reaching for a drill to make a hole to
>> mount a picture, when a hammer in fact would be a better choice if we
>> thought about the problems we were trying to solve.

>> <\twocents>

>> -d.

>> On May 27, 7:49 am, "Karen Danis" <gkda...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> David,

>>> As a retired civil servant (and retired military officer), I offer a
>> hearty,
>>> "here, here!" to your request for a clear, compelling case for this
>> central
>>> resource.  Certainly, taxpayer dollars needs to be stewarded.

>>> Have you had a chance to scan the information I provided earlier  
>>> this
>>> evening?  I trust there is more available to us, prepared by the  
>>> other
>>> Action Groups, but this was close at hand.  Truly, a lot of good  
>>> thinking
>>> has been invested in this project since February, and it would be  
>>> a darn
>>> shame to ignore this baseline.  You'll find answers to your  
>>> questions of
>>> what the Center is to do, and how it helps the government realize  
>>> the
>>> benefits of KM.

>>> The KM Center Action Group (AG) draft report lists some options for
>>> sponsorship and other relevant data points.  The AG had to delay  
>>> the start
>>> of its work because it was dependent on the results of the other  
>>> groups.
>>> Clearly, more concepts can be fleshed out and added now.

>>> We have a "Communications" AG that bears responsibility for  
>>> leveraging
>> this
>>> material and helping us further our goals.  I've attached a  
>>> (current?)
>> draft
>>> of the Initiative vision Neil developed about a month ago. An AG was
>>> established to cover each of the bolded topics.  Perhaps this will  
>>> help us
>>> see the relationships among the pieces of the Initiative defined to
>>> date...and then we need to dive into the meat.

>>> The Roadmap, itself, is intended to be a tool for helping decision  
>>> makers
>>> see real problems KM can solve, and the capabilities needed to  
>>> make that
>>> happen.  The more concrete planning (e.g., how long until the  
>>> Center comes
>>> into existence; how long before it achieves specific goals) makes  
>>> sense
>> once
>>> we are farther along the approval process, although I agree that  
>>> some
>> rough
>>> measures could be appropriate now.

>>> I've asked David Bray to elaborate on his thinking that we need  
>>> "more
>>> justification", given the specifics shared today.  I, too, prefer  
>>> to see
>>> folks avoid reinventing the wheel.

>>> HTH,
>>> Karen

>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: fedkm@googlegroups.com [mailto:fedkm@googlegroups.com] On  
>>> Behalf Of

>>> dwheiser
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 5:35 PM
>>> To: FedKM
>>> Subject: [FedKM:114] Re: Why Should Congress Fund a Federal KM  
>>> Resource?

>>> This humble government servant would like to weigh in. First, to  
>>> David
>>> Bray, I truly appreciate your efforts with our troops. Stay safe and
>>> come home healthy.

>>> To the meat of the matter -- justification for funding. I've been
>>> dealing with procurement issues and executive priorities for a  
>>> number
>>> of years. One thing that has always been impressed on me is the need
>>> to justify the expense. (Wow, a lesson learned!) A good solid
>>> justification proves that the idea isn't harebrained or someone's  
>>> ego
>>> trip. A good justification shows purpose, intent, solid research,  
>>> and
>>> a long-term benefit (tangible or intangible).

>>> I am also an American taxpayer. I have a right as a citizen to know
>>> that my taxes are not wasted, ill-spent, or used for immoral  
>>> purposes.
>>> As a government employee, I am held responsible for the  
>>> stewardship of
>>> funds placed in my care and thus, I must be accountable and ready to
>>> prove that the funds were expended as intended and that they helped
>>> achieve the stated goal(s).

>>> A Federal KM Center (or Institute as I prefer) needs to justify its
>>> worth to taxpayers. The existence of such an organization to going  
>>> to
>>> do what? How do you know it will be successful? How long will it  
>>> take
>>> to achieve said goals? Is the organization crucial to the success of
>>> good government? If so, how? What problems are being solved or new
>>> services are being offered and why wasn't this recognized before?  
>>> How
>>> does the taxpayer benefit?

>>> I fully support said initiative and feel that government employees
>>> would come forward with true life examples to help with the
>>> justification. Some of our colleaques have already been down this
>>> road. NASA, Army, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal Transit
>>> Administration, and others have had to justify their own KM
>>> initiatives, were able to do so, and achieved the successes they've
>>> reached so far. But, they've had to do so in somewhat of a vacuum.  
>>> And
>>> other agencies, including my own, sometimes feel like we're
>>> reinventing the wheel. Not all the answers are readily evident but
>>> collective wisdom is usually better than the individual.

>>> Just some thoughts.

>>> David Heiser

>>>  Initiative_Vision_28_APR_09_v9.doc
>>> 161KViewDownload- Hide quoted text -

>>> - Show quoted text -