The Gift of Controversy

[Neil Olonoff]

Hi, all

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   olo...@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.s...@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: fe...@googlegroups.com [mailto:fe...@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: fe...@googlegroups.com [mailto:fe...@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 -

[Snowden Dave]

Good post Neil

Full disclosure early to a critical audience is the best way to test a proposition

Its also worth remembering that those of us who are being negative have been around for a bit,  we have seen many more failures that we have successes.  Using that experience is one of the things knowledge management was meant to be about.  We always learn more from failure than success  is an old adage which has scientific support.  You could add to that but we do our best to pretend that the failure was a result of lack of management commitment, insufficient funding (or anyone of many excuses); anything other than questioning if it might be the wrong thing to do.

I was at a working group on small group command effectiveness in DC recently.   Talking with people in special forces and marine units who operate in the field I was reminded of the old adage current generals always fight the last war.   Understanding how to fight with many small groups, often commanded by a corporal, needing to understand local culture is a very different battleground from the Iran War or other large scale engagements.  That appears to be understood at a junior officer level, but it has not fully penetrated "upstairs"

Much the same could be said of KM.  We are dealing with fragmented, self assembling systems where the role of leadership is to manage constraints, not direct or consolidate activity in one place.  Its not bottom up or top down, or even middle-bottom up, its about managing nodal networks and the techniques for that are the anthesis of "Centres". 

Dave Snowden

Founder & Chief Scientific Officer

Cognitive Edge Pte Ltd

Now blogging at www.cognitive-edge.com

[Joe Firestone]

Hi Neil,

Nice post and great subject line. As long as the controversy remains civil, which it certainly has been so far, we'll all get something out of this gift.

Best,


Joe

[Patrick Murphy]

Neil, I regard myself as a "dyed in the wool" KMer but I don't regard
centralized KM or any other architecture, process or method as sine
qua non. My mantra is "different strokes for different folks," as the
Marquis used to say. I tend to agree with Dave Snowden that
centralized KM doesn't work in most cases, but undoubtedly it would
work in some cases. I just don't think the Federal government is such
a case. That's why I suggested elsewhere in these discussions that the
best outcome of this initiative would be a Federal KM CoP, enabled by
a borrowed portal site such as a SharePoint site. It would be cheap,
it would be nimble, and if it proved itself, perhaps it would grow
into some kind of centralized entity that many here feel is important.
And perhaps not. What's important is to stand it up quickly. I don't
see a centralized KM entity happening anytime soon.

--PM

> 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 athttp://FedKM.org

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Karen Danis]

I am concerned that discussion "centralized KM" vs "decentralized KM" is not
as effective as it could be because we have not adequately specified what we
mean.

In a nutshell, how do you see CKOs and a KM Center functioning in a
"centralized" schema, and a "decentralized" schema?

The Knowledge Retention AG did recommend the standup of a Federal KM CoP as
a first step. But even that needs resources to provide the capabilities we
need.

[Neil Olonoff]

Patrick,

The Federal KM Working Group is pretty much what you describe. It has a wiki supporting it, as well as a mailing list like this one. It has resulted in some good activity, but not the widespread support and dissemination of KM throughout government.

Neil

Neil Olonoff   olo...@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

[Patrick Murphy]

Karen, as Neil suggests we're halfway there to a KM CoP. What's
missing is a platform to better support knowledge sharing and
collaboration. The NASA listserv and these discussion threads lack
structure, the wiki lacks direction (workflow), and they all sorely
lack integration.

I'm thinking of a general Federal KM home site with subsites
consisting of self-service modules for whatever groups want to
participate, ideally one from each major Federal activity. Once
critical mass is achieved, cross-boundary learning would take hold in
that kind of environment, and cross-boundary action would proceed from
it. Critical mass, whatever that might be, is necessary to produce the
kind of network effect that will assure success.

If an open SharePoint site could be borrowed from somebody, the
principal dollar cost would be backup and storage and this could be
minimized with proper site hygiene (via rigorous expiry rules baked
into self-publishing functionality).

I think the debate over centralized vs. decentralized KM will be
settled by the experience of the CoP. I guess what I'm arguing for is
less planning and more doing. What right and what's doable will emerge
from action, not deliberation.

Them's my two cents.

--PM

On May 30, 6:28 am, Neil Olonoff <olon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Patrick,
>
> The Federal KM Working Group is pretty much what you describe. It has a wiki
> supporting it, as well as a mailing list like this one. It has resulted in
> some good activity, but not the widespread support and dissemination of KM
> throughout government.
>
> 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 athttp://FedKM.org
>

[Stephen Buckley]

[Karen Danis]

Patrick, I appreciate the "doing" reference!

I agree that the KMWG is close to being a CoP. Several years ago I
facilitated documentation of requirements for a new KMWG collaborative
working environment. Some of those capabilities came to pass in the NASA
site.

But what I sorely miss is an Expertise Locator--something that acts as a
super-roster of who we are, what we're good at, and how we might be willing
to help others. We can go part way using a Google group....the Profile
capabilities. I used Sharepoint for my CoPs, tailoring a template for them
that included an Expertise Locator with drop-down lists for expertise
categories.

If we were to talk technology solutions, I hope it would be in the context
of explicit requirements.

CoPs need facilitation, content moderators, core groups...overhead. They
truly don't run themselves. So, when I mention the need for resources
that's what I have in mind.

The KM Center concept steps this up, with more elaborate e-storage AND good
knowledge brokers who can help folks find what they need....and more, far
more.


Re "Centralized" vs "Decentralized", we don't really have solid descriptions
of what that means--I hope we're headed in that direction...soon! Because,
I truly believe that a KM CoP, alone (even with modest staffing) won't fill
the bill...although it can certainly provide capability until we get there.

Karen

-----Original Message-----
From: fe...@googlegroups.com [mailto:fe...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
Patrick Murphy