A Little Help From My Friends
Neil Olonoff
I've resisted writing this email, but believe it's unavoidable. I've
taken on a bit too much in regards to review and edit of the Roadmap.
As some of you know, I'm enrolled in a Doctoral program, and my job at
the Pentagon is also demanding. I'm finding that I have little time to
review the Roadmap content. While we have an Editorial Team, our
process has not been productive.
I would like to pursue a faster approach to finalizing the Roadmap and
getting on track to Initiative communications.
I think what we may need to do is constitute a new team. Not an
editorial team, at first, but a project team. I look to you for
suggestions for a way ahead and a few enthusiastic volunteers.
Thanks for your help.
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
Karen Danis
First, I commend you for making that tough decision.
Without knowing exactly what we have or what we need, it's hard to be too
specific WRT a way ahead. But I do offer a few rough thoughts to augment
your Project Team concept:
a. Establish a group of stakeholders who are or have been CKOs--especially
Fed'l gov't CKOs. Use them to validate our notions of what they would need
in order to be successful. (And I mean that broadly.)
b. Secure the interest of folks whose normal operating space is (or is akin
to) lobbying at the Federal level, so that we have a better idea of the
persuasive nature of our materials--not to mention a more effective strategy
and approach. (One of our AG members is married to someone who might fit
that description.)
c. Rethink the strategy--from top down. Review what we have put together
to date in the context of what we need, and create a plan to fill the holes.
Project team? I'll toss my hat into the ring, at least for the time being.
When I signed up for this initiative in February, my motivation was to
advance KM in Fed'l gov't. I agreed that the political climate seemed to
offer some new opportunity.
But I do have choices as to how I spend my time, and if I am going to
invest, there needs to be some probability of success....doesn't have to be
huge, but it has to be there.
Given your distractions (however worthy), that probability seems to be lower
than when we started. Yet, it might be adequate, depending on the makeup of
the project team and the availability of the other resources I mentioned
above.
Karen
Holm, Jeanne M
I’d be happy to help out with this. With the election imminent, I’ll be getting some help on the overall group. There are some standard ways in which projects like this are managed and reviews held that would be to the benefit of the project and inform stakeholders.
--Jeanne Holm
Jeanne Holm
Chief Knowledge Architect
NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory
4800 Oak Grove Drive, Mail Stop 602-109
Pasadena, CA 91109
Desk: (818) 354-8282; Cell (818) 434-5037
Twitter: Jeanne_JPL; Second Life: Devery Barrymore
NASA's Knowledge Management Team: http://km.nasa.gov
*****************************************************
Kevin Hannon
I happen to have some bandwidth, so I would be happy to help.
Kevin Hannon
Sent from my iPhone
Weidner, Douglas
I can help if you can use non-gov members.
Douglas Weidner, eCKM Mentor(tm)
Chairman, International Knowledge Management Institute
Best in KM Training & Certification
Home of the KM Body of Knowledge (KMBOK)(tm)
www.kminstitute.org
703-757-1395
Detsch, Richard M ERDC-CRREL-NH
As a member of the Editorial Team, I agree we have stalled.
I believe we stalled because of communication issues, not lack of effort from
any one member.
The various web formats we were using didn't focus our efforts.
Google Groups, the listserve, etc. can play a role - but there is no
substitute for regular team meetings to keep us focused.
Whatever route you take in reforming the effort, I suggest you try to get a
facilitator use to working with geographically separated members.
It's too much for you to handle the lead and be the facilitator too.
Much thanks for all your effort and enthusiasm so far. I fully support a
shake up to get thinks moving forward.
I'm still glad to help - but understand if you also want fresh perspectives
from new members.
Richard
-----Original Message-----
From: fe...@googlegroups.com [mailto:fe...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 12:18 PM
To: fedkm
Neil Olonoff
thanks for your interest and support. I think Karen's suggestions are sound.
I agree we need a strategy review and new project plan. I've begun to think, for example, that we need to ally ourselves with some Innovation and organizational development folks to broaden the appeal of the Fed KM Center beyond the focus of knowledge to the general notion of "value for the government mission."
Terrie -- since I don't have a specific game plan I can't say what the time committment will be. I would say jump in and then retire with apologies if it becomes too much. That's what everyone else does and there are no recriminations if you can't keep the committment, unless you are elected to an office.
let's keep talking about it.
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
Karen Danis
Ally ourselves with Innovation and OD? Perhaps.
However, it might be time for us to try to see where the traction is. As I alluded in my question to (Deborah?) during the eGov session on innovation, when you want to make something happen—something that will be difficult and require the support of a host of others—you find the “already moving train” and try to hop on board.
When I was a CKO, I discovered the Knowledge component to the ISO9000 program that the organization valued—bingo! And once Lean came to town, ditto. Both helped to establish connections and, to some degree, roots.
If, truly, there is some impetus behind that “Secretary of Innovation” concept, then that direction might have merit.
I do worry that we will be perceived as being hammers in search of nails, so I also value the approach that has us locking onto some of the issues that have no-brainer KM solutions—solutions that will make a big dent in the issue. That problem/solution focus is pretty natural to our community.
So, for starters, where do we see the useful traction in today’s presidential/executive priorities?
Karen