Re: fedkm - 10 new messages in 2 topics - digest

[Patrick Murphy]

I agree with David Bray that these discussion threads are becoming too chaotic to follow. I don't want to be a noodge, but I feel compelled to suggest again that FedKM needs a collaborative platform like SharePoint.

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 9:58 AM, fedkm group <nor...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

FedKM
http://groups.google.com/group/fedkm?hl=en

fe...@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Decision-making - 5 messages, 5 authors
 http://groups.google.com/group/fedkm/t/ef1127ad7ac3f23a?hl=en
* A few observations about the FedKM listserv/Google group discussions - 5
messages, 5 authors
 http://groups.google.com/group/fedkm/t/e8ded7f36a8b5854?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Decision-making
http://groups.google.com/group/fedkm/t/ef1127ad7ac3f23a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 2:10 am
From: Stephen Bounds


I agree, Hubert.

That's why I tend to talk about "problem solving" rather than "decision
making".  A decision can be taken to solve a problem, but not all
problems are solved through (conscious, discrete) decision making.

Cheers,

-- Stephen.

Hubert Saint -Onge wrote:
> I find it interesting how much emphasis is being placed on
> decision-making in this discussion.  My work in both profit and
> not-for-profit organizations has led me to believe that discrete,
> distinguishable decisions happen relatively rarely in organizations.
> Things are shaped gradually in sucha way that discrete decisions
> rarely are distinguishable evnts.
>
> This is what has led me to emphasize the development of capability at
> both the individual and organizational level as the primary outcome
> of collaboration and knowledge exchange. Capability is define as the
> link in the chain between intent and execution or performance.
>
> Regards, Hubert





== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 10:29 am
From: "Meyer, Peter - BLS"


Agreed 100% with Hubert.  The language of "capability" seems to be useful everywhere.  The language of "decision" may work better in military, policy, and regulatory contexts, but not where I work.

I’m in an agency which measures things.  It makes only tiny decisions.  But it can be smarter or less smart and scientific about what it does.  Here, our capabilities are disappointingly constrained in sharing source material with one another, and across agencies, and in evidence-based science in general.  ("Source material" meaning computer source code, algorithms, evidence, arguments, etc.)

We can improve the capabilities of our staff by creating joint computer platforms across the agencies. In another context I’m involved in defining and proposing to create a platform like the intelink/Intellipedia tools used by the intelligence agencies, but for the statistical and economic agencies.  Specifically, the statistical agencies would benefit from wikis, blogs, search engines, and source code version control systems which were shared across the agencies.

There are many ways to *phrase* what is gained from these capabilities:  sharing source material; doing better science; enabling online CoPs; aiding problem solving; supporting software innovation; supporting evidence-based policy -– these are rather similar in practical effect, it seems to me.

I'd welcome specific cite-able proposals about expanding capabilities for the civil service. We'd like to learn from them and perhaps cite them.
--
Peter B. Meyer       Research economist      202-691-5678
Office of Productivity and Technology, U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics


-----Original Message-----
From: fe...@googlegroups.com [mailto:fe...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Bounds
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 5:10 AM
To: fe...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [FedKM:439] Re: Decision-making


I agree, Hubert.

That's why I tend to talk about "problem solving" rather than "decision making".  A decision can be taken to solve a problem, but not all problems are solved through (conscious, discrete) decision making.

Cheers,

-- Stephen.

Hubert Saint -Onge wrote:
> I find it interesting how much emphasis is being placed on
> decision-making in this discussion.  My work in both profit and
> not-for-profit organizations has led me to believe that discrete,
> distinguishable decisions happen relatively rarely in organizations.
> Things are shaped gradually in sucha way that discrete decisions
> rarely are distinguishable evnts.
>
> This is what has led me to emphasize the development of capability at
> both the individual and organizational level as the primary outcome of
> collaboration and knowledge exchange. Capability is define as the link
> in the chain between intent and execution or performance.
>
> Regards, Hubert




== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 3:01 pm
From: "Richard Vines"


I am not sure, but I think it was I that referenced the focus on decision making, with references to evidence-informed decision making.

Perhaps a more apt metaphor for this might be "scaffolds" within which we think and work and make tiny decisions. Co-creating, critiquing and sharing scaffolds builds capabilities.

I agree and it is an important point. Thanks,


Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: fe...@googlegroups.com [mailto:fe...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Meyer, Peter - BLS
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 3:30 AM
To: fe...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [FedKM:440] Re: Decision-making

Agreed 100% with Hubert.  The language of "capability" seems to be useful everywhere.  The language of "decision" may work better in military, policy, and regulatory contexts, but not where I work.

I’m in an agency which measures things.  It makes only tiny decisions.  But it can be smarter or less smart and scientific about what it does.  Here, our capabilities are disappointingly constrained in sharing source material with one another, and across agencies, and in evidence-based science in general.  ("Source material" meaning computer source code, algorithms, evidence, arguments, etc.)

We can improve the capabilities of our staff by creating joint computer platforms across the agencies. In another context I’m involved in defining and proposing to create a platform like the intelink/Intellipedia tools used by the intelligence agencies, but for the statistical and economic agencies.  Specifically, the statistical agencies would benefit from wikis, blogs, search engines, and source code version control systems which were shared across the agencies.

There are many ways to *phrase* what is gained from these capabilities:  sharing source material; doing better science; enabling online CoPs; aiding problem solving; supporting software innovation; supporting evidence-based policy -– these are rather similar in practical effect, it seems to me.

I'd welcome specific cite-able proposals about expanding capabilities for the civil service. We'd like to learn from them and perhaps cite them.
--
Peter B. Meyer       Research economist      202-691-5678
Office of Productivity and Technology, U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics


-----Original Message-----
From: fe...@googlegroups.com [mailto:fe...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Bounds
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 5:10 AM
To: fe...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [FedKM:439] Re: Decision-making


I agree, Hubert.

That's why I tend to talk about "problem solving" rather than "decision making".  A decision can be taken to solve a problem, but not all problems are solved through (conscious, discrete) decision making.

Cheers,

-- Stephen.

Hubert Saint -Onge wrote:
> I find it interesting how much emphasis is being placed on
> decision-making in this discussion.  My work in both profit and
> not-for-profit organizations has led me to believe that discrete,
> distinguishable decisions happen relatively rarely in organizations.
> Things are shaped gradually in sucha way that discrete decisions
> rarely are distinguishable evnts.
>
> This is what has led me to emphasize the development of capability at
> both the individual and organizational level as the primary outcome of
> collaboration and knowledge exchange. Capability is define as the link
> in the chain between intent and execution or performance.
>
> Regards, Hubert




--
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter.
We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam.
SPAMfighter has removed 286 of my spam emails to date.
Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len

The Professional version does not have this message






== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 3:27 pm
From: "Hubert Saint -Onge"


Peter,

The book I have co-authored with Charles Armstrong entitled "The Conductive Organization" does adddress how a 'capabilities' perspective is a meaningful way of leveraging the eprformance of organizations.  It also draws a distinction between individual and organizational capbilities.

Regards, Hubert


----- Original Message -----
From: fe...@googlegroups.com <fe...@googlegroups.com>
To: fe...@googlegroups.com <fe...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wed Jun 17 13:29:53 2009
Subject: [FedKM:440] Re: Decision-making

Agreed 100% with Hubert.  The language of "capability" seems to be useful everywhere.  The language of "decision" may work better in military, policy, and regulatory contexts, but not where I work.

I’m in an agency which measures things.  It makes only tiny decisions.  But it can be smarter or less smart and scientific about what it does.  Here, our capabilities are disappointingly constrained in sharing source material with one another, and across agencies, and in evidence-based science in general.  ("Source material" meaning computer source code, algorithms, evidence, arguments, etc.)

We can improve the capabilities of our staff by creating joint computer platforms across the agencies. In another context I’m involved in defining and proposing to create a platform like the intelink/Intellipedia tools used by the intelligence agencies, but for the statistical and economic agencies.  Specifically, the statistical agencies would benefit from wikis, blogs, search engines, and source code version control systems which were shared across the agencies.

There are many ways to *phrase* what is gained from these capabilities:  sharing source material; doing better science; enabling online CoPs; aiding problem solving; supporting software innovation; supporting evidence-based policy -– these are rather similar in practical effect, it seems to me.

I'd welcome specific cite-able proposals about expanding capabilities for the civil service. We'd like to learn from them and perhaps cite them.
--
Peter B. Meyer       Research economist      202-691-5678
Office of Productivity and Technology, U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics


-----Original Message-----
From: fe...@googlegroups.com [mailto:fe...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Bounds
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 5:10 AM
To: fe...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [FedKM:439] Re: Decision-making


I agree, Hubert.

That's why I tend to talk about "problem solving" rather than "decision making".  A decision can be taken to solve a problem, but not all problems are solved through (conscious, discrete) decision making.

Cheers,

-- Stephen.

Hubert Saint -Onge wrote:
> I find it interesting how much emphasis is being placed on
> decision-making in this discussion.  My work in both profit and
> not-for-profit organizations has led me to believe that discrete,
> distinguishable decisions happen relatively rarely in organizations.
> Things are shaped gradually in sucha way that discrete decisions
> rarely are distinguishable evnts.
>
> This is what has led me to emphasize the development of capability at
> both the individual and organizational level as the primary outcome of
> collaboration and knowledge exchange. Capability is define as the link
> in the chain between intent and execution or performance.
>
> Regards, Hubert






== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 3:44 pm
From: Joe Firestone


Hi Peter,

I agree with yourself, Hubert, and Stephen that enhancing capabilities is very important. I also think you're right that the focus on capabilities as opposed to decisions is more important depending on the Government agency involved. Having said that I think a decision interruption approach to KM interventions can be very important in agencies that frequently make decisions about drug prescriptions, disabilities, damage claims of various kinds, and other decisions that are taken routinely, but are subject to costly errors. In this blog,

http://kmci.org/alllifeisproblemsolving/archives/national-governmental-knowledge-management-km-adaptation-and-complexity-part-twelve-more-on-evaluating-the-impact-of-km-and-knowledge-processing/

I discuss three approaches to KM. Two are primarily about enhancing capabilities, the third is about enhancing both decisions and capabilities.

Enhancing capabilities in Federal Agencies is a very broad area. You've asked for citeable proposals. Do you mean formal RFP replies, or just "proposals" which have appeared in books and articles.

Best,


Joe


----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter - BLS Meyer" <Meyer...@bls.gov>
To: fe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 1:29:53 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: [FedKM:440] Re: Decision-making

Agreed 100% with Hubert. The language of "capability" seems to be useful everywhere. The language of "decision" may work better in military, policy, and regulatory contexts, but not where I work.

I’m in an agency which measures things. It makes only tiny decisions. But it can be smarter or less smart and scientific about what it does. Here, our capabilities are disappointingly constrained in sharing source material with one another, and across agencies, and in evidence-based science in general. ("Source material" meaning computer source code, algorithms, evidence, arguments, etc.)

We can improve the capabilities of our staff by creating joint computer platforms across the agencies. In another context I’m involved in defining and proposing to create a platform like the intelink/Intellipedia tools used by the intelligence agencies, but for the statistical and economic agencies. Specifically, the statistical agencies would benefit from wikis, blogs, search engines, and source code version control systems which were shared across the agencies.

There are many ways to *phrase* what is gained from these capabilities: sharing source material; doing better science; enabling online CoPs; aiding problem solving; supporting software innovation; supporting evidence-based policy -– these are rather similar in practical effect, it seems to me.

I'd welcome specific cite-able proposals about expanding capabilities for the civil service. We'd like to learn from them and perhaps cite them.
--
Peter B. Meyer Research economist 202-691-5678
Office of Productivity and Technology, U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics


-----Original Message-----
From: fe...@googlegroups.com [mailto:fe...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Bounds
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 5:10 AM
To: fe...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [FedKM:439] Re: Decision-making


I agree, Hubert.

That's why I tend to talk about "problem solving" rather than "decision making". A decision can be taken to solve a problem, but not all problems are solved through (conscious, discrete) decision making.

Cheers,

-- Stephen.

Hubert Saint -Onge wrote:
> I find it interesting how much emphasis is being placed on
> decision-making in this discussion. My work in both profit and
> not-for-profit organizations has led me to believe that discrete,
> distinguishable decisions happen relatively rarely in organizations.
> Things are shaped gradually in sucha way that discrete decisions
> rarely are distinguishable evnts.
>
> This is what has led me to emphasize the development of capability at
> both the individual and organizational level as the primary outcome of
> collaboration and knowledge exchange. Capability is define as the link
> in the chain between intent and execution or performance.
>
> Regards, Hubert






==============================================================================
TOPIC: A few observations about the FedKM listserv/Google group discussions
http://groups.google.com/group/fedkm/t/e8ded7f36a8b5854?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 3:52 pm
From: "David A. Bray"


Just a few observations about the FedKM listserv/Google group
discussions to consider:

(1) we're losing most participants who can't keep up with the
voluminous discussions we're having... I fear it's not so much that
there's too much discussion (this should be encouraged) but a lack of
structure to the discussions… it’s hard to integrate what’s being said
across discussions and with past discussions

(2) related to this, we're repeating ourselves... I'm seeming themes
repeat themselves 1-2 weeks after a similar discussion thread... this
is partly because memory of that past thread is lost or inaccessible
to newcomers in an easy format

(3) hard to tease out what's substantive discussion vs. product or
consulting pitches to be frank; also hard to built an iterative and
improving body of knowledge as a result of the discussions because of
(1) and (2)

(4) email is cheap, so unfortunately we get a lot of it; how can we
make the discussions here more valuable and succinct, while at the
same time additive to a greater, more valuable body of knowledge? How
can we translate anything that’s being said into actionable material
for FedKM efforts?

… If anything, the FedKM should be able to practice what it preaches
within its own efforts, right? :-)

Best regards,

-d.

David A. Bray, PhD, MSPH
Institute for Defense Analyses




== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 4:15 pm
From: Fred Nickols


I think the threads are more easily followed on the web site than they
are in your in-box.  That's one of the things I like about Google's
groups.

On Jun 17, 5:52 pm, "David A. Bray" <david.a.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just a few observations about the FedKM listserv/Google group
> discussions to consider:
>
> (1) we're losing most participants who can't keep up with the
> voluminous discussions we're having... I fear it's not so much that
> there's too much discussion (this should be encouraged) but a lack of
> structure to the discussions… it’s hard to integrate what’s being said
> across discussions and with past discussions
>
> (2) related to this, we're repeating ourselves... I'm seeming themes
> repeat themselves 1-2 weeks after a similar discussion thread... this
> is partly because memory of that past thread is lost or inaccessible
> to newcomers in an easy format
>
> (3) hard to tease out what's substantive discussion vs. product or
> consulting pitches to be frank; also hard to built an iterative and
> improving body of knowledge as a result of the discussions because of
> (1) and (2)
>
> (4) email is cheap, so unfortunately we get a lot of it; how can we
> make the discussions here more valuable and succinct, while at the
> same time additive to a greater, more valuable body of knowledge? How
> can we translate anything that’s being said into actionable material
> for FedKM efforts?
>
> … If anything, the FedKM should be able to practice what it preaches
> within its own efforts, right? :-)
>
> Best regards,
>
> -d.
>
> David A. Bray, PhD, MSPH
> Institute for Defense Analyses



== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 11:03 pm
From: "Karen Danis"


I am expecting the structure to return once we can get back on task.  Neil
formed this group to advance the Federal KM Initiative, the first step of
which was to create the draft Roadmap.

I understand that the editors and Neil are still evaluating the work,
determining our path forward, to include filling in the missing pieces.

In the meantime we have tossed around a number of ideas, many of which lie
in the realm of the theoretical.

Frankly, I believe that most folks--especially those who joined early, the
Action Group members--are willing to work on the Initiative in concrete,
tangible ways.  Hopefully they will be persuaded to hang on until we can
reestablish our focus.

               Karen


-----Original Message-----
From: fe...@googlegroups.com [mailto:fe...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
David A. Bray
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 3:53 PM
To: FedKM
Subject: [FedKM:444] A few observations about the FedKM listserv/Google
group discussions


Just a few observations about the FedKM listserv/Google group
discussions to consider:

(1) we're losing most participants who can't keep up with the
voluminous discussions we're having... I fear it's not so much that
there's too much discussion (this should be encouraged) but a lack of
structure to the discussions. it's hard to integrate what's being said
across discussions and with past discussions

(2) related to this, we're repeating ourselves... I'm seeming themes
repeat themselves 1-2 weeks after a similar discussion thread... this
is partly because memory of that past thread is lost or inaccessible
to newcomers in an easy format

(3) hard to tease out what's substantive discussion vs. product or
consulting pitches to be frank; also hard to built an iterative and
improving body of knowledge as a result of the discussions because of
(1) and (2)

(4) email is cheap, so unfortunately we get a lot of it; how can we
make the discussions here more valuable and succinct, while at the
same time additive to a greater, more valuable body of knowledge? How
can we translate anything that's being said into actionable material
for FedKM efforts?

. If anything, the FedKM should be able to practice what it preaches
within its own efforts, right? :-)

Best regards,

-d.

David A. Bray, PhD, MSPH
Institute for Defense Analyses






== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 18 2009 2:07 am
From: Neil Olonoff


David,

I think what you are describing are normal characteristics of a semi-public
listserv. In order to control the conversation further we would have to
restrict membership even more tightly and moderate very strictly. To be
honest I think we would end up with a dead listserv.

Right now, we have an interesting exchange of ideas, although perhaps
frustrating to those who want to see the Initiative "move smartly out" in
formation towards consummation.  Not the best of all worlds, but possibly
the best we can manage at the moment.

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, Jun 17, 2009 at 6:52 PM, David A. Bray <david....@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> Just a few observations about the FedKM listserv/Google group
> discussions to consider:
>
> (1) we're losing most participants who can't keep up with the
> voluminous discussions we're having... I fear it's not so much that
> there's too much discussion (this should be encouraged) but a lack of
> structure to the discussions… it’s hard to integrate what’s being said
> across discussions and with past discussions
>
> (2) related to this, we're repeating ourselves... I'm seeming themes
> repeat themselves 1-2 weeks after a similar discussion thread... this
> is partly because memory of that past thread is lost or inaccessible
> to newcomers in an easy format
>
> (3) hard to tease out what's substantive discussion vs. product or
> consulting pitches to be frank; also hard to built an iterative and
> improving body of knowledge as a result of the discussions because of
> (1) and (2)
>
> (4) email is cheap, so unfortunately we get a lot of it; how can we
> make the discussions here more valuable and succinct, while at the
> same time additive to a greater, more valuable body of knowledge? How
> can we translate anything that’s being said into actionable material
> for FedKM efforts?
>
> … If anything, the FedKM should be able to practice what it preaches
> within its own efforts, right? :-)
>
> Best regards,
>
> -d.
>
> David A. Bray, PhD, MSPH
> Institute for Defense Analyses
>
> >
>




== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 18 2009 6:18 am
From: denis...@us.pwc.com


Is there an estimated date of when we will be reviewing the next draft of
the whole document?

Denise

________________________________
Denise Lee
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Washington Federal Practice
McLean, Virginia
Office - 703-918-3683
Cell - 703-850-7450



"Karen Danis" <gkd...@comcast.net>
Sent by: fe...@googlegroups.com
06/18/2009 02:03 AM

Please respond to
fe...@googlegroups.com


To
<fe...@googlegroups.com>
cc

Subject
[FedKM:446] Re: A few observations about the FedKM listserv/Google group
discussions







I am expecting the structure to return once we can get back on task.  Neil
formed this group to advance the Federal KM Initiative, the first step of
which was to create the draft Roadmap.

I understand that the editors and Neil are still evaluating the work,
determining our path forward, to include filling in the missing pieces.

In the meantime we have tossed around a number of ideas, many of which lie
in the realm of the theoretical.

Frankly, I believe that most folks--especially those who joined early, the
Action Group members--are willing to work on the Initiative in concrete,
tangible ways.  Hopefully they will be persuaded to hang on until we can
reestablish our focus.

                                Karen


-----Original Message-----
From: fe...@googlegroups.com [mailto:fe...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
David A. Bray
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 3:53 PM
To: FedKM
Subject: [FedKM:444] A few observations about the FedKM listserv/Google
group discussions


Just a few observations about the FedKM listserv/Google group
discussions to consider:

(1) we're losing most participants who can't keep up with the
voluminous discussions we're having... I fear it's not so much that
there's too much discussion (this should be encouraged) but a lack of
structure to the discussions. it's hard to integrate what's being said
across discussions and with past discussions

(2) related to this, we're repeating ourselves... I'm seeming themes
repeat themselves 1-2 weeks after a similar discussion thread... this
is partly because memory of that past thread is lost or inaccessible
to newcomers in an easy format

(3) hard to tease out what's substantive discussion vs. product or
consulting pitches to be frank; also hard to built an iterative and
improving body of knowledge as a result of the discussions because of
(1) and (2)

(4) email is cheap, so unfortunately we get a lot of it; how can we
make the discussions here more valuable and succinct, while at the
same time additive to a greater, more valuable body of knowledge? How
can we translate anything that's being said into actionable material
for FedKM efforts?

. If anything, the FedKM should be able to practice what it preaches
within its own efforts, right? :-)

Best regards,

-d.

David A. Bray, PhD, MSPH
Institute for Defense Analyses







_________________________________________________________________
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.   If you
received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material
from any computer.  PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP is a Delaware limited
liability
partnership.



==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FedKM"
group.

To post to this group, send email to fe...@googlegroups.com or visit http://groups.google.com/group/fedkm?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to fedkm+un...@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/fedkm/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to ab...@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

[John Bordeaux]

I appreciate the concern here, but I would strongly argue against using SharePoint - a collaboration platform that uses the Document as the core unit of interest - in favor of wiki software or other tools that use the Fragment as the core unit of interest.  

Is there a reason the wiki at KM.GOV does not provide this collaboration capability? Do we really want to move to the document metaphor for pulling these ideas together?

jb

[Neil]

John,
Right, we don't have access to Sharepoint, anyway.
We can use the wiki or the Google Group plus Google Docs -- that
really should be enough.

Neil

> ...
>
> read more »

[Joe Firestone]

I agree with John. Beliefs and knowledge claims are expressed in fragments. The document level aggregates things too much.

[Snowden Dave]

Having just sat through a KM conference in the UK, where there were multiple Sharepoint stories I can only support this.  Its an OK document management system, but a poor one for collaboration particularly across silos.

Dave Snowden

Founder & Chief Scientific Officer

Cognitive Edge Pte Ltd

Now blogging at www.cognitive-edge.com

[Karen Danis]

SharePoint typically comes bundled with MS server software purchased by gov’t organizations.  Often, that’s all they can afford.  I’ve used it adequately for document storage and expertise location.  The discussion aspect was a bit awkward—at least with the version we were using in 2006.

 

I appreciate the listserv aspect of Google, and the ease of changing subject lines to signal a change in discussion.  Sometimes operating w/in a wiki is a bit confining--and we’d still be relying on folks to position responses in the “right” thread.  I have noted much more energy and willingness to participate when we’ve used the listserv in lieu of a wiki.

 

IMHO, there’s no substitute for Content Moderators—people who have accepted responsibility for monitoring and synthesizing the content in specific knowledge domains—potentially storing the information in documents, if that’s the best place for it.  So far we have not defined the knowledge domains—except for the topics associated with each of the Action Groups.  And now it seems that we’ll be moving in a different direction, and will be revisiting and redefining what this Federal KM Initiative values.

 

Hopefully we’ll be able to attract Content Moderators when we establish our new footing.

 

                                Karen

[Bill Neufeld]

See the app the White House is using, Mixedilnk

From FCW

The Obama administration has kicked off the third and final phase of
its Open Government Initiative, asking the public to help draft
recommendations for making the federal government operations and
information more transparent.

The goal of this phase, running through June 28, is to take ideas that
surfaced during the brainstorming and discussion phases, and actually
draft policy recommendations.

For the drafting phase, the Obama administration is using a platform
called MixedInk, which enables participants to post content in
collaboration, as is done on Wikipedia. For example, one user can take
a snippet from content posted by others and use it to draft a new
document, with the technology keeping track of who originally wrote
the snippet.

The system is designed to encourage participants to build on, rather
than simply repeat, each other’s contributions, said David Stern,
founder and co-chief executive officer of MixedInk. If someone is
writing on a topic on which others have already written, such as the
Freedom of Information Act, the system will provide that participant
with a link to the other FOIA-related content.

The software also enables participants to rate each other’s
contributions.
This is the first time a government agency is using MixedInk, Stern
said. Slate magazine used the technology to let readers
collaboratively draft the inauguration speech they would have liked
President Barack Obama to deliver.

Bill Neufeld

On Jun 23, 1:48 am, "Karen Danis" <gkda...@comcast.net> wrote:
> SharePoint typically comes bundled with MS server software purchased by
> gov't organizations.  Often, that's all they can afford.  I've used it
> adequately for document storage and expertise location.  The discussion

> aspect was a bit awkward-at least with the version we were using in 2006.

>
> I appreciate the listserv aspect of Google, and the ease of changing subject
> lines to signal a change in discussion.  Sometimes operating w/in a wiki is
> a bit confining--and we'd still be relying on folks to position responses in
> the "right" thread.  I have noted much more energy and willingness to
> participate when we've used the listserv in lieu of a wiki.
>

> IMHO, there's no substitute for Content Moderators-people who have accepted

> responsibility for monitoring and synthesizing the content in specific

> knowledge domains-potentially storing the information in documents, if

> that's the best place for it.  So far we have not defined the knowledge

> domains-except for the topics associated with each of the Action Groups.

> FedKMhttp://groups.google.com/group/fedkm?hl=en

> policy -- these are rather similar in practical effect, it seems to me.

> policy -- these are rather similar in practical effect, it seems to me.

>
> I'd welcome specific cite-able proposals about expanding capabilities for
> the civil service. We'd like to learn from them and perhaps cite them.
> --
> Peter B. Meyer       Research economist      202-691-5678
> Office of Productivity and Technology, U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fe...@googlegroups.com [mailto:fe...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
> Stephen Bounds
> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 5:10 AM
> To: fe...@googlegroups.com
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Neil Olonoff]

Bill
What is the URL / link of the MixedInk site for contributions?

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

[Lisa Hartigan]

 

http://mixedink.com/OpenGov

Lisa A. Hartigan
Spectrum Management Resources & Technology Division
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau of the
Federal Communications Commission
work 202.418.0695  cell 301.448.8941

 

---

From: fe...@googlegroups.com [mailto:fe...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Neil Olonoff
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 11:04 AM
To: fe...@googlegroups.com; William P. Neufeld
Subject: [FedKM:470] Re: SharePoint, Wikis and Content Moderators

[Kevin Hannon]

I have to agree with Karen and with Dave. SharePoint does not lend itself to collaboration. It IS, however a great way to serve up authoritative information for an organization.

 

However, even when you DO use a platform that lends itself to collaboration, nothing replaces the value of a Content Moderator. Think of a content moderator as the “Facilitator” in a live collaboration session. In that environment, the facilitator is essential to the group’s successful outcome. The same is true when we collaborate on line – technology provides a platform only. After that it is all about how we use it.

 

Kevin Hannon

Expert in Taxonomy, Enterprise Search and Master Data Management

201-913-8108

kha...@mindspring.com

http://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinhannon

---