Curiouser and Curiouser!

Curiouser and Curiouser! on k-log http://matt.blogs.it/ RSS feed for topic k-log Copyright 2006 Matt Mower Squib/0.1 self@mattmower.com self@mattmower.com en-gb How many applications could be generating dynamic RSS feeds? Thu, 13 Jun 2002 11:18:23 +0100 I am familiar with the Livelink knowledge management system from <A href="http://www.opentext.com/">OpenText</A> having implemented it a few years back.  They already generate feeds of both news (in the conventional sense of bulletins) and also "what's changed" reports.  Both of these could be easily exported from the system in RSS format making it easy for project users with an aggregator to keep up with current events in their project. As someone on the K-Logs mailing list pointed out it would be quite easy to make blogging part of your "project journal" posting items aggregated from project applications and sources and appending your own ideas, notes and comments (to be aggregated and read by others). Additionally if a tool such as Livelink was capable of reading and indexing an RSS feed it could then close the loop and bring these "project journals" back into the system for archiving and searching by the wider audience. Just a bit of speculation....   http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000003.html Weblogs, communities and tools Thu, 13 Jun 2002 12:51:50 +0100 <A href="http://www.rjsjr.org/archives/20020610.html#weblogs_and_communities">Weblogs and communities</A>. There are a lot of great ideas going around and I look forward to the tools and discussion this will generate. However, I think of this issue in a slightly different way, while linking neighborhoods, syndications, etc. all highlight the mechanical connections between related weblogs what interests me most are the conceptual threads of conversation that cross through many weblogs. This means extracting the relevant portions of many conversations, organizing the responses, editorializing the content, etc. Everyone talks about wanting to create communities, but it seems most of the proposals really address how to create collections. To me, a community is about discourse and participation, not just relationships. I don't only want to know who's like me, I want to interact with them to create great ideas and products drawing from our shared experience. What's more, I want to filter or focus on real analysis, not just the link parroting that <A href="http://blogdex.media.mit.edu/">Blogdex</A> and <A href="http://www.daypop.com/top/">Daypop</A> tend to highlight. [<A href="http://www.rjsjr.org/">rjsjr :: Robert J. Seymour, Jr.</A>] Robert is a new voice to me but I'm glad to have met him as he has a great perspective. So far I've been concentrating on the tools to collect together the members of a disparate community in a dynamic fashion (it's the problem that drove me to think about this in the first place) but Robert highlights that the business of community is really about discourse and exchange. Part of the BlogPlex manifesto (in progress) is that a BlogPlexa should actually be able to offer you useful services.  The first service being of course, that it introduces you to other people in a wider community.  Hopefully we can I think we need a discussion about the services/facilities that we can provide to people. If chat, threaded discussion and file sharing were not important to people I think that newer mediums such as Groove and organic mediums such as SlashDot wouldn't have them at their heart. However I think we also need new tools that fit the medium of blogging.  In <A href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/klogs/message/248">this</A> message on k-log Phil Wainewright discusses the possibility of shared aggregators: "The key point I'm making is one that I feel would be of immense value in networks of k-logs: being able to read an RSS feed of someone else's RSS aggregation:" I agree and I think it would be interesting to consider how a BlogPlex might offer a shared (& digested) aggregation of the RSS feeds of each the current membership (remember it's dynamic).   http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000008.html klogging is the way to go Thu, 13 Jun 2002 22:18:04 +0100 I think I'm homing in on one very important community.  The kloggers.  I hear a lot of talk of tech blogging and war blogging.  I don't think I'm either of those. But blogging as an aspect of KM?  That I can relate to.  I'm not alone in thinking that KM and notions of community are deeply intertwined.  The success or failure of KM projects are, I guess, rarely failures of technology.  The fail on the soft issues, they fail because they don't engage the communities, on whose efforts their success depends. So for now, I'll consider myself a proto-klogger and see where I go from here.   http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000010.html K-logging becoming the team context Sun, 30 Jun 2002 18:22:46 +0100 Within our team, we have been surprised at how well the team klog has helped us to have a better understanding of what each of us is currently working on.  [<A href="http://www.highcontext.com/blarchive/2002_06_25.html#000047">HighContext</A>] via [<A href="http://www.steptwo.com.au/columntwo/archives/000036.html">ColumnTwo</A>]. <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » I shall definitely be suggesting this approach in future.  </BLOCKQUOTE> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000066.html k-log for your supper Sun, 30 Jun 2002 19:59:47 +0100 <A href="http://www.highcontext.com/blarchive/2002_06_24.html">klogging your career</A>. Phil Wolff has some insightful observations on how <A href="http://dijest.com/aka/2002/06/20.html">writing a weblog could benefit your career</A>. [<A href="http://www.highcontext.com/">High Context</A>] <BLOCKQUOTE> » This was timely, I'd already thought about putting my weblog address into my resume in a prominent position. My other reaction was "will anyone read it?"  For the kind of jobs I've been going for in the past I have a hunch the answer is probably no. However I've recently (like in the last 3 or 4 days) come to the conclusion that employment must match my core values.  I think for that to happen I need an employer who would read my blog!  </BLOCKQUOTE> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000072.html Klogging vs. the 11 Deadly KM Sins Sun, 30 Jun 2002 20:09:59 +0100 <A href="http://www.highcontext.com/blarchive/2002_06_27.html">Phil Wolff: Klogging vs. the 11 Deadly KM Sins</A>. How does klogging avoid the quagmire? <BLOCKQUOTE> [<A href="http://www.highcontext.com/">High Context</A>] <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">  » Excellent piece. Recommended.</BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000073.html Gurteen knowledge-log Tue, 02 Jul 2002 15:28:35 +0100 <A href="http://www.steptwo.com.au/columntwo/archives/000043.html">Gurteen Knowledge-Log</A>. David Gurteen has just setup his own weblog on knowledge management. Beyond this, he is aiming to establish a KM [<A href="http://www.steptwo.com.au/columntwo/">Column Two</A>] <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » Although i'm probably on peripherally a k-logger at the moment I'm very interested in k-logging and how it develops.  It just seems so right. I love the idea that I and project mates can blog our own ideas and viewpoints and that these can be aggregated into some whole greater than each of us constituent parts. I also love the idea that we can aggregate from these ourselves and build upon them. I'll be watching the GKL with interest.  </BLOCKQUOTE> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000080.html Klogging 101: What, Why, and How Wed, 03 Jul 2002 22:36:10 +0100 <A href="http://www.highcontext.com/blarchive/2002_07_03.html">klogging 101 slides</A>. Phil Wolff's <A href="http://dijest.com/aka/2002/07/03.html#a1799">klogging 101 slides</A>. [<A href="http://www.highcontext.com/">High Context</A>]   http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000092.html Kickstarting k-logging Sun, 07 Jul 2002 12:12:42 +0100 <A href="http://www.ashleyit.com/blogs/brentashley/archives/000388.html">Get up to speed on K-Logging.</A>. <A href="http://www.ashleyit.com/">brent ashley</A>: <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> The thinking-out-loud style of writing a K-log journal of project activities allows every part of the process to remain available during and after the project. This allows detailed review and enables latecomers to the project to get up to speed. The dead-end attempts that provide the best opportunity for learning are documented and kept for others to learn from. <A href="http://www.ashleyit.com/blogs/brentashley/archives/000388.html">more great language for your team briefing...</A></BLOCKQUOTE> [<A href="http://dijest.com/aka/">a klog apart</A>] [<A href="http://www.kellogg.nwu.edu/faculty/mcgee/htm/blog/">McGee's Musings</A>] <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » Good posting, good points.</BLOCKQUOTE> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000114.html KMpings & Trackback Tue, 09 Jul 2002 20:12:09 +0100 <A href="http://www.highcontext.com/blarchive/2002_07_09.html">The KMpings Experiment</A>. I created a little blog called <A href="http://www.highcontext.com/kmpings/">KMpings</A> that allows any blogger writing about knowledge management to ping their post to a tracking page (if their software supports it). Think of it as a themed <A href="http://www.weblogs.com">www.weblogs.com</A> for the knowledge management community. I wanted to try out this experiment since I think the <A href="http://www.movabletype.org/trackback/">TrackBack function created by Movable Type</A> has a lot of potential for aggregating blog posts within communities of practice on the web or an intranet. Please post any feed back you have to this message or shoot me an <A href="mailto:david@highcontext.com">e-mail</A>. [<A href="http://www.highcontext.com/">High Context</A>] <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » I really want TrackBack for Radio. And KMpings sounds like a great idea.</BLOCKQUOTE>   http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000129.html Okay so what's next? Tue, 09 Jul 2002 20:38:57 +0100 Strangely enough being made redundant on Monday was not the most unnerving that has happened to me this week. What is more unnerving is my decision not to look immediately for another job.  Instead I have made the decision to see if I can make an adhoc mixture (as I see it now) of blogging, k-logging, knowledge management, intranets, collaboration and communities into a compelling business proposition and make a living from it. For some time now I have wanted to strike out in my own direction.  To lead rather than be led.  It seems fate just handed me my chance. This is not a risk-free strategy, and I'm just beginning to admit to myself what I'm letting myself in for. So from here onwards I will happily entertain any offers of work, suggestions about what works (and what doesn't).  Ideas, novel solutions, novel problems.  It's all good.   I've also got an acre of understanding to do, here goes! Suddenly I feel like I am growing into my weblog title. Matt   http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000135.html More on liveTopics Wed, 10 Jul 2002 21:51:52 +0100 I gave an initial pitch of some of my ideas today.  Not a pitch that I would like to give to an objective audience but, then, this is only my second day <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0107808/2002/07/09.html#a179">off the job</A>!! I was trying to show how liveTopics and blogPlex fit together. liveTopics really started life as a bootstrap technology for the blogPlex.  blogPlexing depends upon being able to extract meaningful information from what people say on their weblogs.  Until such time as technologies like Cyc or Summarizer (see Share in the sidebar) can deliver the goods I needed something else.  Hence liveTopics was born to allow you to annotate your posts with descriptive concepts.  From a very simple original concept it has taken on a life of its own which is kind of cool. There are two steps on the way to blogPlex that I think are worth sharing.  The first is topicRolling which I have discussed in another <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0107808/2002/07/09.html#a181">recent post</A>.  Briefly topicRolling allows you to publish your topics & subscribe to the topics used by others.  This allows a group of people to develop a shared conceptual vocabulary or BlogSpeak. The second is the super-blog.  This was really <A href="http://www.wwpp.org/">Jack Foster Mancilla's</A> idea.  This is an extension of the Blog Topic Table of Contents (TTOC) idea which will be familiar if you click through any of the topic links on my page (or click <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0107808/outlines/topics/allTopics.html">here</A>).   At the moment the TTOC is an individual affair, however pretty soon I am to provide the ability for a group of people to create a super-blog together. In the same way that the TTOC now lists each of an individuals posts under a topic, the super-blog will list the posts of every member creating a way to see what each member of the group has posted regarding specific concepts.  This makes topicRolling very important.  We will also need tools to support the merging and grouping of topics into <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0107808/2002/07/09.html#a182">topicThemes</A>. My view at the moment is rather than embarking on a massive project to create some kind of control language or standardized vocabulary that we allow Darwinian pressures to select topics.  As has been written elsewhere people will gravitate towards "good" topics and abandon the bad (and there will be tools to help the losers graciously migrate).   The pressure will come from the other users of the plex, in order to be listed you have to use the right topics. I can imagine situations where two similar topics will grow equal in size.  Thats okay.  Clever software can work out that they are synonymous by examing their associations with other topics.  And the use of topicThemes will help to prevent unnecessary isolation. And then we reach the blogPlex itself.  At the moment I envisage this as a service subscribed to many blogs or klogs.  Using the data in each along with the topical metadata to create profiles of bloggers and kloggers. The value of the profiles is that they will allow the blogPlex service to match up bloggers who are writing about similar concepts - who are not already linking to each other.  This is a key point because it is this that enables new communities to form.   http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000157.html k-logging is all about... Thu, 11 Jul 2002 12:55:26 +0100 Damnit!  k-logging is all about e-learning. <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » A <A href="http://www.gurteen.com/">Gurteenism</A>  </BLOCKQUOTE> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000170.html k-log culture Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:29:00 +0100 <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0109150/2002/07/11.html#a244">Can K-Logs Improve Corporate Integrity</A>. Jim McGee on whether or not the process of klogging could expose fundamental problems in business before thay become Enron-like disasters, and whether this quality makes it more or less likely they will take root. [<A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0109150/">Blunt Force Trauma</A>] <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » Is an excellent piece. I particularly like the idea of the k-log as a barometer of corporate culture.  The absence of k-logging could mean many things, however I would take the presence of a healthy k-logging culture to be an excellent sign.  </BLOCKQUOTE> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000172.html Process logging? Fri, 12 Jul 2002 18:38:02 +0100 Brett Morgan is <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0109827/2002/07/12.html#a411">talking</A> about KM and blogging integration (k-logging) being the next wave of tools.   You bet.  Or rather I bet.  I'm betting the farm on it. Here's a thing...  How about process-logging. Every workflow process produces an RSS output stream commenting on the state of the process and events that occur.  If you're interested in how the process is going you subscribe. Are any of the open source workflow packages looking at RSS integration?   http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000179.html John Robb defining k-logs Fri, 12 Jul 2002 18:52:50 +0100 <A href="http://www.kellogg.nwu.edu/faculty/mcgee/htm/blog/2002/07/12.html#a1799">John Robb interview defining k-logs</A>. <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <A href="http://writetheweb.com/read.php?item=123">What is a k-log?</A>. Some people are taking the concept of weblogs and applying it to the wider concept of knowledge management. The result is k-logging ("knowledge-logging"). But will it catch on - will your employer dump Lotus Notes databases in favour of browsers and blog-style brain-dumps? [<A href="http://writetheweb.com/">WriteTheWeb</A>]</BLOCKQUOTE> I've posted this interview with <A href="http://jrobb.userland.com/">John Robb</A> before, but it remains an excellent introduction to the notion of a k-log. [<A href="http://www.kellogg.nwu.edu/faculty/mcgee/htm/blog/">McGee's Musings</A>] <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » Definitely worth a re-printing.   And it's worth reading the comments to Johns interview as well for some interesting commentary.  </BLOCKQUOTE> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000181.html k-log vs. email Fri, 12 Jul 2002 21:33:44 +0100 <A href="http://www.reuters.com/printerfriendly.jhtml?type=internetnews&StoryID=686843">Reuters</A>:  Managers drowning in e-mail. >>>A huge volume of business e-mails is generated from workers reporting progress to project managers, Nickerson said. <<<  There is an answer to this:  post it to your K-Log.  K-Logs are more passive and user friendly than e-mail.  [<A href="http://jrobb.userland.com/">John Robb's Radio Weblog</A>] [<A href="http://www.kellogg.nwu.edu/faculty/mcgee/htm/blog/categories/blogging/">Jim McGee: Blogging</A>] [<A href="http://home.netcom.com/~luskr/weblog/radio/categories/kLogs/">Ron Lusk: Ron's K-Logs</A>] <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » I shall be leveraging this argument quite heavily I think. Savvy people already realise that email is the rope they've tied around their neck.  I think they are just afraid to do anything different in case they pull the handle for the trapdoor. Hopefully the k-log message will resonate with these people in a good way.  </BLOCKQUOTE> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000185.html Is KM a technology problem? Sun, 14 Jul 2002 21:16:16 +0100 <A href="http://www.kellogg.nwu.edu/faculty/mcgee/htm/blog/2002/07/09.html#a1788">What if knowledge management actually is a technology problem?</A>. I just came across a posting by Jim McGee in McGee's Musings that I found thought provoking. Here is how it starts : <BLOCKQUOTE>What if knowledge management actually is a technology problem? Current thinking holds that knowledge management's problems come from too much focus on technology when the key problems are about organizational processes and practices. I've said as much myself on many occasions. But this formulation risks perpetuating the myth that problems are either organizational or technological. We know the real world isn't that simple, of course. We shouldn't contribute to the confusion by oversimplifying our discussion. </BLOCKQUOTE>Like Jim, I have always thought that KM is about people - "psychology - not technology" but I always love it when so called 'truths' that we hold dear are questioned - including my own. We've only got to look back through history to see the many times when we thought we were right and had all the answers - only to see those views totally overturned a few years later. So what if KM is really all about technology and not people? I don't think so! Like Jim, I agree the real world is not that simple. We tend to like either-or arguments - [<A onmouseover="self.status='Book: I am Right you are Wrong';return true" onmouseout="self.status='';return true" href="http://www.gurteen.com/gurteen/gurteen.nsf/0/EF9CDBE1EAC49786802567F1006C3ED3/">right-or-wrong</A>] solutions - but reality is not like that - the answer is usually fuzzy and some where in between the extremes. So should KM be more about technology than people? Maybe its just that our current technology is poor or we are not using it appropriately. What role will technology play in the future? Take a look at what Jim has to say - some interesting thoughts ... What do you think? [<A href="http://www.gurteen.com/gurteen/gurteen.nsf/0/E79924B9B266C48A80256B8D004BB5AD/">Gurteen Knowledge-Log</A>] <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » I guess that my view is that where traditional KM fails it is not especially because the technology wasn't sophisticated enough (and sometimes the reverse) but because it failed to address the social, emotional needs of the individuals it was supposed to be serving. I think this is part of the reason why I suspect klogging will be such a huge success - it's a social thing.  People can create social capital by klogging.  They can network, foster communities, add evident value.  It creates new opportunities for them.  It's a win-win deal. Is klogging a technological victory?  Only in the sense of the technology getting the hell outta the way.  </BLOCKQUOTE> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000188.html The politics of k-logging Sun, 14 Jul 2002 22:10:30 +0100 <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0109150/2002/07/12.html#a269">The Synchronicity of Klogging Culture</A>. This is a good post for those new to k-logs and klogging, and is the first of two items regarding the interaction of klogging with employers/co-workers -- should we/shouldn't we, when/when not, what to say/what not to say, etc. [<A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0109150/">Blunt Force Trauma</A>] <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » There's some mighty good stuff in here and definitely food for thought for me. Paul's brief analysis of his reluctance to let people in on the secret of his k-log seems to me very important.  He makes the point that: <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> "I don't know how people might react to the things I've written. A klog is by definition not politically correct; you say what you think, not what you believe others might want to hear." <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> [<A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0106188/">Paul Holbrook's Radio weblog</A>]</BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> This is a very real and sensible fear.  Many organizations are highly politicised and you score no points for honesty, energy or dedication.  Only for keeping your head down. From my perspective, what this says is that there are a whole lot of organizations for whom k-logging is not going to be appropriate, and, when the banks break and k-logging becomes big, are going to suffer real pain when they try to force people to k-log. Only companies that give their people the slack to k-log honestly and without fear are going to benefit from this technology. Anyone got a directory of those companies?  </BLOCKQUOTE> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000194.html Email vs. k-logging Mon, 15 Jul 2002 22:23:33 +0100 <A href="http://www.theshiftedlibrarian.com/2002/07/15.html#a2657">Email Email Everywhere</A>. <A href="http://www.emarketer.com/news/article.php?1001354&ref=ed">E-Mail Storage Issues Facing North American Companies</A> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> According to a recently-released whitepaper from <A href="http://www.ostermanresearch.com/" target=blank>Osterman Research</A>, 31% of North American companies say the average size of an e-mail mailbox in their message system is between 26 and 50 megabytes (Mb). Additionally, 46% of these companies say that e-mail users in their system send up to 50 messages per day....</BLOCKQUOTE> There has to be a way for <A href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/klogs/">k-logging</A> to help with this for at least a percentage of these people. Luckily, we don't have quotas in place at <A href="http://www.sls.lib.il.us/">SLS</A> or else my external email would be a real problem. Here I am with my own blog, I'm trying to move into k-logging, and I really haven't integrated email into that equation yet. How on earth am I going to get my staff to do this? Are there any guidelines out there yet for how to integrate various information sources (web, email, chat, etc.) into a k-log, or is the format still too young? [<A href="http://www.theshiftedlibrarian.com/">The Shifted Librarian</A>] <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » Too many good questions here I'm afraid. My experience of KM leads me to expect that k-logging will not provide a turn-key answer to managing email.  What it will do is, in all practical terms, to kill email.  That's the solution. Many of the business contexts for e-mail could be replaced by publish & subscribe RSS feeds and Wiki leaving e-mail purely for private correspondance.  If we could solve this spam thing too then you might see mailboxs drop back to pre-1996 levels again. I'd be interesting to hear what other people think on this topic.  </BLOCKQUOTE> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000208.html Why Radio? Mon, 15 Jul 2002 22:47:25 +0100 Why have I choosen Radio over MovableType?  It's a question I've asked myself recently. I think MT looks like an excellent blogging system.  In a few years time I think that MT (or son-of-MT) is likely to be the choice for bloggers who need a little more than Blogger (or son-of-Blogger) will provide.  I don't believe, as much as I love it, that Radio will be that choice. However I do believe that Radio could be the klogger tool of choice.  Why? Because Radio has such potential in both a networked (social) and standalone (personal) context.  Because Radio is a general computing platform that has been specialized to handle blogging but could also be specialized for a thousand other applications. I, along with others, are looking to take it to the next stage with k-log ready tools.  Userland are doing their part with things like Instant Outlining and RCS. So, that's why Radio.   http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000212.html Why Radio? Tue, 16 Jul 2002 22:13:04 +0100 <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0108194/2002/07/16.html#a132">Hmm... Ya think?</A>. See I think that all the cute little features that are being added to Radio are going to "in a few years time" bog it down terribly. However MT is a wad of perl code, which means it can be a point of departure for whatever anyone wants to do with it, without having to learn a proprietary "less than impeccably documented" scripting language (grumble grumble.) However, initial ramp-up with radio can't be beat (to say nothing of the 40m of cloud space), so here I am. I like radio alot, but I have to say the more compelling reason to use it over other blogging software is ease of setup & the year of service that comes with using radio. As a developer, I've given up on trying to do really neat things with radio. It's just too hard to track down the documentation. [<A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0108194/">The Universal Church Of Cosmic Uncertainty</A>] <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » I think there are two different issues at play here: language and platform. Is MT a better blogging system than Radio because it is a wad of Perl code rather than a wad of Usertalk code?  I'm not sure but I guess so if only because of Perls popularity.  Neither would be my first choice for writing a complex application but both are adequate to the task. But the important issue for me is the platform.  I would class MT as an application and Radio (along with Frontier) as a platform.  In particular an ideal platform for delivering groupware applications.  Here's an example from my experience:  About 5 years ago att UNL we were looking for a learning mangament system for lecturers to use to construct & deliver on-line courses.  A question which stymied most vendors we spoke to was: <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> "How do you handle a lecturer who wants to update his module whilst on a cycling holiday in the south of france?"</BLOCKQUOTE> For the most part they had no answer to the disconnected scenario and had to bluff or fall back to legacy software "Oh they can edit stuff in Word and then C&P when they get back."  Right... I can imagine constructing some very novel solutions to this kind of scenario with a combination of Radio & Frontier.  I can imagine some novel applications for k-logging too. It's the flexibility and power of the platform that I'm betting on.  </BLOCKQUOTE> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000222.html Collaboration: It's all about people Tue, 16 Jul 2002 23:36:51 +0100 Located (with thanks) through <A href="http://www.steptwo.com.au/columntwo/">Column Two</A>: <BLOCKQUOTE><A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0110426/stories/2002/07/11/technologyConfinedCollaboration.html">Technology Confined Collaboration?</A>  increasingly, this is the story I'm told.  The folks at the big software companies would have you believe that software is always pristine and perfect, and that organizations and their staid cultures are the barriers to reaching collaborative nirvana.  Don't believe the hype.  When it comes to collaboration, technology (and more precisely, technology architecture) can doom the best laid plans around enterprise collaboration.  I've written about it <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0110426/stories/2002/07/11/technologyConfinedCollaboration.html">here...</A> [<A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0110426/">Michael Helfrich's Radio Weblog</A>]</BLOCKQUOTE> [<A href="http://home.netcom.com/~luskr/weblog/radio/categories/kLogs/">Ron Lusk: Ron's K-Logs</A>] <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » Definitely: <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> "Collaboration is about people.  Collaboration needs technology frameworks that support adaptive, ad hoc interactions.  Adaptive from the sense of extending functionality on the fly and securely embracing new members on the fly.  Simply put, it's the swarming culture fused with adaptive technology."</BLOCKQUOTE> and think that ad hoc interactions are the key.  As long as ad hoc implies that the technology works with the way you want to work now (rather than you fitting in with how the technology wants to work today!)  </BLOCKQUOTE> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000233.html Klogs for project visualization Thu, 08 Aug 2002 23:01:45 +0100 <H3>Envisioning projects a la klog?</H3> How can weblogs contribute to project visualization? Annotation. <OL> <LI>Associate each project post with one or more tasks, issues, milestones, and deliverables on a given project. <LI>Enable a few extra attributes for a post: Red/Yellow/Green Priority (U.S. cultural bias).  <LI>Create a view into a team's weblog posts organized by the <A href="http://www.4pm.com/articles/work_breakdown_structure.htm">work breakdown structure</A>, another by priority  </LI></OL> PM is about the conversation more than formal modeling. It is how we come to appreciate project dreams and know project reality. We discover our colleagues' capabilities and limits. We negotiate commitments. We make the thousand mid-course corrections to the project plan. My <A href="http://dijest.editthispage.com/tools/pm/">project communication templates</A> help you script some of those conversations. But conversation is narrative and auditory. How do we get the best characteristics of project conversation into visual media? Into electronic visual media? Thanks to experience designer <A href="http://www.minid.net/archives/000588.php#a000588">Diego Lafuento</A> for the Tufte pointer.  [aka <A class=navigatorLink href="http://dijest.com/aka/categories/design/">design</A>] [<A href="http://dijest.com/aka/">a klog apart</A>] [<A href="http://home.netcom.com/~luskr/weblog/radio/categories/kLogs/">Ron Lusk: Ron's K-Logs</A>] <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » This is an interesting idea which I need to think about some more. The idea of klogs integrating with other systems already has me interested and this adds a new dimension. This inspires another post.  </BLOCKQUOTE> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000272.html Integrating klogs with Big-KM Thu, 08 Aug 2002 23:08:31 +0100 In order for klogging to be successfully I think it is going to have to come to an understanding with Big-KM. Example:  BigCo has invested half a million dollars in a big knowledge management system for their world-wide operations.  This kind of investment can become a lode-stone around any other systems neck.  For klogging to thrive here it is going to have to integrate. Here's one idea I have for how this could work. <OL> <LI>Extend Big-KM System-X so that it can aggregate RSS feeds like Radio, MT and others do now.</LI> <LI>Extend your klogging software to allow per-post meta data.  (liveTopics does this for Radio)</LI> <LI>For each project in System-X define a set of topics that will act as trigger phrases for that project</LI> <LI>Get the kloggers to use those topics when they want to involve a post in a particular project</LI> <LI>Now subscribe System-X to every klog in the organization and watch as it indexes and archives all that information.  Each project grabbing only those postings that are appropriate (by use of the trigger phrases)</LI> <LI>This means that the klogs add value to the big-KM system.  Suddenly it doesn't just have the dry dusty project documention, but all the live vibrant stuff that people are really doing!</LI> <LI>Now extend System-X to generate a per-project RSS feed.</LI> <LI>If I am on the project I can subscribe to this feed.  Now instead of receiving email from System-X or having to go to an arbitrary web page, I get all the "official" project stuff (new documents, forms etc...) delivered in my RSS stream.</LI></OL> Closing the loop between the big-KM and the klog so that they both add value to each other. Just an idea....   http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000275.html More on TrackBack Fri, 09 Aug 2002 17:01:45 +0100 <A href="http://scriptingnews.userland.com/backissues/2002/08/09#whatAboutTrackback">What about TrackBack?</A>. While I was in the hospital in June, the Movable Type folks implemented a <A href="http://www.movabletype.org/docs/mtmanual_trackback.html">feature</A> <A href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=trackback">called</A> <A href="http://www.movabletype.org/trackback/">TrackBack</A>. I'm not exactly sure all that it can do, but here's at least part of the story. (I'm posting this so I can get corrected if I don't understand the feature. It occurs to me that this post could use the feature, heh.) Anyone, anywhere can send a message to any Movable Type server to associate a URL with a weblog post. That URL will be shown in the list of TrackBack links for the post. Further, based on an email from <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0107808/2002/08/08.html#a251">Matt Mower</A>, for some reason that I don't understand, this can only work with Movable Type servers. I doubt this, because from all outward appearances it is using HTTP, which could be emulated by any program capable of doing HTTP. Matt thinks this feature should be implemented with XML-RPC. I'm not sure it'll take off no matter what it's implemented in. Here's the problem. By design it seems to assume that everyone plays fair. But eventually we all attract a relatively small number of people who would mark up every post with trash talk, if given the chance to. It's a predictable process. That's why I don't have a discussion group here (I used to), or a comments feature. It's why MSNBC is moving to weblogs over discussion software. It's basically why weblogs have a future for thoughtful discourse where mail-list-like collaboration tools are dead-ends. When I think about evolving weblogs, I try to avoid features that turn them into discussion groups. [<A href="http://www.scripting.com/">Scripting News</A>] <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » I think there has been a misunderstanding between Dave and I.  Maybe I misphrased something or it was misinterpreted.  Either way: I'm not suggesting that TrackBack can only be implemented in MT.  Just that, as it is implemented in MT it can only be served by MT and is most useful to MT users.  It doesn't suit me very much.   I also don't like the way you have to TrackBack enable things, use special URL's, have bookmarklets etc..  all that gets in the way to me. I envisage an open XML-RPC based system.  The TrackBack data should be available to & from any system and can track arbitrary URLs (no requirement to TrackBack enable anything). Also with the prototype Radio client all the work of pinging is done for you automatically.  As part of the publishing action Radio will figure out all the posts being referenced and ping them automatically.   That's how I want it to work, you might want it different which is why I say it's a prototype. As to the inherent design problem in trackback, well, I agree with the comments made.  From a certain viewpoint. However I see TrackBack not so much as a weblogging tool but as a k-logging tool.  It gives you the ability to know what someone else is contributing to projects you are working on and that could be vital.  As are discussion forums and all the other collaborative tools that help people do useful work. Will TrackBack be absused?  Sure.  But so can any technology.  If the abuse becomes a problem we can evolve strategies for addressing it.  For me this is a time for experimentation, it's too early to abandon a potentially useful idea like TrackBack because it has a potential for abuse. Example (and shooting from the hip) : Problem: "nusiance pings appearing on my TrackBack report."  This seems a lot like the problem of spam email to me.  Collaborative spam filtering looks set to deliver good results here, maybe it could do the same for TrackBack? [Disclaimer: TrackBack - I am a believer!]  </BLOCKQUOTE> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000283.html liveTopics and categories Sat, 10 Aug 2002 13:57:09 +0100 The the real use of categories to my mind is to allow upstreaming to multiple locations.  That way I can have my public weblog (and maybe a salon blog too like <A href="http://blogs.salon.com/0001048/">Marc Barrot</A>) as well as a number of private klogs. I would still like to be able to use liveTopics when posting to a private klog, but the topics perhaps should not be shared or, if they are shared, it should be done in an intelligent way.  Specifically each category needs it's own Table of Contents where the URL's to posts are not cross-referenced. I'll have to figure out how to do this and it probably won't be easy. Of course a better solution would be for Radio to natively support the idea of mutli-site operations. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000298.html Radio news handling Sun, 11 Aug 2002 16:30:07 +0100 <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0109150/2002/08/08.html#a424">More Flexible News Scanning Needed</A>. This really hits the mark -- I've been traveling for two weeks with very limited connectivity. [<A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0109150/">Blunt Force Trauma</A>] <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » I too wish that Radio would handle news more flexibly.  The idea of a "poll now" button would be genuinely useful as would a way to adjust the frequency with which different RSS feeds are polled. However when you get to the point where you want to poll every 3 minutes I think you may be reaching the breaking point for the medium.  I would be thinking about moving to Groove, Instant Messenger, Shared/Instant outlining or something like that to handle a real-time interaction.  The results of that interaction could then be published klog style for everyone to share.  </BLOCKQUOTE> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000306.html XP meets KM Thu, 15 Aug 2002 10:18:16 +0100 <A href="http://www.blogroots.com/comments.blog/124">Klogging Roles.</A>. I forsee several klogging roles. <OL> <LI>Catalyst. Alpha blogger. Someone who klogs well, leads by example, provokes and inspires others to join a klogging community. If you've used Blogtree, naming your inspirations, you know what I mean. <LI>Coach. The person who helps newbies, builds internal FAQs, nurtures laggards, acknowledges great posts. Soft skills, communication and social skills, are not evenly distributed. The coach helps everyone join and get better. Chief metablogger. <LI>Armorer. Works with IT to develop configs, scripts, integration with enterprise apps and messaging services. Power macros. Engaging templates. Technologist and architect. <LI>Practice leader. Informal leaders of subcultures in larger organizations. The one in legal who drives the whole department to start klogging. The rep in the Cincinatti sales office who gets her colleagues to start customer-specific blogs. Watch for lists of like-minded colleagues. They may also connect to like-minded communities at suppliers, customers, and the wild blogosphere. </LI></OL> Mix and match. Recruit for excellence in one or more. Hire ringers if your community is large enough. One other point: I beleive (without hard numbers) that blogging and klogging can improve your personal marketability. I'm exploring this at <A href="http://dijest.com/aka/categories/bloggersForHire/">Bloggers for Hire</A>. Suggestions welcome. [aka <A class=navigatorLink href="http://dijest.com/aka/categories/klogs/">klogs</A>] [<A href="http://dijest.com/aka/">a klog apart</A>] <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » Phil's roles seem very <A href="http://www.extremeprogramming.org/">XP</A> like (and I'm not referring to Windows) to me which is nice as David Gurteen was just <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0107808/2002/08/02.html#a238">talking</A> about XP & KM and how XP's embrace change principle applies just as much to implementing KM.  In fact many of the values embedded in the XP development philosophy apply just as well to KM: <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> "XP is successful because it stresses customer satisfaction. The methodology is designed to deliver the software your customer needs when it is needed. XP empowers your developers to confidently respond to changing customer requirements, even late in the life cycle." "This methodology also emphasizes team work. Managers, customers, and developers are all part of a team dedicated to delivering quality software. XP implements a simple, yet effective way to enable groupware style development." "XP improves a software project in four essential ways; communication, simplicity,feedback, and courage. XP programmers communicate with their customers and fellow programmers. They keep their design simple and clean. They get feedback by testing their software starting on day one. They deliver the system to the customers as early as possible and implement changes as suggested. With this foundation XP programmers are able to courageously respond to changing requirements and technology."</BLOCKQUOTE>  </BLOCKQUOTE> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000319.html So what is klogging anyway... Thu, 15 Aug 2002 10:24:36 +0100 You know, I don't like the term klogging very much.  It has meaning to us "in the know" but I think it's rather an opaque term. I would prefer a term like Personal Knowledge Publishing which actually says a little bit about what it means, and, harkens back to the DTP revolution. I think PKP will hail the same revolution for Knowledge Management by emphasizing that it is people that matter.  Process should follow people.  Let people do what they are good at (thinking, scheming, designing, creating) and help them get it down "on paper" and let process and automation do the rest for them. The technology should support the individual, not binding them. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000320.html Hi-ho Hi-ho Thu, 15 Aug 2002 23:07:50 +0100 Giving my first klogging pitch tomorrow. Wish me luck!   http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000337.html Fixing intranets with klogs Sun, 18 Aug 2002 22:31:55 +0100 <A href="http://www.steptwo.com.au/columntwo/archives/000166.html">Fixing intranets</A>. It's interesting how the same issues seem to come up in bunches. Over the last month, I have now talked... [<A href="http://www.steptwo.com.au/columntwo/">Column Two</A>] <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » James has written an interesting post about some of the common problems with intranets that he encounters with his clients.  As someone interested in how klogging (I'll use the term for now!) could affect the role of intranets and content management his issues seem particularly relevant to me.  In preface to my remarks I should point out that I am choosing to address static content rather than the possible dynamic web applications you might find on a typical intranet. The issues, re-ordered slightly to suit my responses, are: <OL> <LI>The intranet has grown over time. <LI>Manual processes (using Frontpage or Dreamweaver) are used to publish pages. <LI>A lot of information has been published, but the site isn't being used. <LI>There is little high-level structure, and users are not able to find information. </LI></OL> 1. If you want a logical hierarchical structure then organic growth is a problem.  It's like running water, it flows down along the path of least resistance and doesn't care about the direction.  Same with people, they'll squirrel stuff anywhere that makes sense today (have you taken a good look at your my "My Documents" directory lately?).   Of course if you're klogging then this organic growth is part of the package.  Whether that bothers you is probably a factor of points (2), (3), and (4).  2. This is most obviously solved by klogging software.  It's one of the fundamentals. 3. Hard to say but I guess much of the information published may be of low quality.  In my experience no matter how hard publishing to an intranet can be, creating information is harder still.  This leads to variable quality in that information.  Variable quality leads to low usage.  Low usage provides little incentive for new information to be created and so on. Klogging address this in two ways I think: <UL> <LI>When you have something to publish it's dead easy: click, type, click. <LI>You can publish in bite-size chunks.  This means that if you have a small but useful piece of information you can just klog it.  You don't have to pad it into a long document to make it worthwhile.  You also don't have to find "just the right place" for it to go, it just gets klogged.  That chunk can exist in it's own right, waiting for the day someone needs it.</LI></UL> Which brings us rather neatly to (4) 4. As it stands klogging is a decentralizing technology that doesn't encourage a formal hierarchical structure.  You klog and, if all goes according to plan, people will subscribe to you and they will link to you.  Will they be the right people?  Does it make information any easier to locate?  Not automatically no.  But then hierarchical structures don't necessarily make life any easier.  Once a hierarchy is more than about 2 levels deep it can cause it's own navigation issues. Some people might argue that a healthy klogging culture coupled with a Google search appliance (or any search engine that has a pageranking algorithm I guess) could well make it easier to find what you're looking for.  I think theres something to be said for that. My own approach is to allow for easy metadata-enabling of klogs.  My hope is that combining klogs with topic maps will allow new structures to be grown from them automagically.  This can complement the pagerank based search and provide new ways of finding and traversing group knowledge. So should you scrap the intranet and replace it with klogs? I don't think so.  But perhaps you should think carefully about what you want your intranet to achieve and whether some of your goals for information publishing and dissemination couldn't be better achieved with a klogging strategy.</BLOCKQUOTE> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000346.html Klogging issues Sun, 18 Aug 2002 23:22:31 +0100 I had a very useful and productive meeting on Friday.  I gave my first klogging pitch and, despite the roughness of the material, it didn't go too badly wrong.  I was pitching to friends which has it's plusses and minuses but overall it's the right place for your first pitch. Here are some of the important issues that were raised: <UL> <LI>Having klogs can easily overlap with existing formal systems.  For example when klogging a difficult interaction with a student (these guys are at a University) does this mean that you don't put the information into the CRM system?  Or when klogging about a problem with the printer should you not fill out a helpdesk ticket?   It's not enough to answer that these kind of formal systems are often under-utilized, the people aren't trained, etc. since it's hard to argue this with a client who has invested in these systems.  Indeed you may be pitching to one of their sponsors who might not take kindly to such assertions.</LI> <LI>Klogging as presented so far is a decentralizing technology.  However the natural tendency of most organizations (at least in my experience within the UK) is to want to centralize.  The idea of employee's having greater autonomy is not desirable.  Of course they won't say that up front, however...</LI> <LI>Many people will fear that klogging could be used as a control tool that lets unscrupulous managers see exactly what they are doing and maybe even document their job so that they can be replaced by someone cheaper.   It's a sad reflection on todays workplace, but it is a reflection.</LI> <LI>Security.  This is closely related to the de-centralization point above.  At the moment klogging systems (because they are basically blogging systems where security isn't an issue) have little or no inherent security.  This will limit their value as people will feel unable to klog anything sensitive.</LI> <LI>Big-KM vendors will embrace klogging.  This is really only of interest to people espousing klogging solutions based on products like Radio or MoveableType (is there anyone?).  My own belief is that the Big-KM vendors will do their usual job of missing the boat, missing the point then coming to the party with a hotchpotch solution.</LI></UL> These issues are not new but are, to my knowledge, unresolved.  I'll be looking for answers in the days and weeks ahead.  Anyone got a headstart on me (please!)? http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000348.html Klogging up the intranet Sun, 18 Aug 2002 23:26:04 +0100 Just thinking about intranets and klogs. I think klogs bring the role of a web or intranet editor sharply into focus. Much as the users of a Wiki should occasionally re-factor pages that are becoming "busy" I think that a good intranet editor should be grooming the klogs in their organization and drawing together useful strangs to form part (or all) of the static intranet. I wonder what kind of tools would make this easier? http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000350.html Another name for klogging Tue, 20 Aug 2002 14:17:22 +0100 Personal Business Knowledge Publishing (just trying it on for size) http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000371.html It's all in the title Tue, 20 Aug 2002 19:43:13 +0100 <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0107808/2002/08/15.html#a275">Personal Knowledge Publishing = Blogging</A>. (SOURCE:<A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0107808/">Curiouser and curiouser</A>)-I like it!<QUOTE>You know, I don't like the term klogging very much. It has meaning to us "in the know" but I think it's rather an opaque term. I would prefer a term like Personal Knowledge Publishing which actually says a little bit about what it means, and, harkens back to the DTP revolution. I think PKP will hail the same revolution for Knowledge Management by emphasizing that it is people that matter. Process should follow people.</QUOTE> [<A href="http://www.rolandTanglao.com/">Roland Tanglao's Weblog</A>] <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » I think Roland got it right with his title <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> Personal Knowledge Publishing = Blogging</BLOCKQUOTE> and to put it in an organizational context <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> ?? Knowledge Publishing = Klogging</BLOCKQUOTE> I'm still working on the ??  </BLOCKQUOTE> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000384.html Entropy, big-KM, klogging and the wheel Tue, 20 Aug 2002 19:57:17 +0100 <A href="http://www.rolandtanglao.com/2002/08/18.html#a2630">Roland's Natural Klog Progression.</A>. I spoke of <A href="http://dijest.com/2002/08/13.html#a1927">four klogging roles</A> last week: catalyst, coach, armorer, practice leader. <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0107808/2002/08/19.html#a287">Matt Mower</A> advocates the the role of "Intranet Editor:" <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> Much as the users of a Wiki should occasionally re-factor pages that are becoming "busy" I think that a good intranet editor should be grooming the klogs in their organization and drawing together useful strangs to form part (or all) of the static intranet.</BLOCKQUOTE> <A href="http://www.rolandtanglao.com/">Roland Tanglao</A> builds on this: <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> I think <A href="http://www.rolandtanglao.com/categories/radiouserland/2002/06/02.html#a2066">a natural progression for knowledge</A> is: <OL> <LI>blog breaking news <LI>harvest it periodically (say weekly) into an FAQ and/or other knowledge base type of documents <LI>Put the link into a a directory that supports transclusion like Manila style directories. </LI></OL> K-Log => (FAQ or other knowlegebase article) => directory.   K-Logs need to be periodically (at least once a month) harvested for content that should go into an FAQ or other knowledgebase document and links that that should go into a directory. This is the job of a K-Log editor :-)! I have been trying to do this with VanEats but after a klog gets to a certain size, it really needs to have some time set aside for it.</BLOCKQUOTE> Practice Leader is probably the closest to a dedicated multi-author editor. Summarizing work in a field, showing the aggregate progress and useful threads. Structuring knowledge into FAQs or other KM systems may be a natural progression, especially as klogging tools and KM tools build bridges. Entropy, bad. Fighting entropy, expensive, slow.  Self-review is a powerful tool for learning. Going over my own posts for the past week, month, and quarter has shown patterns I missed, ideas I was skirting but never wrote outright. It reinforced brief social connections, blogs to which I linked to and people with whom I briefly corresponded. It takes concentrated time and effort. It helps me to print out all the pages on my blog for that period; something about shuffling through paper. Folks are trying hard to automate this work. Summarizers. Cluster analysis. Text to Structure converters. Taxonomy systems. But the expert author of the original content is often the best judge of relevance. [<A href="http://dijest.com/aka/">a klog apart</A>] <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » I think one of the things about klogs is that are no better than any other KM system when it comes to entropy.  In fact they are likely to be a hell of a lot worse -- it's just the entropy matters less.  Any information system that isn't properly maintained has the potential to quickly deteriorate into chaos. The fact is that most people don't want to have to find just the right place to put something.  Most people aren't going to review what they have done.   You can force this behaviour, you can encourage it.  But is it really necessary that everyone has to become a librarian in order to function in a knowledge environment? My alternative is that we recognize and promote the value of good editing (and, hence, good editors).  Have an editor/practice leader to head each area whose responsibility it is to aggregate good knowledge.  Then reward them when they do it well.   Example:  Look at the number of search engine queries for specific keywords.  Tie those keywords to projects/areas.  If the number of searches trends downwards something is working.  Okay, too simplistic? Then suggest something better! An area I have been thinking about is how I would integrate the idea of uploading files to a KM system when klogging.  One approach would be to provide some kind of clever dialogue to allow the user to specify where they want the file to end up.  That sounds like hard work for me & for the user. Alternative strategy:  Allow the user to put a file in an enclosure.  Radio will upstream it to the KM server as part of the RSS feed.  The KM server will toss the file into an upload bucket in an area based upon the metadata of the post (ala liveTopics).  It's then up to the practice leader for that area to decide where the document actually belongs and move it there (or indeed if it belongs at all). Is this less efficient?  Maybe so.  Is it more effective?  I think so. Agree? Disagree?  Ideas?</BLOCKQUOTE> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000386.html More on licensing for liveTopics Tue, 20 Aug 2002 23:18:09 +0100 Here's how I'm leaning: <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> I make liveTopics free software issued under the GPL. </BLOCKQUOTE> I can see the arguments for and against commercial licenses for the software.  But like the Zope guys I have weigh up how much license revenue I'm actually likely to generate versus the inertia that having to pay could generate.  I'm hoping to build a reputation in the KM/klogging space and liveTopics if widely accepted could be a part of that.  I also want to take liveTopics into corporate blogging directories, topic-maps, XTM, and visualization.  I want to take it into group/shared-blogging.  I want lots of you to come along for the ride. So I think it's real values to me are: <UL> <LI>reputation</LI> <LI>a lead-in to other services</LI> <LI>the vision</LI></UL> The other services could be support, as well as more general KM/klogging consultancy or integration work. Am I making sense?  I guess we'll know if I end up starving and homeless in 6 months time! http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000399.html PKP is to blogging, as TKP is to klogging Wed, 21 Aug 2002 14:43:29 +0100 I've was speaking with <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0112134/">Mike O'Reilly</A> about liveTopics, Radio, open source and what to call klogging.   He very kindly reminded me that I am old enough to be considered an anachronism by some people.  My love of "Personal Knowledge Publishing" comes from it's link to the DTP revolution.  But Mike made it clear that most people today didn't go through that.  To them DTP means Word and it's not exciting, it doesn't harken back to a revolution.  Oh well, drop that idea then. We then went through collaborative, professional, business, and didn't like any of them enough to agree on it. Then it occurred to me to cut to the chase: <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> klogging = Tacit Knowledge Publishing</BLOCKQUOTE> This captures both the personal element that I think is so important, and the collaborative element. It also supports the storytelling metaphor which I am coming around to in a big way. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000414.html You cannot make people smarter Thu, 22 Aug 2002 17:07:26 +0100 <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0107808/">Curiouser and curiouser!</A> raises some unresolved <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0107808/2002/08/19.html#a286">Klogging issues</A>: <UL> <LI>Klogs can overlap with existing formal systems - does klogging means that the same thing is not reported in formal way? <LI>Decentralised klogging vs. organisational trends to control.  <LI>Does klog makes it easier to control you? <LI>As klogs are not really secure, could you post anything anything sensitive? <LI>Are big-KM vendors missing the point?</LI></UL> I love this issue popping up again and again: how control and formal structures can coexist with natural informal networks. I'm not sure that I want to tackle the whole issue, but at least I want to look at the learning side of it. <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> [from my PhD proposal] Learning is best described by the metaphor you can lead horse to the water, but you cannot make it drinking, or as <A href="http://www.kessels-smit.nl/Introductie/Employees/Joseph_Kessels2/joseph_kessels2.html">Joseph Kessels</A> says you cannot make people smarter. Even in the case of formal learning an organisation does not have control over employees brain and heart, so in order to benefit from employee learning, companies have to find the way to support and encourage it without full control. The author believes that the answer lies in supporting interplay between individual and organisational needs by relating and integrating employee-driven informal learning and organisation-driven formal learning. </BLOCKQUOTE> [<A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0109961/">Mathemagenic</A>] <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » Thanks to [<A href="http://www.gurteen.com/">DG</A>] for putting me on to Mathemagenic. <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> "You cannot make people smarter."</BLOCKQUOTE> I believe this to be true.  However I also think that: <OL> <LI>Not every organisation believes that, e.g. the amount of money spent each year on training that <A href="http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=why+training+doesn%27t+work">doesn't work</A>.</LI> <LI>Not every organisation cares how smart it's people are (no matter how much they spend on investors in people logos)</LI></OL> All that downsizing.  All those drives for efficiency at any cost.  They have created environments of paranoia and hostility where there is no interplay between individual and organisation. My fear is that klogging will only thrive in organisations that are healthy, and that there may not be enough of them.  Or, worse, that klogging will thrive as a control mechanism imposed by insecure and fearful management.  I don't want to be a part of that.</BLOCKQUOTE> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000430.html A klog is... Fri, 23 Aug 2002 15:13:07 +0100 <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0110772/2002/08/23.html#a175">"A K-log is..." and lessons learned from a large-scale K-logging implementation</A>. "A K-log is a knowledge-management weblog, where you use weblogging tools (like <A href="http://www.blogger.com/">Blogger</A>, <A href="http://www.userland.com/">Manila, or Radio</A>) to write about your work, what happens, and what you know about. Presumably everybody else does too -- or some reasonable portion of "everybody else". Then you might use RSS to aggregate all this content, and you have the core of a knowledge management system." writes <A href="http://www.empire.net/~peterh/blog.html">Pete Harbeson</A>. [<A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0110772/">Seb's Open Research</A>] http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000443.html Lessons learned from a large scale K-logging implementation Fri, 23 Aug 2002 15:59:13 +0100 <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0110772/2002/08/23.html#a175">"A K-log is..." and lessons learned from a large-scale K-logging implementation</A>. I've learned a few lessons along the way, with (I'm sure) many more to come. They are: <UL> <LI>Posting the information is a small problem. Organizing and retrieving it is a big problem. We're working on a shared ontology and RDF metadata. <LI>Most people don't like to write. We've had a difficult time designing interfaces that encourage adding information instead of just reading. <LI>There's no substitute for good, accessible writing. We have several people who write consistently for the system. The logs show that postings from one writer get far more attention and prompt far more linking than those from the other writers. "</LI></UL> [<A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0110772/">Seb's Open Research</A>] <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » These are really good points.  The second is a bit worrying.</BLOCKQUOTE> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000445.html A kloggers strength... Fri, 23 Aug 2002 18:44:09 +0100 Lunch break: switching from work to reflection... <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0107808/">Curiouser and curiouser!</A> in <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0107808/2002/08/22.html#a323">You cannot make people smarter</A>: <BLOCKQUOTE>My fear is that klogging will only thrive in organisations that are healthy, and that there may not be enough of them.  Or, worse, that klogging will thrive as a control mechanism imposed by insecure and fearful management.  I don't want to be a part of that.</BLOCKQUOTE> I don't think that klogging could be imposed: in "no trust culture" even if someone asks me what I'm thinking about, I can always say something else. If imposed, klogs can only capture formal activities, that in many cases go to all kinds of reports in any case. Klogs can turn in a new kind of reporting tool. This could be not so bad if it replaces all other reports. If we think about <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0107808/2002/08/09.html#a253">klogs as project management tool</A>, why not to extent it to the reporting tool? Finally, I would put it broader: I don't want to be a part of unhealthy (in cultural sense) organisation. I simply wouldn't be able to realise my ambitions in this case. [<A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0109961/">Mathemagenic</A>] <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » I feel I should clarify my remark. I agree that valuable klogging activity cannot be imposed, I am worried about the darker aspects of klogging techniques as they might be employed by weak and insecure management. To paraphase a master of KM: "Remember, a Klogger's strength flows from the Force. But beware. Anger, fear, agression. The dark side are they. Once you start down the dark path, forever it will dominate your destiny." My hope is that they're all too busy giving their employees random drug tests and installing spy cameras to figure out what we're doing.</BLOCKQUOTE> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000450.html There's a hole in my bucket... Tue, 27 Aug 2002 08:11:14 +0100 Here's a thought. As a klogger, over the past 3 months or so, I have recorded & published tens if not hundreds of thoughts.  I doubt if I shared one quarter of output during the last 6 years I worked at various companies.  Oh I would probably have emailed here and there, spoken up during meetings.  But I wonder just how much knowledge is being lost, second by second, in most companies by each employee.  Then multiply up... http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000462.html Klogging vs. SFA's Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:24:23 +0100 I've been thinking about a new (at least I think it's new) area where klogging could take wing namely as a way of augmenting a Sales Force Automation (SFA) suite. I've got a little experience here and in particular with some of the pitfalls of an SFA.  For example an SFA will typically only work well if: <UL> <LI>Everyone who should be entering data does so <LI>In a timely fashion <LI>The data is good <LI>The data remains good</LI></UL> Where an SFA implementation is not working I think the reasons are often both psychological and technological. On the one hand there are reps who do not want to share information.  They will actively try to avoid or work around the SFA system where possible.  The solutions to this problem are probably not technical in nature.  Klogging has nothing to offer these people since their whole mindset is the opposite of a klogging mindset. However I think there are also a lot of reps who, all things being equal, would use the system properly.  So what stops them?  I think it comes down to one or both of: <UL> <LI>They are not technically able to master the interface of the SFA <LI>The perceived benefits of the SFA to them (i.e. to their commission levels) do not justify the amount of work required of them to be good users.</LI></UL> And then I started to wonder whether a klogging system might not be able to help bridge this kind of gap. Here's how it goes: I think that a Radio based klog is, after the installation is over, very easy to use.  Okay templates & categories can cause confusion, but neither are required to use Radio for klogging work.  Company level IT people can do the installation and configuration.  Every sales person I have met could handle posting to a klog. Our rep would klog entries whenever they have contact with suspects, prospects or customers.  They would do this instead of making entries in the SFA.  One immediate benefit for the rep is that they can do this whilst disconnected (not many SFA systems seem to have a workable disconnected mode).  A good example might be klogging the results of a meeting with a client whilst sat in the car outside the clients premises -- not having to wait to get home or back to the office. Every activity that could go into the SFA could also be klogged and much more easily.  Telephone calls, meetings, even emails could be copied & pasted from Outlook (Yes, don't look so horrified!).  The k-log interface is so simple that I think you could achieve untypical levels of rep activity.  klogging in this way would build up a considerable database of information about each contact.  For a sales manager this begins to pay off immediately.  By subscribing to the klog of each of their rep's they would immediately have great visibility into the current pipeline. But what about the SFA?  Okay imagine we have someone else working back at base who is also subscribed to the RSS feed of one or more of the rep's k-logs.  Their job is to extract from those k-logs the information that the SFA needs to do it's job.  With the correct metadata being applied to each k-log post this would be a pretty simple clerking task and could even be automated (I can imagine using "templated" posts to help with this).  In addition the SFA should be linking back to the k-logs so as not to duplicate information unncessarily (this makes the k-logs more closely part of the CRM solution). I guess what I'm suggesting is using klogging for effective data capture by the reps and to build the database of suspect/prospect knowledge.  Then, as a separate step and done by someone else, updating the SFA as much as required to enable the overview & forecasting functionality that an SFA gives you.   Does anyone have any views about this idea? http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000465.html Klogs can improve the value of what you write Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:27:46 +0100 <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0107808/">Curiouser and curiouser!</A> in <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0107808/2002/08/27.html#a339">There's a hole in my bucket...</A>. <BLOCKQUOTE>As a klogger, over the past 3 months or so, I have recorded & published tens if not hundreds of thoughts.  I doubt if I shared one quarter of output during the last 6 years I worked at various companies.  Oh I would probably have emailed here and there, spoken up during meetings.  But I wonder just how much knowledge is being lost, second by second, in most companies by each employee.  Then multiply up...</BLOCKQUOTE> But even if they would catch those thoughts, it's going to be very difficult to find something relevant and to understand it our of the context. More or less like forum discussion: you have to follow for some time to make sense of it. Going through blog archives is not easy... So far I benefit more from the distributed dialog and from the collective filtering. So, blogs is more for sharing, rather than capturing... [<A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0109961/">Mathemagenic</A>] <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » I don't think this problem is necessarily inherent in blogging/klogging as practiced, more a problem in the simple calendar based access method most weblogs provide by default. But there are other options, for example a Radio weblog with liveTopics adds another dimension for relating posts together to create a train of thought.  You can follow a topic from a post into a table of contents where you can see other posts referencing that topic.  You can also see, for each post, other topics that were associated with it allowing you to hop from one subject of conversation to another. The next level is based upon XML topic maps (in XTM format) which I am experimenting with generating right now.  This will allow you to reconstruct the weblog to serve different purposes and, by merging topic maps from different weblogs together, to analyse a larger conversational "space." All in all I think klogs will, ultimately, vastly improve the ability for people to find things that are relevant and meaningful among the discourse of themselves and others.  </BLOCKQUOTE> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000468.html Where's the leak for klogs? Sun, 29 Sep 2002 21:27:46 +0100 <A href="http://www.wileycanada.com/cda/product/0,,0471219061%7Ctoc%7C2496,00.html">Klogging and cyclical employment.</A>. Industry cycles are hard on knowledge. <UL> <LI>Your workforce sucks up knowledge as it expands. <LI>It bleeds experience when it contracts. </LI></UL> Do you want <A href="http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=%22knowledge+continuity%22">knowledge continuity</A>? Try <A href="http://dijest.editthispage.com/klogs">klogging</A>. [a klog apart: <A class=navigatorLink href="http://dijest.com/aka/categories/klogs/">klogs</A>] [<A href="http://dijest.com/aka/">a klog apart</A>] <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » Now this kind of argument really plays well to me.  To me it makes sense: invest in the future. But the Geoffrey Moore's recent webcast has really crystalized my experiences of last year.  Nobody's buying a better tomorrow.  The only way to sell anything right now is to find people with toothache, tell them it's going to get worse tomorrow and then ask if they want your Novacaine. This is leading me to try and think:  What is the immediate and pressing pain for which klogging might be the relief?</BLOCKQUOTE> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000627.html Would you like a test drive? Sun, 06 Oct 2002 08:44:47 +0100 <A href="http://www.ashleyit.com/blogs/brentashley/archives/000413.html">Before you get in the car, you need a driver and a map.</A>. Matt Mower comments on my altruism as a cultivated resource comments: ... I listened to a Geoffrey Moore webcast recently... [<A href="http://www.ashleyit.com/blogs/brentashley">brentashley</A>] <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » Brent makes a good point.  Much of the difficulty with business blogging is not technical in nature:  <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> It's a problem of an entrenched culture of insecurity that results in hoarding of knowledge and attempts to steer personal and corporate destinies by controlling knowledge flow.</BLOCKQUOTE> And he goes on to say: <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> Our problem is that we're trying to sell sets of fancy wheels to people who don't know how or why to drive, let alone have a map of where they're going. They get in, crash into the first obstacle they find, get out and slam the door, muttering about how this damn car can't drive straight.</BLOCKQUOTE> However I think this is a best case scenario right now.  It seems to me that only organisations with a <A href="http://www.windley.com/">Phil</A> at the helm that even go for the test drive.</BLOCKQUOTE> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000651.html Pleased to meet you. Mon, 07 Oct 2002 13:03:15 +0100 <A href="http://www.rklau.com/tins/2002/10/06.html#a571">Piloting a K-Log</A>. We're kicking off a k-log initiative at my company tomorrow. I've identified a dozen people to serve as guinea pigs. IT installs the software tomorrow, and they'll take a few days to get familiar with the software. Rather than bombard them with any formal training right away, I want them to be comfortable with what's on the screen - at least that way they'll figure out what questions they want to ask. So far, people seem cautiously optimistic about the concept. We're great at using our own product for CRM - but we haven't committed enterprise wide to doing anything like this other than CRM. Wish us luck! [<A href="http://www.rklau.com/tins/">tins ::: Rick Klau's weblog</A>] <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » It was my great pleasure to meet Rick last night and share a few beers at the Chandos pub near Trafalgar Square.  For a man on 7 hours sleep outta 48, Rick was remarkably cogent ;-) More on this later.</BLOCKQUOTE> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000654.html Anybody got a wrench? Sun, 13 Oct 2002 19:30:49 +0100 So, a description of services, I should be able to whip that up in a couple of minutes shouldn't I?   Turns out its a bit of a chase your own tail problem for me. Services I can offer fall under three broad categories: <UL> <LI>Consulting <LI>Implementation <LI>Product</LI></UL> Way back, when the madness first gripped me, it was on my mind to be a consultant.  I'd done product and implementation and really wanted to move to where the decisions are made.  Unfortunately I didn't heed the warnings.  Consulting is about 80% network and 80% reputation.  You could probably survive with either and thrive with both.  But neither...?  Right. Now implementation skills I have.  No problems there.  I can hook & eye systems together with the best of 'em.  I also have a budding application in "!livetopics".  If I could just choose between them I should be okay right?  Turns out there's a problem though. Because there are no klogging consultants in the UK, there are no pilot programs already in place.  Nobody needs implementation services if they aren't implementing things.  Rats.  Well then how about product? "!liveTopics" is a knowledge-logging application built on "!radio".  But that makes it an application without a market (at least in the UK).  If there is no existing market and no consultants out there fostering a market that leaves a big hole where the customers should be.  Anyway we all now how difficult it is to be a software company post-1999. And last but not least: Where's the leaky pipe? I've referred a few times to Geoffrey Moore's <A href="http://www.rklau.com/tins/2002/09/25.html#a540">leaky pipes</A> metaphor.  That, in todays market, company's will only spend money to fix their pressing problems (their leaky pipes) and then only if it looks like the leak will get worse soon, and then only if the fix can pay for itself.  I'll also note in passing that Moore says that business by referral becomes even more important in a down market.  Nobody wants to trust a software company anymore. Hence my recent interest in framing klogging as the solution to a leaky pipe kind of problem.  I believe that if this is possible then many of the other pieces might fit into place.  But so far I haven't found the a compelling pipe for which klogging will be the wrench.  It still all too "a better tomorrow." So, that's the problems.  The challenge is in 28-days or less to turn this around and create a compelling statement of services. All suggestions warmly welcomed! http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000711.html Digesting knowledge management technology Tue, 15 Oct 2002 20:43:23 +0100 Over today I've been digesting <A href="http://researchweb.watson.ibm.com/journal/sj/404/marwick.html">Knowledge Management Technology</A> by A. D. Marwick It was an interesting although in some ways unsatisfying read.  I found the earlier more general sections more interesting and useful than the later sections which actually analysed the technology.  That may be because I had more to learn from those earlier sections. Some preliminary thoughts: "Knowledge" in this context includes both the experience and understanding of the people in the organisation and the information artifacts, such as documents and reports available within the organisation and in the world outside. <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » We value experience and tend to reward it commensurately.  In a down economy headcount reduction is often used to pair down expenditure but at the same time it tends to pair down experience.  Investment in knowledge management (particularly tacit->tacit and tacit->explicit) is a defensive tactic for dealing with this.  For the same reason it could be viewed as a hostile technology by staff who might see themselves as being "in the firing line."   </BLOCKQUOTE> Tacit knowledge is actionable knowledge. <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » Not sure I understand this point.  Is explicit knowledge not actionable?  I guess I'm going to have to understand the term 'actionable knowledge' a little better.</BLOCKQUOTE> The key to knowledge creation lies in the mobilization and conversion of tacit knowledge. <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » A key point from Nonaka.</BLOCKQUOTE> Creation of new knowledge takes place through the processes of combination and internalization. <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » An interesting point.  Ref Nonaka, Internalization is defined as: <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> explicit -> tacit (e.g. learn from a report)</BLOCKQUOTE> Combation as: <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> explicit -> explicit (e.g. e-mail a report)</BLOCKQUOTE> Need to think more on this.  I'm not quite there.</BLOCKQUOTE> Knowledge sharing is often done without ever producing explicit knowledge and, to be most effective, should take place between people who have a common culture and can work together effectively. <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » Follow up the Davenport & Prusak reference. It would be interesting to study the cultural differences and similarities of groups of webloggers who are sharing knowledge successfully.  What are the interesting cultural segments in blogland?</BLOCKQUOTE> Externalization (tacit->explicit): By it's nature, tacit knowledge is difficult to convert into explicit knowledge.  Through conceptualization, elicitation, and ultimately articulation, typically in collaboration with others, some proportion of a person's tacit knowledge may be captured in explicit form.  Typical activities in which the conversion takes place are dialog among team members, in responding to questions, or through the elicitation of stories. <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » Key section. We're in the meat of klogging here.  Attempting to convert our mental models into text the better to share and collaborate with others. Note: elicitation of stories in this sense could just as well be capturing best practice,...</BLOCKQUOTE> For example, knowledge creation results from interaction of persons and tacit and explicit knowledge. <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » Seems to contradict the earlier point slightly.  This one makes more sense to me.</BLOCKQUOTE> Through interaction with other, tacit knowledge is externalized and shared. <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » A key goal must therefore to be to make sure that we are able to interact with the right people and that our information is in a form that is suitable for sharing. Free text is obviously the most flexible but as many others have observed it may be useful to have templates that provide some form.  This might also be useful for introducing those who aren't comfortable with the idea of writing what they think. Rick Klau made an interesting observation when we met up.  To get people into klogging provide them with the Radio aggregator and simply tell them to re-post any item they think is interesting. This is sharing at it's simplest.  In my view once someone gets the hang of this they will make the next step - adding a simple commentary - themself.  Even if it is just one word here and there. What will be required to get full engagement will be an issue that they feel the need to speak out on.  A weblog is not just a bunch of text, it is a voice.</BLOCKQUOTE> the greatest value occurs from their (the 4 processes) combination since, as already noted, new knowledge is thereby created, disseminated, and internalized by other employees who can therefore act on it, and thus form new experiences and tacit knowledge that can in turn be shared with others and so on. <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » I think in reading this I was again reminded of the question: What is the value of new knowledge, of a new idea.  This idea of creating new knowledge doesn't seem as if it will play well in the downturn "evolution not revolution" "fix the leaky pipes" mindset. It's far more in tune with the "!garyhamel" mindset: Coming up with discontinuities that create new markets.</BLOCKQUOTE> In any case, automatic extraction of deep knowledge from documents is an elusive goal. <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » True.  Although it will be interesting to see what tools like "!cyc" will be able to do as they mature.</BLOCKQUOTE> However, the candidate pieces of extracted knowledge must still be presented to a human for review and final decision, so that the value of the system is in increasing the productivity of the human analysts. <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » Yep</BLOCKQUOTE> The greatest difficulty in knowledge management identified by the respondents in a survey was "changing peoples behaviour" and the current biggest impedement to knowledge transfer was "culture." <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » Key point. There is little technology can do about culture.  This maybe shouldn't worry us since because, as Seb pointed out in a <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0110772/2002/10/08.html#a413">recent post</A> (regarding a Darwin article), "Natural selection will take care of those companies (and individuals) who can't or won't do it". Technology can come to bear on behaviour though.  Two enablers will be: <UL dir=ltr> <LI> <DIV>software that encourages & supports behavioural change</DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV>software that requires less behavioural change</DIV></LI></UL> as appropriate.</BLOCKQUOTE> Ackerman refers to this situation as a "social technical gap." <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » This is the gap that good software must attempt to bridge.  Current paradigm weblog software is I think a step forwards and a step backwards. Forwards in that it supports the right behaviour, but backwards in that the key to weblogging is writing and hence it smacks straight into the barriers discussed recently about "why won't people write."</BLOCKQUOTE>  Shared experiences are in important basis for the formation and sharing of tacit knowledge. <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » Again this relates back to the point about culture.  A shared culture implies a set of common experiences that form the culture.  Hence why storytelling is important.  So we need tools that support shared experience and, hence, the capturing of context.  (Again this relates to my recent reading on best practices)</BLOCKQUOTE> A richer kind of shared experience can be provided by applications that support real-time on-line meetings (i.e. groupware) <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » Yep.  I've <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0107808/2002/10/15.html#a483">just been musing</A> on an IM client I would like to have to support richer online collaboration than "just text".  Also Marc Canter & co. have been working on the idea of <A href="http://blogs.it/0100198/2002/09/20.html#a184">multimedia conversations</A> for some time. For myself I would like to try experimenting with VideoBlogging.</BLOCKQUOTE>   More later...   http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000733.html Can you see the light? Tue, 22 Oct 2002 23:05:17 +0100 I don't know where to start, so I'm just going to start. Keys problem in my efforts to define services for klogging have been: <UL> <LI>Blue Sky - Klogging is a better tomorrow, golden path, etc...</LI> <LI>Scattershot - Ooh it does this, and this, and this, and...</LI> <LI>Where do I fit in?  "He doesn't look like a real consultant.  Quick! Don't let him get away!"</LI></UL> Well I've seen the light ladies and gentlemen.  In the time left to me, before the great job in the sky beckons, my approach shall be: <UL> <LI>Klogging as an applied business tool.  How much money will this save you today, tomorrow, this week, next week</LI> <LI>1 problem at a time</LI> <LI>I am providing consultancy, implementation and product.  I may not look like a consultant but I know how many beans make 5.  Also this is a non-existant market, there's nobody else doing this stuff to make me look bad.</LI></UL> Only when I've got some success from this approach will I broaden it out, leveraging case studies and satisfied customers.  Sound sensible? I'm open to suggestions about what people think is the most fertile ground to start on but my own preference right now is visbility.  I choose this because it is: <UL> <LI>a recognised problem, I don't think anyone claims that visibility within companies isn't an issue for them anymore (or do they? I don't want to kid myself again)</LI> <LI>affects all companies large and small, in all markets and sectors, i.e. universally applicable</LI> <LI>klogging provides a unique and, hopefully, compelling solution</LI></UL> I'm going to try and flesh this out into a proper paper/article/story in the next couple of days but here is the main gist. Organisations have difficulty knowing what is going on both internally within their own systems and at their edges (in interaction with customers, partners, suppliers and so forth).  The tools most commonly used to address this are (in no particular order): <UL> <LI>e-mails</LI> <LI>mailing lists</LI> <LI>bulletins</LI> <LI>magazines</LI> <LI>news letters</LI> <LI>web pages</LI> <LI>meetings</LI> <LI>telephone calls</LI></UL> Each of these can under the right circumstance be an appropriate tool for improving visibility, but they are not a general solution and as organisations have discovered they have many shortcomings and pitfalls.  In short they don't address the real problem. The issues I have identified are: <UL> <LI>Asynchronous / Synchronous</LI> <LI>Passive / Interruptive</LI> <LI>Self-archiving / Self-destructing</LI> <LI>Lateral / Hierarchical</LI> <LI>Deep / Opaque</LI> <LI>Public / Secret</LI> <LI>Connected / Disconnected</LI> <LI>Matrix / Linear</LI></UL> There may be more formal, well known terms for each of these, and I will explain more later to allow people to guide me.  It may also be that there is considerable overlap here.  But what I've tried to do is think about the various attributes of the problem and solutions and come up with axes that describe them and allow judgements to be made. In my opinion, for improved visibility, the left hand choices are important and the right hand choices lead to solutions that, whilst they may be effective in specific cases, are generally sub-optimal. It is also my opinion (although this may be self-fulfilling prophecy at work) that k-logging fulfills all of the left hand choices. Hopefully I will get enough down tomorrow for you to judge for yourselves. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000764.html You have to see the production Wed, 23 Oct 2002 13:54:20 +0100 "!lilia" has pointed me at <A href="http://www.kellogg.nwu.edu/faculty/mcgee/htm/blog/stories/2002/03/21/KnowledgeWorkAsCraft.html">Knowledge work as craft work</A> an article from April 2002 by "!mostlymcgee" which is most pertinent given my new focus on visibility. It's a good read.  Of particular interest to me was where Jim talks about how, with the advent of purely digital methods of working, only the finished product survives.  This implies that it is only the finished item, and not how it was derived, that has value.  But we know that's wrong, our experience tells us that seeing the production is how we learn. Another key aspect to visibility into a process is what you do when the finished item turns out to be wrong.  If you need to backtrack and try a new direction, what are you working from? http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000769.html Seeds & notes Wed, 27 Nov 2002 11:38:04 +0000 <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0106698/2002/11/26.html#a79">Improved Weblogging: Seeds and Notes</A>. Summary: In this entry I argue that a different position in a process of research/inquiry (thought development?) probably requires a different treatment in the weblogging, klogging process. I discuss a simple model of the thinking process and how each piece of the model might be treated differently by the weblogger. Bottom line is that Radio can be used to support such differentiation. See below for details. [<A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0106698/">Connectivity: Spike Hall's RU Weblog</A>] <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » An enjoyable piece from Spike about the development and communication of ideas and how it relates to weblogs.  I like the concept of seeds & notes and how they relate to socialized and unsocialized thoughts. This is of particular interest to me now because I am trying to think of places where weblogging fits naturally into a business.  It's been suggested that research (companies or departments) is a natural fit since people are already conditioned to write (seemingly a barrier to adoption so far).  It also helps that people working with ideas are likely to abound with undeveloped micro-content.  Weblogs are a great way to record, develop and ultimately communicate that. Anyone working in research want to try help design and run a pilot knowledge-logging program?</BLOCKQUOTE> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000876.html Did you hear something? Thu, 12 Dec 2002 11:40:34 +0000 <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <A href="http://weblog.halmacomber.com/#90003486">Reduce Project Variability...Start Listening</A>. I've been teaching listening from the time I started teaching project management. Invariably, a large percentage (often a great majority) of the sources of mis-coordination on projects is the result of project participants not listening. Mis-listening just adds to the variability and uncertainty on our projects. [<A href="http://weblog.halmacomber.com/">Reforming Project Management</A>]</BLOCKQUOTE> With thanks to <A href="http://dijest.com/aka/">Phil</A> for rsstroducing me to Hal's blog and to a great post.  It's also a great advert for k-logs since reading k-logs is all about listening. Was it Phil who, a little while ago, advised the idea of using k-logs to let projects fail fast.  Reading the k-logs of the people on the team (or perhaps a consolidated feed built from & filtered out of their individual feeds) is a key aspect of how you understand what is happening on the project, how you can tell if it is failling and understand the issues. I've pondered risk management in projects before.  No project worth doing comes without risks and the challenge is often to understand what the real risks are and to spot them in time to do something about them.  Again, this is listening.  How can you sense when a risk is rearing it's head for real?  How can you tell when a new issue is emerging that should make it onto your list? If listening is the stethoscope then k-logs are the heartbeat (...too much? :-) ) http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000992.html Knowledge maps for k-logs Tue, 17 Dec 2002 08:35:18 +0000 <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> OPML directories I agree on the <A href="http://scriptingnews.userland.com/backissues/2002/12/15#When:1:27:25PM">fact</A> that "OPML" directories are a very interesting part of the development of content/knowledge management systems. I think that a particulary interesting application of this technology are self-building directories. This is what we are working on with <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0107808/">Matt</A> and with his <A href="http://www.novissio.com/Downloads/liveTopics/livetopics.html">LiveTopics</A> Radio tool. It's somehow similar to what Dave describe as "timeless weblog", but instead of routing each post to one node, it will do it to several nodes in different categories and, most of all, it will be based on a server-side RSS 2.0 parser, so it will be able to organize contents from several k-logs. What we are working on is the automatic creation of a directory containing knowledge maps based on the topics attached to each post. The main use will be k-logging, but we are already seeing other intresting applications. Stay tuned. [<A href="http://paolo.evectors.it/">Paolo Valdemarin: Paolo's Weblog</A>]</BLOCKQUOTE> Right on! http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00001005.html klog as sounding board Mon, 30 Dec 2002 19:46:14 +0000 <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0110772/2002/12/29.html#a682">Multiplier effects in klognets</A>. <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0114870/stories/2002/12/16/theWebloggingMultiplierEff.html">The Weblogging Multiplier Effect</A>. Some thoughts about the significance of weblogging for instruction and scholarship. [<A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0114870/">EduResources</A>] [...] The booster or multiplier that occurs when a person writes about what she or he thinks, observes, and reads, and then receives comments from others within a few hours or days makes an incalculable difference--the difference between private and public writing. This difference multiplies what can be learned and also multiplies the responsibility for thinking through what is said. If a writer's greatest tool is a large wastebasket (as, I believe, Hemingway remarked); the next greatest tool is a real audience.</BLOCKQUOTE> Again, very good stuff from Joseph Hart. A must-read. In a similar vein, see the article by Verna Allee containing the famous quote <A href="http://www.odnetwork.org/odponline/vol32n4/knowledgenets.html">Knowledge = power, so share and it multiplies</A>. [<A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0110772/">Seb's Open Research</A>]</BLOCKQUOTE> I've always been happiest when I have a sounding board for my ideas which are often half-formed or just plain out of phase.  The power of the weblog as sounding board is that those ideas can kick around some, be rediscovered when the time is right or just act as big flags to warn you "danger Will Robinson!" http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00001016.html A context for k-logging success Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:43:22 +0000 I've been spending some time thinking about how to employ k-logs in a business and, in particular, in a business which does not primarily see itself as a "knowledge business" but as a production business.  I'm thinking about the challenges of getting people who don't routinely use computers as part of their work to not only become part of a KM project but to thrive in it. It's probably no surprise that I think k-logs are a good idea but, in the 6 months or so since I took up this sword I haven't really seen the practical evidence of this.  Where are the big deployments?  Where are the articles and papers? I think k-logs struggle when it comes to practical implementation because, good idea or not, they do not stand on their own.  They struggle without a wider context in which they can make sense.  This leads me back to a question I have mulled before which is about the boundary between k-logs and the legacy intranet. k-logs, to me, should be the living, beating heart of an organisation.  The posts racing from aggregator to aggregator are like the blood pumping around the organism, connecting parts together and ensuring they are healthy.  But if these posts are not to be ephemera then they have to go somewhere, they have to gain a context within the wider organisation and it's memory systems. I predict that successful k-logging will require an interface between k-logs themselves and more established systems & groups.  At the moment I think the 3 most likely candidates are: <UL> <LI>Communities of Practice</LI> <LI>Best Practice Programs</LI> <LI>After-Action-Reviews</LI></UL> Each of these has a review element and a sense of producing something in aggregate from what they review.  I think it will be these groups who will mine an organisations k-logs and make best use of them.  And it will be participation in such groups that will create loops back into the heart of the organisation, keep it connected, keep it alive. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00001201.html klogging staff directories Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:02:14 +0000 <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <A href="http://www.highcontext.com/blarchive/2003_02_25.html">Staff Directories</A>. Column Two has posted a "<A title="Column Two: Staff directories" href="http://www.steptwo.com.au/columntwo/archives/000518.html#000518">list of what you might consider including in your staff directory</A>." A few extras we are considering for our staff directory, in addition to those on James' list, include: <UL> <LI>regular work hours <LI>telecommuting days with contact info <LI>teams you are a member of (we are a team-based staff) <LI>teams you are interested in <LI>self-selected subject areas of expertise (drawn from our thesaurus) <LI>self-selected subject areas of interest (also drawn from our thesaurus) </LI></UL> [<A href="http://www.highcontext.com/">High Context</A>]</BLOCKQUOTE> On the original post, Phil Wolff comments: <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> Check out http://tacit.com. They mine worker emails, blogs, and documents to extract full-text profiles. It's almost impossible to anticpate every need, and always impossible to get everyone to fill out such comprehensive self descriptions. Tacit presents their mining results to you, letting choose what to share with your colleagues and whether to share it anonymously. On the search side, you find three French speakers with an HR background, two with public contact info and one anonymously that tacits contacts on your behalf. That's why klogging becomes so important. Lots more description of things that interest and matter to each person. </BLOCKQUOTE>   http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00001205.html Klogging context Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:11:16 +0000 Expanding on my thoughts of a couple of days ago I am still wondering:  What is the specific context in which someone who is not a k-log enthusiat, believer, etc... will actually use a k-log? <UL> <LI>When do they turn to it and write something? <LI>What should guide what they write? <LI>How are they going to speak up when they've never spoken before?</LI></UL> Hmmm.... http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00001228.html A new name for k-logs Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:16:53 +0000 In talking with <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0114726/">Ross</A> the other day we more or less agreed that the terms k-log and k-logging should be abandoned.  They are pretty horrible but I've kept using them as the defacto terms.  Not any longer.  I want to find new terminology. I'd like to offer up my current favourite: <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> Business Journal</BLOCKQUOTE> What do people think? I'd love to hear your alternatives. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00001229.html Contexts for Business Journalling Fri, 28 Feb 2003 12:32:54 +0000 <A href="http://www.thoughthorizon.com/">David Buchan</A> has prompted me to think a bit harder about the contextual problems faced by business journalling. I think that there are at least two problems which we must solve for business journalling to be a widespread success.  I'd be interested in hearing about other problems people have specifically identified. The first problem is what I would describe as: knowledge as a separate activity and the second as lacking a voice.  I think that the solution to both of these problems lies in finding contexts that enable people to journal more easily. Knowledge as a separate activity Some of my underlying assumptions about people at work are: <OL> <LI>most people do not love their job in the way that I (and other seeming KM enthusiasts) do <LI>most people do not see themselves as knowledge workers (especially those who are not desk bound and do not deal primarily with electronic info and, or, paper) <LI>most people have a view that learning is a discrete activity (we learn in a class-room during specified period, then go out and get on with the rest of our lives)</LI></OL> I think there is an "awakening" process that must happen before you begin to see how knowledge & learning are intertwined into everything you do.  Until then, I think that they are considered to be separate activities practiced in specific contexts (e.g. I am going on a training course). For the unawakened I think that a business journal is a big blank page that is quite scary and you need to be pretty bold to venture off without a map.  In these times of "Axes in the corridor" boldness isn't the first thing on everyone's mind. I think the answer lies in finding contexts which are less threatening and lead people to consider knowledge more often in their day and think about how knowledge affects everything they do.  I hope to tie business journalling to these contexts in the hope that I will have more success with my clients that way. Lacking a voice I think most people are conditioned to not say anything they don't have to. In school we are taught to be silent and only speak when questioned directly by an authority figure.  This process of conditioning is continued right the way through education and into work.  Hierarchies support this type of behaviour. Business journalling turns this don't speak until your spoken to ideology on it's head.  Now you're given a blank page and told to say whatever you think you should say (within limits).  I think that the evidence so far supports the conclusion that people are not comfortable with that. Drawing on my own experience I found beginning to blog was a challenge, i found myself afraid - not knowing what to say next.  I persevered, I think, because I have always wanted a voice: I dislike authority and am opinionated.  I don't necessarily think everyone else has the same drivers.  I'm also cognizant that, when I started, there was no axe that could fall.  I wasn't worried about saying the wrong thing, or having my words used against me.  I think these are common worries for anyone speaking up (regardless of the medium). Once again I think the answer is to look for contexts where people already think it's alright to voice their opinions and to leverage these contexts for business journalling success. Contexts As I mentioned in a recent post I think that two likely candidates are After Action Reviews and Communities of Practice. The After Action Review (AAR) is a technique that compares actual results of a task or project with the expected results.  The aim being to identify strengths and weaknesses and help teams to bond together and improve performance. Don Clark gives an <A href="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadaar.html">excellent summary</A> of the process and some of it's benefits.  From that I have highlighted some of the questions & talking points a good AAR should raise: <UL> <LI>Ask why certain actions were taken <LI>Ask how they reacted to certain situations <LI>Ask when actions were initiated <LI>Ask leading and thought provoking questions <LI>Exchange "war stories" (lessons learned) <LI>Ask employees what happened in their own point of view <LI>Relate events to subsequent results <LI>Explore alternative courses of actions that might have been more effective <LI>Complaints are handled positively <LI>When the discussion turns to errors made, emphasize the positive and point out the difficulties of making tough decisions. </LI></UL> These sound to me like fantastic material for building a business journal. The second context that I think could be very useful is the <A href="http://www.kmadvantage.com/cop.htm">Community of Practice</A>.  I don't want to write too much about these here because they're a big topic and I'm not an expert.  However one of the definitions given on the page I cite above is groups that learn.  In my mind, groups that learn by doing - not as a separate activity. Within a CoP people have a context in which they can ask questions, share knowledge, raise awareness and it may be that a business journal will seem a more natural place in which to do that.  Hopefully also within a CoP members can develop the levels of trust and respect that are required for any collaborative effort to be successful. Conclusion For me, all this leads towards a concrete realisation that business journalling cannot stand in isolation.  That it is not a solution, but, part of a solution that has to involve contexts which complement it's strengths.  It may be that After Action Review's and Communities of Practice may be good choices, time will tell. However this also means that, in order to bring business journalling into an organisation requires that they have either already established programs such as AAR, or you have to introduce those at the same time.  This sounds like a daunting prospect.  Any AAR experts out there? A few points to bear in mind: <OL> <LI>I've highlighted business journalling throughout the text to emphasize my use of the term where I might normalling say k-logging.  I'm open to better terms but I'm going to try and use this until someone comes up with one. <LI>I'm making a lot of assumptions.  Please challenge them.  I'm trying to keep to the philosophy of "strong opinions, weakly held" and avoid becoming dogmatic about something so new and unproven. <LI>I don't think I'm identifying anything new here.  I think this is these are formulations of the same problems people have been wrestling with since KM acknowledged that it wasn't a purely technical issue.  What is new is that I'm beginning to understand these issues better - your milage may vary ;-)</LI></OL> I'm also looking forward to hearing other peoples ideas for contexts for business journalling.   http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00001235.html What's in a name? Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:46:45 +0000 So far we have: <UL> <LI>business journalling</LI> <LI>knowledge-logging</LI> <LI>k-logging</LI> <LI>corporate knowledge recording (from Christian)</LI> <LI>professional knowledge publishing</LI> <LI>enterprise weblogging</LI></UL> any more for any more? http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00001246.html Another term for klogging Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:48:41 +0000 How about: <UL> <LI>Action Journal</LI></UL> I like action because it emphasizes my view that good knowledge is inextricably woven into what we do. I like journal because it sounds more diary like than logging. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00001271.html Will we catch this wave? Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:36:39 +0000 <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> Participants Share. <A href="http://www.mcgeesmusings.net/2003/03/17.html#a3082">Sharing knowledge with yourself</A>. Jim McGee nails the role of weblogs in KM, counter to Stephen Downes misguided claim that "Weblogs get data into the system, but that's never been the problem with knowledge management: no, the problem is in using the data in any meaningful way."[<A href="http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/website/research.cgi?item=1047936082">OLDaily</A>] In the organizations where I've struggled to make knowledge management work, one of the fatal flaws has been the notion that knowledge management is somebody else's problem. ...a huge amount of the knowledge important to me remains explicit and never ends up making the cut to tacit. ... Weblogs put the emphasis where I believe it belongs; on the individual knowledge worker. It encourages them to begin thinking about their own knowledge work more explicitly and systematically. It helps them realize that they are the problem and the solution. You have to learn how to share knowledge with yourself over time before you can begin to share it effectively with others. [<A href="http://www.mcgeesmusings.net/">McGee's Musings</A>] What weblogs do, contrary to traditional enterprise software, is enage people as participants.  [<A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0114726/">Ross Mayfield's Weblog</A>]</BLOCKQUOTE> More good thinking out loud from Jim & Ross.  I'm not convinced by the use of do in the last sentence though. I don't think that weblogs do anything and I'm increasingly of the opinion that the benefits that we are seeing at the moment are simply those of tapping into a particular type of personality, i.e. the enthusiastic early adopters who will do something with anything you throw at them. So far I'm not seeing the kind of evidence that weblogging (in whatever form you name it) offers a particularly unique solution to the KM problem generally.  Those solutions are going to have to come from us, in how we apply what is, after all, just another technology.  Otherwise I predict in 12-18 months time, articles about "how weblogging has failed us." In my opinion, we do have an opportunity to use the current wave of popularity for weblogging to get people to experiment with this new medium, try to change some working assumptions and the practices that go with them and move things on a little. Ready for the next wave. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00001297.html What do weblogs do? Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:42:58 +0000 <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0107808/2003/03/18.html#a815">What do weblogs do?</A>. from <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0107808/">Curiouser and curiouser!</A>: <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> I don't think that weblogs do anything and I'm increasingly of the opinion that the benefits that we are seeing at the moment are simply those of tapping into a particular type of personality, i.e. the enthusiastic early adopters who will do something with anything you throw at them.</BLOCKQUOTE> I agree, but with a twist... what weblogs have done is help the <A href="http://www.alpern.org/weblog/php/blogsearch/philosophy.html">group of enthusiastic early adopters become self aware</A>, to recognize themselves as a group, and to help make strong social connections between people of like minds.  This is very valuable and I hope we can find other ways to partition the blogsphere so that, as other social networks come online (lawyers, doctors, teachers) they too can <A href="http://www.alpern.org/weblog/php/blogsearch/writeup.html">find themselves</A> and be stronger for having done so. [<A href="http://www.alpern.org/weblog/">Micah's Weblog</A>]</BLOCKQUOTE> I guess I was a bit too quick there...  I agree with Micah that weblogs have offered an improved medium for people who want to communicate with each other to do so.  So yes, I was wrong, they do do something. But what I'm trying to say is that enabling early adopters to communicate better isn't really doing what I'm interested in.  My take on the history of KM and it's technologies is that the early adopters are not a good predictor for how the rest of the wave will use a technology and I'm not sure that the early or late majorities, within organisations, will take to this medium as the early adopters do. What weblogs have done is provide an easy lowering of the technological barrier.  But this is just allowing what I consider the real, social, problems to rise to the surface.  Of course this still does something good.  Exposing these problems is the first step towards solving them.  In my own journey I think I started with a view that the problems were mostly technological -- get the technology right and the problem is solved.  I don't think like that at all any more. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00001306.html