KMWorldblog.com Home
Covering the Largest KM conference & expo in the world
 




The Official Conference Blog for KMWorld - The Destination Event for Enterprise, Knowledge and Information Workers . Check here often for in-depth news on keynote speakers, coverage of topic areas, show updates, meetups, entries from KM thought leaders, and anything else that surrounds this year's show!
Jane Dysart   —   September 25, 2008 @ 6:11 pm
Filed under: KMW08 — Tags: , ,

Darren Gibbons, President, OpenRoad Communications talked about the difference between 1.0 and 2.0 intranets:

top down vs bottom up (emergent behaviors, like the desired path people choose to walk)

silos vs transparency (breaking down barriers, opening up walls)

broadcast (1 to many) vs conversation (many to many)

friction vs flow

Steps to get to a 2.0 intranet –

1. Blow up the old intranet

2. Turn users into authors

3. Email-free Wednesdays, push larger notes through the intranet; “emails are where information goes to die”

4. Add signals, email alerts or RSS

5. Provide scaffolding — getting up and running with information architecture

6. Hold a barn raising — get as many people up and running as possible, and get lots of content, content that matters (content migration), employee directory

7. Make them use it. Once.  People learn by doing.  Use worksheets, scavenger hunt.

8. Lead by example.  Senior management as active users.

9. Expose the social context.

10. Get the intranet “in the flow”.



Jon Husband   —   September 25, 2008 @ 4:54 pm
Filed under: KMW08 — Tags: , , , , ,

From the keyboard and blog of dave Snowden:

 

Creating bigger needles

Coming in late to the keynote this morning, one I have been looking forward to on the links between search and knowledge.  Peter Morville is the speaker.  I’m late in part due to some editing duties on WIkipedia (trying to get support to rehabilitate a hopefully reformed sock puppet).  So its a bit of surprise to sit down and hear the links between Wikipedia and Google being talked about.  Good point made that we use Google to search for something, which then often leads us to a Wikipedia page on the subject.  Wikipedia editors are in the main motivated by creating good content, so you have a symbiosis between content creation and search, something that the speaker advocates should be part of any organisational solution.  Ten minutes in and this is good stuff.  Have ordered his book while he speaks; this is what you come to conferences for.

There is a lot here so I am going to share my notes with the odd comment.

Talking about how top down architecture works with portals, controlled vocabularies etc. but won’t work in a modern environment where we need to look at what curent works in web 2.0.  Key concept (and the title of his book) is  Ambient Findability.  His thesis is that finding your way around and finding things are beging to merge which is a good point.

Raises two major questions

  • Practical - its hard to get attention, so should we be doing everything we can to make our ingormation findable moving from push to pull
  • Philosophical - what is this doing to why we learn and the way we make decisions, is the quality of our decisions getting better

Illustrates the convergence of mobile devices with ambient awareness by referencing a watch that you lock onto your kid’s wrist and you can track where they go!  I’m not sure I want to know to be honest and the ethics are a real issue.  He makes this point, saying that customer reviews of the device did not say anything about privacy or child care, just complained about how the product worked.  Big question – now we have the techology have we got the ethical understanding to hadle the consequences?

Talking now about tracking items, lovely idea of Googling to find out where you left your socks while lying on your bed!  Back to privacy with a reference to David Brin’s The Transparent Society.  I read the reviews of that and it seemed a bit libertarian but maybe I will look it up again.

Another wonderful image to make a question real: In a world where creating more and bigger haystacks how do we create bigger needles.  Question is how do we describe the unique aboutness of our object so it could be found.  Pleased to hear that he is sceptical about AI and agents but I’m not sure I agree with him on visualisation.  Yes, lots of people have done things look good but aren’t  useful.  But we are only just touching the surface here.  He argues that the librarians will help us!  The internet will turn everyone into a librarian!  Metadata and Librarians are sexy (this is going down well).

Good constructive criticism of  everyone tagging with whatever they want.  He says that most intelligent people have realised that there is too much hype around this and we need to strike a balance to be found in the middle.  Agree fully here, its the idea behind the self-contrained signifier structures on SenseMaker™.  I disagree with him here though.  He says that in 5-10 years from now we will still be starting with a key word search box.  I don’t see that and think it shows a lack of imagination.

Now it starts to get a bit frustrating.  He says this is all a complex adaptive system. Great, agree, but that is it, no exploration of what that means.  I can pick up in my closing keynote however.  He moves to futures with lots and lots of examples which is useful (will get his slide set and study it). but we are now a bit light on praxis.  You get the feeling that he should have spent more time on this.  Great link here of design examples which he expands.  I stop taking notes, this is great stuff but best to look at the slides.

Summarises that search is a wicked problem, highly uncertain etc.  I agree, this guy has a lot more to say, but its over. 



Jon Husband   —   September 25, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
Filed under: KMW08 — Tags: , ,



Jane Dysart   —   September 25, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
Filed under: KMW08 — Tags: , ,

In a full room at 8am this morning, after a lively evening   networking session on Yaksonomy: Talking about Taxonomies, the hardy TBC audience avidly listed to Theresa Regli of CMS Watch, talk about whether taxonomies are dying, dead or just hitting their stride.  My business partner, Rebecca Jones, Program Chair for TBC, just posted more info about the session.  And watch for lots more blog posts from TBC speaker and blogger, Daniela Barbosa of Dow Jones and download the Taxonomy Boot Camp puzzles she created for the event.  Wicked!



Jane Dysart   —   September 25, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
Filed under: KMW08 — Tags: , , ,

It was great to have Katherine Clark of the KM division of VDOT speak this morning (her slides will be available on the conference site soon).  I just learned that their program was in the top 15 Harvard Business School Innovation Awards out of 1000+.  Awesome.



Jane Dysart   —   September 25, 2008 @ 2:01 pm
Filed under: KMW08 — Tags: ,

We’ve really been trying to blog much of KMWorld & Intranets 2008 as you can see here and from our fellow bloggers. Michael Sampson, KMW speaker and prolific blogger, has created and shared a wonderful stream of KMW content. Thank you, Michael, you are my conference blogger of the year!



Jon Husband   —   September 25, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
Filed under: KMW08 — Tags: , , ,

Who are “we” ?

PwC … Three main service areas:

Assurance, Advisory, Tax

100 years old in Canada

One of Canada’s Ten Best Companies to work for

Part of a global network of member firms

 

In other words, a knowledge-services firm

So, for PwC employees …

 

When you go to work, the question is always “What is the problem?

So, in effect, KM = idea generation and problem resolution = $$$’s

Gordon then introduces one of those consulting quadrant / matrix thingys, upon which he outlines that there are problems and issues that along the Y-axis (Decision Frequency) are defined as from routine through regular to unique, and along the X-axis (Decision Complexity) from simple through complicated to complex.

Lower-left – simple routine decisions involve repetition

Upper-middle / right – complicated to complex but unique involve innovation

Lower-left / center – regular and complicated, requires content management, information presentations

Upper-right – complex and unique, takes longer to resolve, demands networked collaboration, locating pertinent expertise, etc.

 

What Is networking ?

networking is: “Finding others and conversing with them”

Collaboration is: “Teams working together on tasks”

 

Some key characteristics of enterprise networks:

They already exist

They are personal, individual-based

Geography and history matter

Their value is hard to measure

 

Networking the Enterprise – some key questions

 

Who? Needs to network . . .

With whom?

Why?

What would help them?

 

 Finding people – PwC uses PeopleFind (Gordon shows screen shot and discusses)

Context provided to employees through “leader messaging

Rewards and recognition support the ongoing application of context and expertise to business problems.

 

Finding useful content: “How do I . . . . “ and acronym dictionary – wiki-esque

RSS readers employed to help employees stay up-to-date

 

For more on PwC Canada: www.pwc.com/ca

 

For more on our award-winning portal and collaboration tools see Microsoft Canada case study:  http://www.microsoft.com/canada/casestudies/pricewaterhousecoopers.mspx

 

Intranets for improved decision-making (KMWorld 2006) http://www.kmworld.com/KMW06/presentations/IB302_Vala-Webb.pps

 

“Communication, Collaboration, and Content: Compelling Convergence” by Peter O’Kelly http://www.burtongroup.com/



Jon Husband   —   September 25, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
Filed under: KMW08 — Tags: , , , , ,

Peter Morville introduces the hexagram honeycomb of Findability … 

Can users find our web site ?

Can users find their way around our web site ?

Are our web sites useful ?

Are our web aitws desirable ?  Do we want them to be found ?

Are our web sites accessible ?

Is what we put on our web sites credible ?

Finally, is what is on our web sites valuable, to those who comne to our web sites and to us ?

 

Key words – the web’s equivalent of “location, location, location”

People tend to trust search results high up on search listsings

“Google defines your brand” ?

 

Case Study #1 .. National Institute of Cancer Research

They wanted to improve ability of users to get from home page to relevant content.

Vast majority of users not doctors or researchers, but members of the public who have an experience with cancer and want to know more about something.

PM – how did people get here in the first place ?

Cancer was the single most common query, but many searches on specific tyopes of cancer.

PM’s argument … not your mission to build a great web site, but to make content finable and useful.

Won a range of awards …

Good things can happen when you focus on findability

 

Case Study #2 – Enterprise Findability

Fortune 500 company – horrible, circa 1995

Enterprise Findability = IA + KM + Search (Information architecture + Knowledge management + search) 

 

The Future

Any architect – physical or digital – needs to have one foot in the past and one foot in the future.

Bigger picture, longer-term trends – positioning to take advantage of trends

Findability (noun):

The qusality of being locatable or navigable

The degree to which an object is easy to discover or locate

The degree to which a system or environment supports wayfinding, navigation, etc.

Ambient (adj): encircling, surrounding, enveloping

 

In the past – the good old days (Librarians had power)

Chained Libraries in the past

Today drowning in increasing amounts of information

“A wealth of information creates a poverty of attention”

What is this doing to our ability to think, make decisions, etc.

Vast amounts of metadata, more interconnected and networked devices, etc.

“We ain’t seen nothing yet”

Convergence of mobile devices with location awareness .. 

Example of GPS kid-locator

Morville – interesting to note that in reviews and comments very little about invasion of privacy, issues of control … mostly about the fact that the device did not work well enough.

Cisco wireless application … tag-and-track high-value objects (eg hospitals always losing wheelchairs, spend amazing amounts of staff time looking for wheelchairs).

Once you create infrastructure for this kind of technology, you can address the issues of wayfinding.

 

In a world where we are creating more and bigger information haystacks, how can we create bigger needles ?

 

People cannot shut up about metadata .. it’s become “sexy” (this is not your mother’s metadata).

Folksonomies (let people tag whatever / however they want) … Morville is stretching the point of ridicule about this simplicity, but on purpose)

Of course we still need to think about structure and order, we also need to acknowledge some of the useful and asy, user-friendly aspects of what Web 2.0 and social software has offered us to date.

Queries can evolve over the course of a serach .. iterative, interactive and supportive of learning

Therefore absolutely critical to whatever KM becomes .. search is a complex adaptive system (cue Dave Snowden’s work on sensemaking).

“How do we provide people with an intelligent useful “next step” ?

Behaviour Patterns (Narrow, Search & Browse & Ask, Pearl Grow)

Design Patterns (Best Bets, Query Disambiguation, Federated Search, Faceted Navigation, Auto-Suggest (Queries, Auto-Suggest (Results), Structured Queries, Social Search, Integrating Web 2.0 into Enterprise Search, Media Search, Making Interfaces Actionable, Drag-and-Drop, Infinite Scroll (anti-pattern), Colour and Shape Patterns, Spime Search (queries using RFID capabilities), Redefining what is meant by Search).

Other Emerging Issues – linking physical with virtual

He displayed a chart outlining ways to explore possible futures, and miscellaneous tools and services that can be explored

 

Search is a wicked problem, no definitive method, wide (infinite) range of user issues, problems never fully resolved, only way forward is to share and explore together.

Share, share, share .. he is building a pattern library.



Hugh McKellar   —   September 25, 2008 @ 10:55 am
Filed under: KMW08 — Tags: , ,

Social computing gets a lot of press these days, and rightfully so. Collaboration in its many forms is vital to wise knowledge sharing, which, after all, is what knowledge management is all about: discovering the best ideas and skillfully integrating them within the business environment to ensure the right information gets to the right people at the right time.

Heck, we’re taught as toddlers how important it is to share. Now, as adults we have the software tools to share not just toys and cookies, but ideas and best practices; impressions and images; knowledge and prejudices. We can find experts and build communities of common expertise and interests. We can even live “virtual lives”–the most notably of which is through Second Life and it’s avatars, a concept, I think, is a phenomenal waste of time and resources in the business environment.

I ran into someone who advocated turning KMWorld into a “virtual” conference. He was a Second Lifer (or maybe a Scientologist) and claimed we were so far behind the times. We were “shameful dinosaurs,” in his words. He even became aggressive in his criticism of the way we produced our conferences. I let him try to make his case, and after 10 minutes of his “pitch” (a term I hate). But then I asked if he enjoyed John Kao’s opening keynote. He informed me he has read everything Kao has written and the only reason he came to the conference was to hear Kao speak in person. He didn’t see the irony.

It seems to me that even the best social, collaborative computing solutions pave the way for deeper professional relationships. They encourage knowledge sharing and facilitate business relationships by identifying areas of common ground and interests and make it so much easier to develop communities of practice. In many cases these online relationships are sufficient–in some, even preferred–for a certain level of business activity.

In the past two days, I have seen and chatted with more than 40 different people whom I haven’t seen in a year–and at least 15 more with whom I hope to stay in touch. Meeting and talking with them paves the way for a deeper professional relationship.

Social computing is here for good (both literally and figuratively), and it will certainly get better and better. The very best tools will be increasingly adopted and help bring a degree of humanity to enterprises that have lost touch with their personal relationship chain. It provides a marvelous opportunity to facilitate conversations but, for me, anyway, it will never match the value of face-to-face interaction. It will never replace the value of a conference such as KMWorld and Intranets.



Jane Dysart   —   September 25, 2008 @ 10:29 am
Filed under: KMW08 — Tags: ,

Presentations, short but informational, are happening in the exhibit hall today:

10:15 Howard McQueen on Personas for Intranet Development

11:15 Jeff Carr on Search Integration: Strategies & Tips

12:15 Darren Gibbons on How 2.0 is Your Intranet?



« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

© Copyright 2012, Information Today, Inc., All rights reserved.