X Close Editor

Submitted by: Ron Young

Title

Comment
First of all, let me totally declare my interest and bias. I created this definition of KM for Knowledge Associates in 1996. So, I guess, in normal circumstances, I should not rank this at all, let alone give it a rating of 5!!! Well, here is my defense. I still believe that what is still new about knowldge management, even today, is to help individuals, teams, organisations and communities to make the transition from what we call 'episodic learning' and 'episodic innovation' to 'continuous learning' and 'continuous innovation'. This is the promise and breakthrough for KM, and I still do not see very many people doing this at all. The challenge is that there really are new km processes, supported by new tools and technologies, that can be embedded into the daily work practices, that will help people to 'systematically' and collectively' do that. These systematic and collective km processes and tools will transform organisations into 'continuously' capturing new learnings and ideas, and transforming them into new knowledge and innovations, on a far more frequent, regular and systematic way! The resulting increased organisational learning, receptiveness and performance can be quite staggering. When I see that happening, as mainstream, in organisations, I will then say that this important aspect of km is being achieved. At the moment, I say respectfully, that it is being ignored because people do not know these new ways of knowledge working exist. That's why I give the words in our KM definition 'collective, systematic' 5 stars. But you may well have other views about this and, of course, you may rate this KM definition accordingly. I would really welcome your comments and feedback on this

Cancel Delete Delete & Ban

Updating Comments page...