Discussion: View Thread

I think the concern is not a fad.
But the "therapies and prescriptions" offered by consultants and vendors in
response (supposedly) to this concern can certainly amount to fads --- and
even malpractice.

----- Original Message -----
>
> Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 08:40:16 -0500
> From: "Fearon, David (Management)" <Fearon@mail.ccsu.edu>
> Subject: Re: Focus, on a fad
>
> How in Heaven's name can a concern for how knowledge is continually
> formed and put to work by people to run a business be a fad?
>
> David

Greetings and Happy New Year to all!

This topic is very close to my heart. I've almost finished my PhD (only a month
or 2 away!), which focuses on management fads. On the other side, the
organisation which employs me (4,000 strong) implemented KM, complete with new
systems and a bevy of external consultants to hustle in a new era of knowledge
for the department. More than $5 million dollars later (who knows? - my
conservative guess), it was announced a few weeks ago that the database
supporting implementation of the KM framework would no longer be supported.

KM has all the hallmarks of a fad. The ones pointed out by the list suffice.
But as both Fred and Edryce, I think pointed out, there are still elements of KM
that every organisation should apply. Does it need fancy IT solutions,
$3,000/day consultants, clever marketing and deep systems changes - I think not.
Is it possible to capture the essence of KM through effective leadership and
shared understanding about the needs of the organisation, yes it can. After
all, as someone rightly pointed out, epistemological inquiry has been going on
in its various forms since ancient times. Once dialogue moves out of its
philosophical or theoretical phase, is systematized, institutionalized and
commodified into an intervention, it creates its own end date. Meaning, it will
simply go out of fashion. Faddish? Most likely.

KM has its successes and indeed its failures. I don't know that I've
contributed much to the discussion, only that .... "whatever works at the
time..." :)



Kind regards


Wendy




************************************************************
Opinions contained in this e-mail do not necessarily reflect
the opinions of the Queensland Department of Main Roads,
Queensland Transport or National Transport Secretariat, or
endorsed organisations utilising the same infrastructure.
If you have received this electronic mail message in error,
please immediately notify the sender and delete the message
from your computer.
************************************************************

G'day

What i find is really strange, is that I did an Undergraduate course in
Sydney, called a B.Info Sci. Not silly computing, but all the facets of
information, knowledge, research, librarianship, etc.

When ever I read KM stuff, its is just a cheap repeat of what I was
studying in the early 90's. Same concepts, say themes rehashed form the
Info Sci and Communications journals. Its all just a copy, I have not seen
anything new in this so called emerging field that is any different from
our course notes.


It does make me wonder why these fields are often the same as before, with
a few new names for the same concepts, or wether people just dont really do
there home work. Or perhaps there is some other explanations.

I think the term KM is the fad, but what is behind it or what lays
underneath it, is basic and is in many forms in many disciplines.

cheers
Tony


At 10:59 6/01/03 +1000, you wrote:
>Greetings and Happy New Year to all!
>
>This topic is very close to my heart. I've almost finished my PhD (only a
>month
>or 2 away!), which focuses on management fads. On the other side, the
>organisation which employs me (4,000 strong) implemented KM, complete with new
>systems and a bevy of external consultants to hustle in a new era of knowledge
>for the department. More than $5 million dollars later (who knows? - my
>conservative guess), it was announced a few weeks ago that the database
>supporting implementation of the KM framework would no longer be supported.
>
>KM has all the hallmarks of a fad. The ones pointed out by the list suffice.
>But as both Fred and Edryce, I think pointed out, there are still elements
>of KM
>that every organisation should apply. Does it need fancy IT solutions,
>$3,000/day consultants, clever marketing and deep systems changes - I
>think not.
>Is it possible to capture the essence of KM through effective leadership and
>shared understanding about the needs of the organisation, yes it can. After
>all, as someone rightly pointed out, epistemological inquiry has been going on
>in its various forms since ancient times. Once dialogue moves out of its
>philosophical or theoretical phase, is systematized, institutionalized and
>commodified into an intervention, it creates its own end date. Meaning,
>it will
>simply go out of fashion. Faddish? Most likely.
>
>KM has its successes and indeed its failures. I don't know that I've
>contributed much to the discussion, only that .... "whatever works at the
>time..." :)
>
>
>
>Kind regards
>
>
>Wendy
>
>
>
>
>************************************************************
>Opinions contained in this e-mail do not necessarily reflect
>the opinions of the Queensland Department of Main Roads,
>Queensland Transport or National Transport Secretariat, or
>endorsed organisations utilising the same infrastructure.
>If you have received this electronic mail message in error,
>please immediately notify the sender and delete the message
>from your computer.
>************************************************************



UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F

DISCLAIMER
=======================================================================
This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain
confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not
read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments.
If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message
are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly,
and with authority, states them to be the views the University of
Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for
viruses and defects.
=======================================================================

Tony makes a useful point. As tertiary educators, we
often engage in find-and-replace curriculum
development. We can latch on to the current management
fad, generated by consulting companies or researchers
generating "unique" new ideas, and do find-and-replace
and cut-and-past and, voila!, we're relevant and
up-to-date. One of my favourite quotes from Peter
Drucker, "When a subject becomes totally obsolete we
make it a required course." Now we can disguise this
fact using the modern technology of word processors.
Regards,
Romie Littrell
--- Tony Nolan <t.nolan@uts.edu.au> wrote: > G'day
>
> What i find is really strange, is that I did an
> Undergraduate course in
> Sydney, called a B.Info Sci. Not silly computing,
> but all the facets of
> information, knowledge, research, librarianship,
> etc.
>
> When ever I read KM stuff, its is just a cheap
> repeat of what I was
> studying in the early 90's. Same concepts, say
> themes rehashed form the
> Info Sci and Communications journals. Its all just a
> copy, I have not seen
> anything new in this so called emerging field that
> is any different from
> our course notes.
>
>
> It does make me wonder why these fields are often
> the same as before, with
> a few new names for the same concepts, or wether
> people just dont really do
> there home work. Or perhaps there is some other
> explanations.
>
> I think the term KM is the fad, but what is behind
> it or what lays
> underneath it, is basic and is in many forms in many
> disciplines.
>
> cheers
> Tony
>
>
> At 10:59 6/01/03 +1000, you wrote:
> >Greetings and Happy New Year to all!
> >
> >This topic is very close to my heart. I've almost
> finished my PhD (only a
> >month
> >or 2 away!), which focuses on management fads. On
> the other side, the
> >organisation which employs me (4,000 strong)
> implemented KM, complete with new
> >systems and a bevy of external consultants to
> hustle in a new era of knowledge
> >for the department. More than $5 million dollars
> later (who knows? - my
> >conservative guess), it was announced a few weeks
> ago that the database
> >supporting implementation of the KM framework would
> no longer be supported.
> >
> >KM has all the hallmarks of a fad. The ones
> pointed out by the list suffice.
> >But as both Fred and Edryce, I think pointed out,
> there are still elements
> >of KM
> >that every organisation should apply. Does it need
> fancy IT solutions,
> >$3,000/day consultants, clever marketing and deep
> systems changes - I
> >think not.
> >Is it possible to capture the essence of KM through
> effective leadership and
> >shared understanding about the needs of the
> organisation, yes it can. After
> >all, as someone rightly pointed out,
> epistemological inquiry has been going on
> >in its various forms since ancient times. Once
> dialogue moves out of its
> >philosophical or theoretical phase, is
> systematized, institutionalized and
> >commodified into an intervention, it creates its
> own end date. Meaning,
> >it will
> >simply go out of fashion. Faddish? Most likely.
> >
> >KM has its successes and indeed its failures. I
> don't know that I've
> >contributed much to the discussion, only that ....
> "whatever works at the
> >time..." :)
> >
> >
> >
> >Kind regards
> >
> >
> >Wendy
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>************************************************************
> >Opinions contained in this e-mail do not
> necessarily reflect
> >the opinions of the Queensland Department of Main
> Roads,
> >Queensland Transport or National Transport
> Secretariat, or
> >endorsed organisations utilising the same
> infrastructure.
> >If you have received this electronic mail message
> in error,
> >please immediately notify the sender and delete the
> message
> >from your computer.
>
>************************************************************
>
>
>
> UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F
>
> DISCLAIMER
>
=======================================================================
> This email message and any accompanying attachments
> may contain
> confidential information. If you are not the
> intended recipient, do not
> read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this
> message or attachments.
> If you have received this message in error, please
> notify the sender
> immediately and delete this message. Any views
> expressed in this message
> are those of the individual sender, except where the
> sender expressly,
> and with authority, states them to be the views the
> University of
> Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments,
> please check them for
> viruses and defects.
>
=======================================================================

=====
Prof. Romie F. Littrell, Ph.D.
Facutly of Business
Auckland University of Technology
Private Bag 1020
Auckland 1020, New Zealand
Fax (64) 9 - 917 -9629

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

Tony Nolan wrote:

> [snip]It does make me wonder why these fields are often the same as before, with
>
> a few new names for the same concepts, or wether people just dont really do
> their home work.

Homework? Oh, you mean _that_! Well, .... But I haven't time! Etc.

Maybe that's why, indeed.

I believe Mark Twain said that if you let someone think he (sic) is thinking, he
will love you, but if you make him think, he will hate you.

I've no reason to believe it doesn't apply to women, too, although some males seem
eager to prove the point.

I think one can tell a bright thought is turning into a "fad" when you see the
cookbooks appear. Deming called his a System of Profound Knowledge (SPK).
Someone tries to reduce the SPK to a series of steps, individually
'understandable.' If you do each step, you will do as the knowledgeable people
do, and you will understand (or at least be as successful). Sorry, that doesn't
always work, for the real thing.

Understanding, and integrating into one's work & management, the SPK - the real
thing - any of them - is a grinding intellectual as well as emotional task.

Better a friendly man, than an honest one. Or so I've heard.

Enough cynicism for one night.

Cheers,
Jay

--
Jay Warner
Principal Scientist
Warner Consulting, Inc.
4444 North Green Bay Road
Racine, WI 53404-1216
USA

Ph: (262) 634-9100
FAX: (262) 681-1133
email: quality@a2q.com
web: http://www.a2q.com

The A2Q Method (tm) -- What do you want to improve today?

Jay,

Right,, converting infromation into knowledge takes hard work and
ultimately depends on what the individual mind chooses to do...

Sure others (teacher, consultants, insultants, coaches, etc...) may show a
way that has helped them (and others) get it, but just as an athlete the
performance is all their own...

BTW better a fiendly and hones man... What leads you to have one or the
other when you can have the whole integrated thing?

So what can we each do to ease the task other have in discovering and
integrating concepts?

Cordially,

Esteban

Jay wrote:
---------------------

Tony Nolan wrote:

> [snip]It does make me wonder why these fields are often the same as
before, with
>
> a few new names for the same concepts, or wether people just dont really
do
> their home work.

Homework? Oh, you mean _that_! Well, .... But I haven't time! Etc.

Maybe that's why, indeed.

I believe Mark Twain said that if you let someone think he (sic) is
thinking, he
will love you, but if you make him think, he will hate you.

I've no reason to believe it doesn't apply to women, too, although some
males seem
eager to prove the point.

I think one can tell a bright thought is turning into a "fad" when you see
the
cookbooks appear. Deming called his a System of Profound Knowledge (SPK).
Someone tries to reduce the SPK to a series of steps, individually
'understandable.' If you do each step, you will do as the knowledgeable
people
do, and you will understand (or at least be as successful). Sorry, that
doesn't
always work, for the real thing.

Understanding, and integrating into one's work & management, the SPK - the
real
thing - any of them - is a grinding intellectual as well as emotional task.

Better a friendly man, than an honest one. Or so I've heard.

Enough cynicism for one night.

Cheers,
Jay

--
Jay Warner
Principal Scientist
Warner Consulting, Inc.
4444 North Green Bay Road
Racine, WI 53404-1216
USA

Ph: (262) 634-9100
FAX: (262) 681-1133
email: quality@a2q.com
web: http://www.a2q.com

The A2Q Method (tm) -- What do you want to improve today?





____________________________________________________________________________
For your protection, this e-mail message has been scanned for viruses.
Visit us at http://www.neoris.com/

Hello everyone,

I am a lurker, but this interesting discussion has encouraged me to
step from the shadows and pose a question to this thoughtful group.

My background is not in business, but in the humanities and library
science. I am currently working on my PhD at a library school, and my
area of research interest is partly in KM. Tom Wilson is a
distinguished member of the library science discipline, but some find
his views narrow and outmoded - his opinion of KM has caused quite a few
heated discussions among library faculty that I know. I personally tend
to feel that KM is faddish, but an important one that has expanded our
understanding of the roles of information, people and technology in the
world of business and organizations.

It seems that there has been a continuum of development over the last
decade or so concerning the importance of information. We've gone from
data management to information management to knowledge management, and
now to content management. While the exact differences and similarities
from one stage to another is discussable, my question is this: in the
world of management education, how often and in what capacity are the
above topics covered? Are some - or all - restricted only to programs
in information technology? Is there any point in an MBA program that
students would be sure to run into these ideas, packaged either in these
terms or others?

My questions may not be appropriate for discussion on the list; if so I
apologize and would appreciate personal responses.

In case anyone is wondering - I lurk on the list because I stumbled
across it while looking for listservs to help me in teaching a Master's
course on management (a required course for the MLS program at my
school), and enjoyed the exchanges and the contributions of the
moderator so much.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to gather intelligence from
the experts.

Rebecca Miller
Program Director
Information Resource Studies
Emporia State University
Emporia, Kansas

>>> t.nolan@uts.edu.au 01/05/03 07:11PM >>>
G'day

What i find is really strange, is that I did an Undergraduate course
in
Sydney, called a B.Info Sci. Not silly computing, but all the facets
of
information, knowledge, research, librarianship, etc.

When ever I read KM stuff, its is just a cheap repeat of what I was
studying in the early 90's. Same concepts, say themes rehashed form
the
Info Sci and Communications journals. Its all just a copy, I have not
seen
anything new in this so called emerging field that is any different
from
our course notes.


It does make me wonder why these fields are often the same as before,
with
a few new names for the same concepts, or wether people just dont
really do
there home work. Or perhaps there is some other explanations.

I think the term KM is the fad, but what is behind it or what lays
underneath it, is basic and is in many forms in many disciplines.

cheers
Tony