Comments on: Are Our Technologies at War with Each Other?

By: suchi887

suchi887 — Sun, 31 May 2009 13:41:27 +0000

Its true that knowledge and society continues to evolve. SM and KM should evolve in such a manner that they compliment each other and support the need.

By: Helen

Helen — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 23:33:30 +0000

Social Technologies’ innovative futures programs provide our clients with up-to-the-minute knowledge, expert insight and foresight, high-level learning experiences, and opportunities to network with experts and peers. Licensed and bonded payday loan lender.

By: Chuck Van Court

Chuck Van Court — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 02:14:20 +0000

These esoteric discussions about theory and inherent biases based on age serve what purpose? In the end, technology is only the device for fulfilling a need and this discussion would provide much more significant value if instead it focused on the business and personal needs that can be addressed by SM and/or KM techniques. To think that either approach warrants the Â“silver bulletÂ” label is both naive and arrogant for anyone, regardless of their age. Both SM and KM techniques have different demonstrated values and need to be harvested selectively so as to align with implementations objectives, which must support the brands that take ownership for the content and the people that need to use it.

By: Maria

Maria — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:37:01 +0000

In the state of war everything from first side is against everything on the other side. Technology is on the front of the war. Who has advanced technology got great advantage.

By: Dan Keldsen

Dan Keldsen — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:45:13 +0000

Andrew – well, the “age-ism” question was something we specifically dived into in the Market IQ on Enterprise 2.0, and delivered our short keynote at the E2.0 conference on (http://www.slideshare.net/dan.keldsen/enterprise-20-ftw/).

Having lived through, and continuing to assist people with KM practices, as well as being an “E2.0 pundit” I don’t see the new wave as being at odds with the old in any way.

It’s just improved, lighter weight, get outta my way and let’s get things done rather than talk about it…

We’ve done a number of specific presentations to law firms, pharmaceutical companies, etc. discussing KM, KM2.0, and E2.0 and what to think of all of the discussion.

Most recent version of that presentation can be seen at: http://www.slideshare.net/dan.keldsen/enterprise-20-knowledge-management-20-for-km-practitioners-in-law-firms-presentation/

In short, if your organization values information, knowledge, collaboration – call it whatever you like – if you don’t have the incentives, the culture, the business drivers (fully recognized by the “users” as well as managers and executives), well, then you are doomed, no matter what label you slap on it.

The tools themselves are the sharp end – it’s what’s pushing behind that will make the actual implementation take root or get ejected from the organization as a whole.

Cheers,
Dan

By: Atul Rai

Atul Rai — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 06:22:04 +0000

i quite agree with you … on two things here … first, that there is no real war that is out there, and second we shouldnt ignore technology.

http://atulrai1.blogspot.com/2008/11/people-or-technology.html

rather than a war, i would like to look at it as “creative tension”, where different ways of doing things are evaluated, and adopted, and i dont think one is going away because of the other (in fact, i had written about the search versus communities thought some time back …), because they are serving two different purposes.

By: Bob Iliff

Bob Iliff — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:55:17 +0000

Andrew, your other commenters have it right in that it is not about age. Without going into detail, I think the “fork” is embodied in your view vs.Clay Shriky (and I personally devour everything both of you espouse). Can you arrange for a debate? Or would you be in complete agreement?

By: Steve Boese

Steve Boese — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:34:18 +0000

I concur with the comments from Saqib. We have gained some traction on focused, limited internal deployments of social media tools, but run into stiff (management) opposition attempting to expand the footprint, and ‘open’ the environments. The ‘keep the information to myself’ mentality is still quite prevalent, and only when more members of the Facebook generation start to influence these decisions will many organizations embrace these changes.

By: Chris Yeh

Chris Yeh — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:58:54 +0000

I agree with Jeff–the conflict between KM and SM is largely a matter of governance, rather than one of technology.

For example, at PBwiki, we still sometimes run into people whose higher-ups refuse to let them use a SaaS solution for “security” reasons. In actuality, it’s simply a way to stave off the behavioral change of allowing end user empowerment.

By: Matt Moore

Matt Moore — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 20:56:30 +0000

1. I don’t see social media completely replacing top down information management systems. I see the two co-existing. I do see there being more scope to do the kind of knowledge management I like (which is participatory/collaborative) using social media tools.

2. There’s a lot more to knowledge management than the tooling you use. The danger for the social software crew is that they assume it’s all about whether you use a database or a blog, a taxonomy or a folksonomy. And it’s not.

3. I think the generational stereotypes are dangerous because there tends to be as much behavioural variation within an age cohort as between them. As a Gen Xer, research shows that I love being shoehorned into crude generational stereotypes with millions of other people.

4. “Architecture is politics” – absolutely. But systems can also be perverted in ways their creators never thought of. This actually happened with some of the old KM systems.

It all feels like a phony war to me.