Comments on: The Day DoD KM Died http://jbordeaux.com/the-day-dod-km-died/ Mon, 08 Mar 2010 12:11:43 +0000 hourly 1 By: Shawn Bradford http://jbordeaux.com/the-day-dod-km-died/comment-page-1/#comment-9407 Shawn Bradford Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:59:37 +0000 http://jbordeaux.com/the-day-dod-km-died/#comment-9407 An excerpt from the book, "Transparency: How Leaders Create a Culture of Candor" - I implore these KM Leaders to hear our collective KM Worker voices... "Then do not have one mind, and one alone That only your opinion can be right. Whoever thinks that he alone is wise, His eloquence, his mind, above the rest, come the unfolding, shows his emptiness. A man, though wise, should never be ashamed Of learning more, and must unbend his mind. Have you not seen the trees beside the torrent, The ones that bend them saving every leaf, While the resistant perish root and branch? And so the ship that will not clacken sail, the sheet drawn tight, unyeilding, overturns, She ends the voyage with keel on top. No, yeild your wrath, allow a change of stand. Young as I am, if I may give advice, I'l say it would be best if men were born Perfect in wisdom, but failing this (which often fails) it can be no dishonor To learn from others when they speak good sense. Sophocles' "Antigone" An excerpt from the book, “Transparency: How Leaders Create a Culture of Candor” – I implore these KM Leaders to hear our collective KM Worker voices…

“Then do not have one mind, and one alone
That only your opinion can be right.
Whoever thinks that he alone is wise,
His eloquence, his mind, above the rest,
come the unfolding, shows his emptiness.
A man, though wise, should never be ashamed
Of learning more, and must unbend his mind.
Have you not seen the trees beside the torrent,
The ones that bend them saving every leaf,
While the resistant perish root and branch?
And so the ship that will not clacken sail, the sheet drawn tight, unyeilding, overturns,
She ends the voyage with keel on top.
No, yeild your wrath, allow a change of stand.
Young as I am, if I may give advice,
I’l say it would be best if men were born
Perfect in wisdom, but failing this
(which often fails) it can be no dishonor
To learn from others when they speak good sense.
Sophocles’ “Antigone”

]]> By: Josh Rosenthal http://jbordeaux.com/the-day-dod-km-died/comment-page-1/#comment-2979 Josh Rosenthal Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:45:12 +0000 http://jbordeaux.com/the-day-dod-km-died/#comment-2979 Successful knowledge-sharing most often emerges out of need and evolves into informal organization of professionals who's basic survival (success) requires real-time actionable information. From the outside looking in I am struck by the lack of innovative and entrepreneurial insight of the formal organization and the power of same across small knowledge sharing communities. IF only DoD could provide the pipe, the infostructure to support such creative efforts. Combining the best of social networks approaches and information discovery applications provides a cost-effective transformative, flexible and successful organization. As sad as DoD looks regarding KM, there are way too many examples in large industry as well. It was once said that those who hold knowledge (information) hold power. There is a paradigm shift. Shared knowledge is infinitely more powerful and required for success and ultimately survivability. Successful knowledge-sharing most often emerges out of need and evolves into informal organization of professionals who’s basic survival (success) requires real-time actionable information. From the outside looking in I am struck by the lack of innovative and entrepreneurial insight of the formal organization and the power of same across small knowledge sharing communities. IF only DoD could provide the pipe, the infostructure to support such creative efforts. Combining the best of social networks approaches and information discovery applications provides a cost-effective transformative, flexible and successful organization.
As sad as DoD looks regarding KM, there are way too many examples in large industry as well. It was once said that those who hold knowledge (information) hold power. There is a paradigm shift. Shared knowledge is infinitely more powerful and required for success and ultimately survivability.

]]> By: John http://jbordeaux.com/the-day-dod-km-died/comment-page-1/#comment-2945 John Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:31:30 +0000 http://jbordeaux.com/the-day-dod-km-died/#comment-2945 Tim, Excellent comment, thank you! You've hit on the core message - had I taken a more gentle route to the conversation, it would have been the lead. These folks in the Beltway believe that in order to "advance" KM, you do need central funding, attention, human capital strategies, etc. Meanwhile, the heroes in the field are using KM principles and methods to make a difference. The perspective in the field is framed by the need to accomplish a Divisional or Unit mission - the perspective in the Beltway appears to be to advance KM in order to address "all" missions. It is this focus on what is a process step that represents the greatest problem for me. This is how we ended up with a Capability Maturity Model for software that is somewhat irrelevant to how software methods have evolved. Do you "advance" KM by strengthening the core, or by enabling connections across nodes? Or do you need to strengthen the core in order to enable these connections? These are questions of theory, but I am accused of (among other sins) excessive excursions into theory. After all, the KM people here "know" what will work, they just need to get their Program or Center funded. Tim,
Excellent comment, thank you! You’ve hit on the core message – had I taken a more gentle route to the conversation, it would have been the lead. These folks in the Beltway believe that in order to “advance” KM, you do need central funding, attention, human capital strategies, etc. Meanwhile, the heroes in the field are using KM principles and methods to make a difference. The perspective in the field is framed by the need to accomplish a Divisional or Unit mission – the perspective in the Beltway appears to be to advance KM in order to address “all” missions. It is this focus on what is a process step that represents the greatest problem for me. This is how we ended up with a Capability Maturity Model for software that is somewhat irrelevant to how software methods have evolved.
Do you “advance” KM by strengthening the core, or by enabling connections across nodes? Or do you need to strengthen the core in order to enable these connections?
These are questions of theory, but I am accused of (among other sins) excessive excursions into theory. After all, the KM people here “know” what will work, they just need to get their Program or Center funded.

]]> By: Tim Snyder http://jbordeaux.com/the-day-dod-km-died/comment-page-1/#comment-2835 Tim Snyder Tue, 02 Jun 2009 22:46:50 +0000 http://jbordeaux.com/the-day-dod-km-died/#comment-2835 I was also at that conference and attended the invite only meeting. While I agree with most of what you are saying, I was neither surprised nor disheartened by what I heard, nor do I believe that KM is dead within DoD. KM is alive and well within DoD and as with any really valuable endeavor in the military, it happens with or without top level support. I have been working in the KM field for 3 years with Navy Strike Groups, and KM continues to prove its value, with increasingly higher level support for resource allocation – note the opening remarks at the Pacific Fleet KM Conference by the Pacific Fleet Commander http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=45762. The “so what” of KM is being proven every day in the fleet. Would it be more effective with support from the beltway? Maybe… Look at what happened to KM in industry in the 90’s, and they had plenty of leadership buy-in! Successful revolutions start with efforts at the grass roots of an organization. In each of the branches of DoD there are KM thought leaders and KM practitioners that are at the vanguard in the battle for resources, and they are winning that battle because they are proving the value of KM day in and day out. Tim Snyder Knowledge Manager Tactical Training Group, Pacific I was also at that conference and attended the invite only meeting. While I agree with most of what you are saying, I was neither surprised nor disheartened by what I heard, nor do I believe that KM is dead within DoD. KM is alive and well within DoD and as with any really valuable endeavor in the military, it happens with or without top level support.

I have been working in the KM field for 3 years with Navy Strike Groups, and KM continues to prove its value, with increasingly higher level support for resource allocation – note the opening remarks at the Pacific Fleet KM Conference by the Pacific Fleet Commander http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=45762. The “so what” of KM is being proven every day in the fleet. Would it be more effective with support from the beltway? Maybe… Look at what happened to KM in industry in the 90’s, and they had plenty of leadership buy-in! Successful revolutions start with efforts at the grass roots of an organization. In each of the branches of DoD there are KM thought leaders and KM practitioners that are at the vanguard in the battle for resources, and they are winning that battle because they are proving the value of KM day in and day out.

Tim Snyder
Knowledge Manager
Tactical Training Group, Pacific

]]> By: Abigail Howe http://jbordeaux.com/the-day-dod-km-died/comment-page-1/#comment-2177 Abigail Howe Sun, 17 May 2009 04:16:42 +0000 http://jbordeaux.com/the-day-dod-km-died/#comment-2177 Your posts has highlighted the need for a multi-pronged approach. As I have been viewing the KM discussion from a distance (through friends in USAF), I acknowledge that there is a large learning curve for some senior individuals. Part of the discussion needs to be the applicability of new technology. There is a dynamic evolution of social media, as well as KM which will no doubt be codified in the new Cyber command structure. However, there are a few things that you mentioned that need to addressed throughout the DoD, where diverse requirements and levels of 'openness' for each separate services (ie. Joint, USAF, USA, USAR and ARNG) will require both command structure and emphasis, as well as openness for operators. Numerous hurdles exist in the process of creating unified metrics and performance expectations, including the variation within operating environments, risk definition and SW application requirements. Each of thes core challenges will require collaboration at all levels of DoD for KM and IM in different working environments (ie. tactical WIFI, Shipboard, Strategic sattelite, FBCB2) to be successful. Furthermore, the core of changing warfare and global landscapse dictate that cross-functional requirements be available for ALL MOS and Services and ranks (ie. reference expanded tactical experience and training required for new USAF lieutenants that are NOW leading supply convoys) . Your posts has highlighted the need for a multi-pronged approach. As I have been viewing the KM discussion from a distance (through friends in USAF), I acknowledge that there is a large learning curve for some senior individuals. Part of the discussion needs to be the applicability of new technology. There is a dynamic evolution of social media, as well as KM which will no doubt be codified in the new Cyber command structure. However, there are a few things that you mentioned that need to addressed throughout the DoD, where diverse requirements and levels of ‘openness’ for each separate services (ie. Joint, USAF, USA, USAR and ARNG) will require both command structure and emphasis, as well as openness for operators. Numerous hurdles exist in the process of creating unified metrics and performance expectations, including the variation within operating environments, risk definition and SW application requirements. Each of thes core challenges will require collaboration at all levels of DoD for KM and IM in different working environments (ie. tactical WIFI, Shipboard, Strategic sattelite, FBCB2) to be successful. Furthermore, the core of changing warfare and global landscapse dictate that cross-functional requirements be available for ALL MOS and Services and ranks (ie. reference expanded tactical experience and training required for new USAF lieutenants that are NOW leading supply convoys) .

]]> By: Dave McDonald http://jbordeaux.com/the-day-dod-km-died/comment-page-1/#comment-2165 Dave McDonald Sat, 16 May 2009 21:19:06 +0000 http://jbordeaux.com/the-day-dod-km-died/#comment-2165 Interesting premise John. I'm happy to report, however, that fluid, transparent, evolutionary and "always improving" KM in DoD, IC and the extended national security community is neither dead nor particularly threatened by a room full of "fuddy-duddies" (from Lewis' comment) at the top of the heirarchy. If one needs to get a sense for the groundswell of new methods, tools and cultural shifts happening in nooks and crannies of the USG, one most certainly needs to get out of the Capitol Beltway Region (where I presume your meeting took place). The continuing march to modern, net-centric, socially-netted, organic and dynamic collaboration is happening without much help from the policy-makers and top-level resource or acquisition decision-makers. Many of them are perfectly happy to ride the wave of success, however, so that helps in some cases in keeping them out of the way. Urge you to take some road trips and use your contacts and considerable following to get inside at the grassroots working levels across USG -- what you will see will give you a much better perspective, and perhaps you will then have occasion to write another blog about it. This glass is WAY more than half full. All the best and Aloha, Dave Interesting premise John. I’m happy to report, however, that fluid, transparent, evolutionary and “always improving” KM in DoD, IC and the extended national security community is neither dead nor particularly threatened by a room full of “fuddy-duddies” (from Lewis’ comment) at the top of the heirarchy. If one needs to get a sense for the groundswell of new methods, tools and cultural shifts happening in nooks and crannies of the USG, one most certainly needs to get out of the Capitol Beltway Region (where I presume your meeting took place). The continuing march to modern, net-centric, socially-netted, organic and dynamic collaboration is happening without much help from the policy-makers and top-level resource or acquisition decision-makers. Many of them are perfectly happy to ride the wave of success, however, so that helps in some cases in keeping them out of the way. Urge you to take some road trips and use your contacts and considerable following to get inside at the grassroots working levels across USG — what you will see will give you a much better perspective, and perhaps you will then have occasion to write another blog about it. This glass is WAY more than half full. All the best and Aloha, Dave

]]> By: Standing on the Toes of Giants http://jbordeaux.com/the-day-dod-km-died/comment-page-1/#comment-2122 Standing on the Toes of Giants Fri, 15 May 2009 22:08:55 +0000 http://jbordeaux.com/the-day-dod-km-died/#comment-2122 [...] recent reference to the death of Knowledge Management (KM) in the Defense Department appears to have sparked some reaction - most of it aimed at this [...] [...] recent reference to the death of Knowledge Management (KM) in the Defense Department appears to have sparked some reaction – most of it aimed at this [...]

]]> By: Bill Kaplan http://jbordeaux.com/the-day-dod-km-died/comment-page-1/#comment-2069 Bill Kaplan Thu, 14 May 2009 12:30:46 +0000 http://jbordeaux.com/the-day-dod-km-died/#comment-2069 I am a corporate CKO, a long time KM practitioner, and have also published on KM from the practitioner perspective. I define knowledge as a combination of “all of the information” (explicit) in an organization” and “all of the experience” (tacit) in an organization focused for some purpose (knowledge convergence). All academic and theoretical discussion aside, I see KM as simply as "the ability to capture, adapt, transfer, and reuse what we know about what we do to improve individual, team, and organizational performance..it does neither has to be complicated (which is not to say that KM does not require skill, competency, and practice -- it may be more art than science) nor does it have to take a long time to show results and demonstrate value for the investment in time and resources for KM to be successful within an organization. The real value in KM is in its ability to solve business and operational challenges and make measurable improvements in performance measured in the context of where it is applied. It provides agility to an organization to more readily adapt to change (call it “operating faster than the speed of change”) and more quickly access and leverage what knowledge is needed when it is needed. I know a few things to be true about KM since this concept works in my company and has worked for my clients. 1. Trying to apply KM on a system wide basis usually fails when one starts at the system level. 2. It doesn't have to be complicated and it doesn't have to take a long time. 3. The practical application (what I call Knowledge at the Point of Execution) of KM is where the value lies. 4. You need to start at a "local" level to demonstrate value and apply KM where you can see business or operational solutions addressed and resolved. The nearby greater organization will usually see value in KM and why it makes sense—Knowledge is personal and KM starts locally. 5. The ability to capture, adapt, transfer, and reuse knowledge must be part of the business and operational processes of the organization for it to succeed...not something extra or applied from the outside. So, I wouldn't say that DoD KM is "dead." I would say that DoD KM is neither enabled nor practiced nor understood at leadership levels in such a way that supports a consistent and disciplined approach to creating easily understood KM concepts, an easily understood strategy, and relevant implementing practices that can be understood and applied at the "point of execution." There are those that “get it” and the examples John references are good ones but they are isolated (but are delivering value and saving lives). Focus on the practical application where value can be demonstrated and evolve from there…you will need resources, commitment, and leadership that demands collaboration and sharing who really support this…defer “KM central” which can take on a bureaucratic and diversionary life of its own and look for places in DoD where there are committed early adapter leaders who see that the ability to capture and reuse knowledge very fast can make a measurable difference in operational and business performance and they are willing to resource its success...work outward from there and reflect on what makes this successful so that you can derive some common learnings for effective concepts, strategies, and implementing practices. For consideration Bill Kaplan CKO Acquisition Solutions, Inc. I am a corporate CKO, a long time KM practitioner, and have also published on KM from the practitioner perspective. I define knowledge as a combination of “all of the information” (explicit) in an organization” and “all of the experience” (tacit) in an organization focused for some purpose (knowledge convergence).

All academic and theoretical discussion aside, I see KM as simply as “the ability to capture, adapt, transfer, and reuse what we know about what we do to improve individual, team, and organizational performance..it does neither has to be complicated (which is not to say that KM does not require skill, competency, and practice — it may be more art than science) nor does it have to take a long time to show results and demonstrate value for the investment in time and resources for KM to be successful within an organization.

The real value in KM is in its ability to solve business and operational challenges and make measurable improvements in performance measured in the context of where it is applied. It provides agility to an organization to more readily adapt to change (call it “operating faster than the speed of change”) and more quickly access and leverage what knowledge is needed when it is needed.

I know a few things to be true about KM since this concept works in my company and has worked for my clients.

1. Trying to apply KM on a system wide basis usually fails when one starts at the system level.
2. It doesn’t have to be complicated and it doesn’t have to take a long time.
3. The practical application (what I call Knowledge at the Point of Execution) of KM is where the value lies.
4. You need to start at a “local” level to demonstrate value and apply KM where you can see business or operational solutions addressed and resolved. The nearby greater organization will usually see value in KM and why it makes sense—Knowledge is personal and KM starts locally.
5. The ability to capture, adapt, transfer, and reuse knowledge must be part of the business and operational processes of the organization for it to succeed…not something extra or applied from the outside.

So, I wouldn’t say that DoD KM is “dead.” I would say that DoD KM is neither enabled nor practiced nor understood at leadership levels in such a way that supports a consistent and disciplined approach to creating easily understood KM concepts, an easily understood strategy, and relevant implementing practices that can be understood and applied at the “point of execution.” There are those that “get it” and the examples John references are good ones but they are isolated (but are delivering value and saving lives).

Focus on the practical application where value can be demonstrated and evolve from there…you will need resources, commitment, and leadership that demands collaboration and sharing who really support this…defer “KM central” which can take on a bureaucratic and diversionary life of its own and look for places in DoD where there are committed early adapter leaders who see that the ability to capture and reuse knowledge very fast can make a measurable difference in operational and business performance and they are willing to resource its success…work outward from there and reflect on what makes this successful so that you can derive some common learnings for effective concepts, strategies, and implementing practices.

For consideration

Bill Kaplan
CKO
Acquisition Solutions, Inc.

]]> By: The Day DoD KM Died | CTOvision.com http://jbordeaux.com/the-day-dod-km-died/comment-page-1/#comment-1988 The Day DoD KM Died | CTOvision.com Tue, 12 May 2009 19:19:35 +0000 http://jbordeaux.com/the-day-dod-km-died/#comment-1988 [...] Another key reason to check out his writings is John’s recent post on “The Day DoD KM Died“. [...] [...] Another key reason to check out his writings is John’s recent post on “The Day DoD KM Died“. [...]

]]> By: Bob Gourley http://jbordeaux.com/the-day-dod-km-died/comment-page-1/#comment-1986 Bob Gourley Tue, 12 May 2009 18:20:48 +0000 http://jbordeaux.com/the-day-dod-km-died/#comment-1986 John, I really appreciate the post and the context. I normally get queued to your writings by following your Twitter feed but in this case I didn't learn of it till a retired four-star sent it to me. The bad news is my personal info gathering mechanisms let me down there, but the good news is that your post is making its way around the senior ranks in DoD. Maybe things will change because of what you wrote. I'm writing a post on my blog now to point others this way. Cheers, Bob John,

I really appreciate the post and the context. I normally get queued to your writings by following your Twitter feed but in this case I didn’t learn of it till a retired four-star sent it to me. The bad news is my personal info gathering mechanisms let me down there, but the good news is that your post is making its way around the senior ranks in DoD. Maybe things will change because of what you wrote.

I’m writing a post on my blog now to point others this way.

Cheers,
Bob

]]>