Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

$50 Million Investment Fund for KM

Expand Messages
  • Edward Swanstrom
    I thought this would be of interest to the group. EKNOWLEDGECENTER announces the creation of a fund for Knowledge Science and Knowledge Technology research and
    Message 1 of 6 , Jun 26, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      I thought this would be of interest to the group.

      EKNOWLEDGECENTER announces the creation of a fund for Knowledge
      Science and Knowledge Technology research and development. The $50
      Million (USD) KNOWLEDGE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FUND will be used to
      fund applied science and development that could lead to marketable
      processes and products related to Knowledge and Knowledge Management.

      The eKnowledgeCenter recently merged with an intellectual property
      assessment and management group to expand its offerings in Knowledge
      Asset Management and Knowledge Asset Management Software. The merger
      included access to millions of US dollars for investment purposes.

      Sample areas of interest related to knowledge science and technology:
      - Knowledge Economics
      - Cognitive Science
      - Social Cognition
      - Meta Cognition
      - Simulators
      - eLearning
      - eKnowledge
      - Cognitive Neuroscience
      - Neurological Pharmaceuticals
      - Cognitive Artifacts
      - Communities of Practice Processes and Products
      - Social Networks

      The eKnowledgeCenter provides Knowledge Management and Intellectual
      Property Management education and training. The most popular program
      is the certification training to pass the Knowledge Management
      Certification Board's certification testing.

      For more information about eKnowledgeCenter see
      http://www.eknowledgecenter.com . For more information about KM and
      IPM certification, see http://www.kmcertification.org .
      http://ckimps.org for KIMPS. http://www.gkec.org for GKEC.

      If you are interested in applying for use of the fund, contact Vince
      Marold at vjm@...

      Press Contact: Mike Rudolph at mr@...
    • nickols@optonline.net
      At the end of Ed Swanstrom s posting re the subject above comes the ... program ... Frankly, I m just plain curious. So far as I know, KM is an emerging
      Message 2 of 6 , Jun 29, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        At the end of Ed Swanstrom's posting re the subject above comes the
        following:

        > The eKnowledgeCenter provides Knowledge Management and Intellectual
        > Property Management education and training. The most popular
        program
        > is the certification training to pass the Knowledge Management
        > Certification Board's certification testing.

        Frankly, I'm just plain curious. So far as I know, KM is an emerging
        field. Its boundaries are fuzzy. Its disciplines are far from being
        fully developed. Its technologies are far from being proven and its
        techniques, hostage as they are to practitioners, are ad hoc and
        idiosyncratic. As far as accountability goes, KM practitioners and
        would-be spokesperson for the field are a long way from being able to
        say with any degree of certainty or predictability that "this action
        leads to that result."

        So, just how is it that some agency is able to "certify" anything?
        Perhaps a more direct question is just what is it that this
        certification certifies?

        --

        Fred Nickols
        nickols@...
      • Edward Swanstrom
        This is a good question. There seems to be two schools of thought on this subject: 1. Wait until a discipline has stabilized before discussing standards 2. Use
        Message 3 of 6 , Jun 30, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          This is a good question.

          There seems to be two schools of thought on this subject:

          1. Wait until a discipline has stabilized before discussing standards

          2. Use standards to stabilize a discipline

          The first rarely happens. Organizations and individuals will just
          keep pushing their "approach" in the market place. Confusion will
          still reign until path dependency sets in for a few. Standardization
          becomes a drawn out battle.

          For the standards world, the second is the driving force. Standards
          should begin ASAP and evolve. The ISO standards process provides a
          set of rules to assure no one organization or person's view becomes
          dominant unless no one speaks out against it.

          If you read the literature about standards, standards are used today
          as a means to begin the stablization process early so innovators can
          start innovating around those standards. The earlier the better.

          To clear up a misuderstanding about standards - being an ISO
          standard, for example, does not mean that the standard is set in
          granite. You set up a standards committee made up of various
          organizations and individuals, develop a standards document,
          circulate that document to a large community of peers for review,
          comments, objections, etc. then vote it into practice. Revisit and
          amend that standard as many times as is necessary. For KM, we expect
          at least 4 times a year.

          History of the KMCB:

          The first general KM standards meeting was held in 1998. Over 120
          people attended. Among other topics, minimum competency standards for
          a Knowledge Manager came up.

          A committee was formed in 1998 made up of a variety of organizations.
          That committee is now the Knowledge Management Certification Board
          (KMCB). The committee has changed over this time, but it was
          important to bring the big players to the table: Accenture,
          Pricewaterhouse Coopers, Ernst and Young, Xerox, KPMG, Andersen, EDS,
          etc. with Pfizer, Boeing, and a legal firm (see
          http://www.kmcertification.org for current board) to agree on some
          type of standard.

          To make sure that the standard was not driven by a few organizations
          or people, the KMCB chose to become accreditated by the National
          Organization of Competency Assurance (NOCA www.NOCA.org) NOCA is the
          largest and most successful certification body and follows ISO
          standards. Project Management Institute (PMI) is a member for example.

          Under NOCA guidelines, KMCB must be financially and politically
          independent of any other organization or person. It must poll the KM
          community often to gather the latest additions and subtractions to
          the world's KM knowledge base. The next poll is starting September
          10th, 2001 at the McLean Marriott in Washington D.C. Today, there are
          over 3,000 people in the survey pool who support the KMCB program.

          KMCB is "governed" by over 1,400 KM practitioners who actually have a
          position in a firm or a consulting in Knowledge Management. Around
          400 of that group have the power to vote in (or out) members of the
          KMCB. Most of that list in on the www.eknowledgecenter.com site.
          (soon to be moved to the KMCB site)

          How does the knowledge base or KM "Book of Knowledge" become
          developed? I lead the initial development of this book of knowledge
          was a strawman work drawing from the work of fellow Arthur D. Little
          Alumnus of Karl Wiig (he coined Knowledge Management in a Prism
          Article in 1987) and then adding Tom Davenport, Larry Prusak, and
          many others. Contributions from over 65 disciplines were added into
          KM body of knowledge including cognitive science, social cognition,
          organizational learning, computer science, etc. My major contribution
          was knowledge and knowledge management metrics and the ROI component.

          A course was developed around this body of knowledge and went through
          an alpha and beta test in April 1998 before certification testing was
          conducted. The first certification test was in November 2000. This
          period allowed students and the KM community to provide feedback and
          improve the program. Since the first class, the book of knowledge has
          undergone radical changes until finally stabilized with the addition
          of knowledge economics.

          Briefly, knowledge economics is the inheritance of Innovation
          Economics, Technological Change economics, and related econonomics
          fields along with other sciences. The body of knowledge concerning
          knowledge and knowledge governance that came with economics was
          extremely mature dating back to Francis Bacon (if not before). It
          immediately brought order to KM chaos. It brought in a mature
          terminology, metrics, and thousands of case studies to draw from. See
          *OECD 2000. Knowledge Management in a Learning Society, Paris* and
          other OECD publications to see how that terminology is used.

          Knowledge Economics is the language that speaks to government and
          industry management. With the support of the United Nations, American
          Academy of Science, NSF, World Bank, Organization of Economic
          Cooperation and Development, government chief economists, the science
          and technology leadership of every country, and thousands of other
          economists - knowledge economics is here to stay and is deemed as the
          language for Knowledge Management.

          Thousands of articles have been written in this area including ones
          from Tom Davenport (Attention Economics) and Larry Prusak (Knowledge
          Economies)

          With knowledge economics, the program has been stabilized, any school
          can teach the course to help KMers pass the certification test. (You
          can even try to take the test from KMCB without any courses at all)

          Testing for level one are based on memory. Testing for level 2 (It is
          now only two) is by field experience and evaluation.

          If you want to learn more about the certification process, visit
          NOCA.org . If you want an example of how it is used to develop
          a "book of knowledge" then see Project Management Institute at
          pmi.org .


          How you feel about the above depends on the position you take - 1 or
          2. KMCB and 3,000 other KMers chose number 2.


          On September 13th, KIMPS will be holding a standards committee
          meeting concerning issues such as KM Metrics, KM Terminology, etc.


          Ed Swanstrom

          --- In com-prac@y..., nickols@o... wrote:
          > At the end of Ed Swanstrom's posting re the subject above comes the
          > following:
          >
          > > The eKnowledgeCenter provides Knowledge Management and
          Intellectual
          > > Property Management education and training. The most popular
          > program
          > > is the certification training to pass the Knowledge Management
          > > Certification Board's certification testing.
          >
          > Frankly, I'm just plain curious. So far as I know, KM is an
          emerging
          > field. Its boundaries are fuzzy. Its disciplines are far from
          being
          > fully developed. Its technologies are far from being proven and its
          > techniques, hostage as they are to practitioners, are ad hoc and
          > idiosyncratic. As far as accountability goes, KM practitioners and
          > would-be spokesperson for the field are a long way from being able
          to
          > say with any degree of certainty or predictability that "this
          action
          > leads to that result."
          >
          > So, just how is it that some agency is able to "certify" anything?
          > Perhaps a more direct question is just what is it that this
          > certification certifies?
          >
          > --
          >
          > Fred Nickols
          > nickols@o...
        • Paul Prueitt
          Ed, And just how to you suppose assuring the world that those who speak out against a purely economic model of knowledge sharing? You can not do this while
          Message 4 of 6 , Jun 30, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Ed,

            And just how to you suppose assuring the world that those who speak out
            against a purely economic model of knowledge sharing? You can not do this
            while discounting major schools of thought.

            There are IN FACT psychological, social and economic aspects to Knowledge
            Sharing in communities. The social and psychological aspects are not
            reducible to a economic theory. Moreover, economic theory does not even as
            yet explain economics. Give me a break!!!

            My work is simply not within the framework that you are advancing as a
            standard. In fact other major work, some of which I do not agree with, but
            which is considered by many to be a valid way of looking at KM, are not
            represented in your standard.. at least I think that it is not. I have no
            way of knowing, do I?

            A "standard" has to be open and public... even if not created in an open
            fashion, the standard itself has to be made available without direct
            compensation.

            It seems that "your" standard is learnable only by joining "your" club and
            paying for your courses. Am I wrong about this, or not.

            Ed, I am not trying to be argumentative; but rather to ask you to uncouple
            your claim to a standard from economic benefits derived by your group from
            teaching this "standard".

            You can not control both sides of this issues and remain creditable, IMO.

            You say:

            "NOCA is the largest and most successful certification body.."

            and I do not have a clue what you are talking about. Largest means what? I
            have never heard of NOCA. Has any one here heard of NOCA?

            How does NOCA have a clue about what KM is or should be. Why is your
            certification with NOCA, if it exists, carry any weight with the truth of a
            standard that you are promoting?

            Later on, you say:

            Today, there are
            > over 3,000 people in the survey pool who support the KMCB program.

            Is there a 3,000 person survey pool, each one of these individuals who
            support the KMCB program completely? You use this statement to imply this,
            IMO. I ask, is this survey pool representative of the various disciplines
            that objective standard for "knowledge science" must draw equally from?

            Then you say:

            > Briefly, knowledge economics is the inheritance of Innovation
            > Economics, Technological Change economics, and related econonomics
            > fields along with other sciences. The body of knowledge concerning
            > knowledge and knowledge governance that came with economics was
            > extremely mature dating back to Francis Bacon (if not before). It
            > immediately brought order to KM chaos.

            Oh.... so there is now order where before there was chaos. I do not think
            so... certainly not from economic theory alone.

            The other sciences... hum "other sciences" is not capitalized and not
            "included" I must assert!!!! Oh, lets see, Innovative Economics, this is a
            well known and established discipline that is taught in high schoool if I
            remember correctly.


            ***

            Have Arthur D. Little, Tom Davenport, Larry Prusak, completely or even
            partially personally endorse "your" standard? Does Larry Prusak even know
            that you exist? Or are you interpreting their work in a certain light. I
            think that it is important to be clear about this, do you?

            Oh, and I think that I attended the 1998 first general KM standards meeting.
            As I remember you would not allow certain positions to be entertained, and I
            decided to walk out of the meeting.
          • Edward Swanstrom
            Paul, Where does it say that the standard is commercialized??? NOCA nor ISO permits that. Before you reply any further, conduct research on NOCA.org and the
            Message 5 of 6 , Jun 30, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Paul,

              Where does it say that the standard is commercialized??? NOCA nor ISO
              permits that.

              Before you reply any further, conduct research on NOCA.org and the
              NOCA process. Your statements do not make any sense against the NOCA
              or ISO process of creating standards.

              After you research them and and still feel the standards process is
              unfair, it is best to forward those complaints to ISO and NOCA. I
              have no control over the process.

              KMCB is non-profit. It is non-commercial. I don't see how someone
              could think that I "control" any of these groups. They are filled
              with fiercely independently minded people. Can you imagine Accenture,
              Pricewaterhouse Coopers, EDS, Pfizer, Compaq, etc. being controlled
              by one person? That is what you seem to be saying.

              How about all the KMers that contributed ideas and experience and the
              thousands that are surveyed, or the OECD, etc. How can a single
              person control all of that?

              I control a private school soon to be a graduate business school. I
              do not control the certification standards. It is the other way
              around, the schools have to conform to those standards to qualify as
              a school that prepares students for the KMCB certification test. We
              had to change our courseware several times to comply to changes to
              the KMCB knowledge base. Many of my original contributions have been
              replaced by others.

              As the KMCB has to comply to NOCA to issue certifcation. The
              Innovation Management Institute has to comply to NCA standards of
              education to issue Advanced Degrees. Harvard, Univeristy of Maryland,
              University of Arizona, and most universities and graduate schools in
              the US have to comply with NCA.

              NCA is not an expert on any subject area. It is an expert on becoming
              an accredited school. It is a board using a peered reviewed process
              as required by the Department of Education to become an accredited
              school within the US.

              NOCA is not an expert on knowledge content. It is an expert on the
              process of becoming certification body.



              Ed
            • Edward Swanstrom
              Paul, I will admit to the fact that I am the primary evangelist behind knowledge economics. It took me several years before I become convinced. I experimented
              Message 6 of 6 , Jun 30, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Paul,

                I will admit to the fact that I am the primary evangelist behind
                knowledge economics. It took me several years before I become
                convinced. I experimented with it in the field for five years before
                actually using it on my own organization ( I hate to admit) Now I am
                totally sold.

                I was not trained as an economist, but first as a philosopher and
                then as a social cognitive psychologist. Once I began to understand
                the economics approach, it took me many years to understand it enough
                to feel confident enough to show examples on how it can be used for
                non-monetary economies.

                And yes, even though I am only one person out of many who contribute
                to the KMCB knowledge base, I have been very persuasive. There are
                literally thousands of research articles to draw from supporting
                knowledge economics.

                Any other position can be advocated. That is what an ISO standards
                process provides. Your position has a fighting chance if it is
                supported by evidence.

                People are tired of rhetoric and looking for empirical evidence and
                empirical based tools they can use today.


                Ed Swanstrom


                --- In com-prac@y..., "Edward Swanstrom" <swanstrom.e@e...> wrote:
                > Paul,
                >
                > Where does it say that the standard is commercialized??? NOCA nor
                ISO
                > permits that.
                >
                > Before you reply any further, conduct research on NOCA.org and the
                > NOCA process. Your statements do not make any sense against the
                NOCA
                > or ISO process of creating standards.
                >
                > After you research them and and still feel the standards process is
                > unfair, it is best to forward those complaints to ISO and NOCA. I
                > have no control over the process.
                >
                > KMCB is non-profit. It is non-commercial. I don't see how someone
                > could think that I "control" any of these groups. They are filled
                > with fiercely independently minded people. Can you imagine
                Accenture,
                > Pricewaterhouse Coopers, EDS, Pfizer, Compaq, etc. being controlled
                > by one person? That is what you seem to be saying.
                >
                > How about all the KMers that contributed ideas and experience and
                the
                > thousands that are surveyed, or the OECD, etc. How can a single
                > person control all of that?
                >
                > I control a private school soon to be a graduate business school. I
                > do not control the certification standards. It is the other way
                > around, the schools have to conform to those standards to qualify
                as
                > a school that prepares students for the KMCB certification test. We
                > had to change our courseware several times to comply to changes to
                > the KMCB knowledge base. Many of my original contributions have
                been
                > replaced by others.
                >
                > As the KMCB has to comply to NOCA to issue certifcation. The
                > Innovation Management Institute has to comply to NCA standards of
                > education to issue Advanced Degrees. Harvard, Univeristy of
                Maryland,
                > University of Arizona, and most universities and graduate schools
                in
                > the US have to comply with NCA.
                >
                > NCA is not an expert on any subject area. It is an expert on
                becoming
                > an accredited school. It is a board using a peered reviewed process
                > as required by the Department of Education to become an accredited
                > school within the US.
                >
                > NOCA is not an expert on knowledge content. It is an expert on the
                > process of becoming certification body.
                >
                >
                >
                > Ed
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.