$50 Million Investment Fund for KM
- 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
- 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@...
- At the end of Ed Swanstrom's posting re the subject above comes the
> The eKnowledgeCenter provides Knowledge Management and Intellectualprogram
> Property Management education and training. The most popular
> is the certification training to pass the Knowledge ManagementFrankly, I'm just plain curious. So far as I know, KM is an emerging
> Certification Board's certification testing.
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
- 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
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
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.
--- In com-prac@y..., nickols@o... wrote:
> At the end of Ed Swanstrom's posting re the subject above comes the
> > The eKnowledgeCenter provides Knowledge Management and
> > Property Management education and training. The most popular
> > 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
> field. Its boundaries are fuzzy. Its disciplines are far from
> 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
> say with any degree of certainty or predictability that "this
> 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
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
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.
"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 InnovationOh.... so there is now order where before there was chaos. I do not think
> 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.
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
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.
Where does it say that the standard is commercialized??? NOCA nor ISO
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.
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
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
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
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.
--- In com-prac@y..., "Edward Swanstrom" <swanstrom.e@e...> wrote:
> Where does it say that the standard is commercialized??? NOCA nor
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> University of Arizona, and most universities and graduate schools
> the US have to comply with NCA.
> NCA is not an expert on any subject area. It is an expert on
> 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.