The first draft of a report on the knowledge net
- Dear all
I have uploaded a copy of the first draft of a report performing some
level of analysis and interpretation of the data collected on the
knowledge network into the presentation folder on this yahoo group.
I have included the conceptual framwork that I am using for thinking
about the knowledge network aswell.
At the moment we still really need more people to update their
communication frequency to start getting some really good insights. But
I thought that you guys would find it interesting to see what additional
levels of insight can be gained from using more quantitative measures of
I hope you find this of interest, and if you have any feedback or
suggestion of additional aspects you would like included in future
reviews of the knowledge net please feel free to ask.
Now, imust go as I have burnig the candle at both ends recently and I am
going to try and sign off for the weekend on this.....
I would like to thank all those who hace particpated so , I would
encourage any one who has created an account to go in and just have a
play. Even though I have been working with this stuff for over a year
now I still find it a facinating and informative approach. And a really
good way to just to get to know people and there work a little better .
Department of Speech Communication
University of Illinois
@: swarbric@.../ andy@...
Yahoo Group : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/knowledgenetworks
- My sincere thanks to Fred Nickols for a spirited response to
some 'fighting' talk:
Let me try and answer his queries.
I notice two orientations in CoPs (both the natural and 'cultured'
variety, BTW a great analogy). Ones that turns inwards, concentrates
on participant learning & value, here the CoP keep very much to
themselves, do not interact directly with the larger organization or
see themselves in any way beholden to deliver = self contained. Other
CoPs adopt a 'service' vision, regard themselves as informal centers
of excellence, seek to have a 'political voice', offer opinions,
advice and help to employees who may not be participants. This is a
different dimension to seeded vs. self-organizing.
Politics vs. practice:
My plea was for attention to understanding what happens within CoPs
rather than how to steward CoPs within or across firms /
organizations. I think the gap we need to cover is: how participants
come to create knowledge, learn, build trust, share concepts, make
key distinctions and build ontologies.
Fred makes the point (if I interpret him right) that to be recognized
as a CoP, the group needs to have a learning agenda, have some
measure of established trust, have rituals in place and be moving
forward. Perhaps for him 'stuck' CoPs just never crossed the key
threshold - they have not emerged? Here we dwell in semantics and
fuzzy categorization. I recognize CoPs that have social bonding but
struggle to make progress with learning or knowledge creation.
The observation that the CoP paradigm has been exploited, is valid in
my view - way too many firms are seeking a magic recipe rather
than 'being' in practice. I cringe when CoP advocates suggest
explicit rewards and direct payment for participation.
Improved understanding of the role and function of 'situatedness' in
CoPs, articulating how individuals interact with genres e.g. virtual
collaboration tools, build & maintain their group memory, capture
expertise, validate claims, come to recognize working patterns, share
terminology and distinguish lessons learned.
Perhaps my plea can best be articulated by making reference to an
article by Liz Davenport, 2002. "Mundane knowledge management and
microlevel organizational learning: an ethological approach", Journal
of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53
(12): 1038 - 1046.
Liz describes this as: "a focus on the issue of maintenance work that
sustains communites: the identification and negotiation of aims,
tasks, resource allocation, alignments, and the nature of
Fred, thanks again for your response.