Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.
Technography, Knowledge Management - working assumptions
Author: Jerome Camus Posted: 3/3/1999; 8:51:06 AM Topic: Technography, Knowledge Management and Frontier Msg #: 3503 (In response to 3280) Prev/Next: 3502 / 3504
Hi Bernie,Just to add to this discussion, the different strands which I read through, I came up with the following observations.
The first fundemental observation is that hierarchies are useful in that they 'tie-in' time to the processes your are referring to. And this is very important in that, like stock trades, ideas, contributions, votes - whatever - are sequential to others. The very rigid structures of outlines where a grandson requires a father who has a father in turn may not sound flexible, but *is* realistic and desireable in terms of as-objective-as-you-can data capture and accountability (who said what and owned up to it).
In the 2x2 matrix of time/location same/different, that solves the time column problem of the tool. A browser capable tool should also solve the location column problematics. In fact, with a single tool, it may be possible to conduct what you propose, irregardless of sameness/differentness of location or time.
The second observation relates to the type of involvement the tool ought to deal with. This can be quite variable: from brain storming, to concept development/writing and then to effective final decision-making. It appears some of the discussion here has dealt with all three at different points. Where do you see the tool's greatest added value? Note that a tool that attemps to do all three may actually be multiple tools, as the raison d'etre changes...
A third observation is that, in organisational contexts, such a tool (which I will qualify as a system) has to have an owner, i.e. someone who can stop the system from being used. A strategy plan will be cooked up by possibly different people, but one person will carry the final responsability for it. Thus, in a sense, this person will have the discussion go in a direction s/he deems appropriate. And will have to have tools to do so: prompting colleagues for reactions, setting deadlines for contributions, setting working parameters... and possibly stopping discussions if they are deemed to be dysfunctional.
I mean, even brainstorming requires a facilitator, who can federate views, make proposals and achive some form of concensus.
Fourth. I have stated above the hierarchy seems the most pertinent to me. Yet, it is also true that it can get messy and hard to mentally extricate oneself from a long-winded discussion. My only thought on this would be to have a parallel graphic representation that could show a thread's development (maybe by allowing different sizes for the number and deemed value of contributions - thus allowing to see where most ideas/confrontation occurs)with different nodes connecting together. The labelling of which will porbably be 'facilitated' (giving the thread a name, breaking off seperate issues into different threads...).
Lastly, as the process moves towards decision, I think it is valuable to have Agree/Disagree/Did not vote consciously/absent Vote distinctions (people are allowed to not have an opinion after all), with a possibility of commenting (expressing dissent, expressing doubt, expressing need for additional info, etc). This to allow the organisation to learn healthily (a-la-Argyris), if it so wishes that is...
This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:48:19 PM.
© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.