I'll try (first time...) to live blog the Summit.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
I'll try (first time...) to live blog the Summit.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Friday, August 24, 2007
Thursday, August 23, 2007
- People to people;
- People to information;
- Information to people;
- Information to information.
(1) is about helping people find other people (knowledge) that can help them solve their problem, answer their question, collaborate with them, etc.
(2) is about helping people find relevant information to be able to do their work (pull).
(3) is about pushing information to people so they can do their work, are kept up to date about new issues, etc. (push)
(4) is about aggregate data and information into new information (semi-)automatically. Then this can be used for 2 and 3.
Basically the reason why you would want to manage information is the enhancement of organisational and personal performance.
This definition summarizes the important aspects of KM.
But I was wondering where I got this definition from… Is it my definition? Or did somebody else come up with it?
I looked around. In some KM definitions you see 1 and 2 show up and sometimes 3, but never 4. E.g. in a presentation about Expert Location Systems APQC says these systems, a.o.: connect people to people and link people to information about people. And NCC defines KM as "connecting people to people in new ways, people to information in new ways, and information to people in new ways". But where did their definition come from? Or is it theirs?
Kaye Vivian limits KM to 1 and 2, when she writes: “Knowledge management is a business process that connects people to people and people to information for competitive advantage and better decision making.”
The Elsua Knowledge Management blog has a similar definition: KM is “a systematic process of connecting people to people and people to the knowledge and information they need to act effectively and create new knowledge”. (Taken from: Carla O’Dell, The Executive’s Role in Knowledge Management.)
So, we have three definitions with elements of my(?) definition.
APQC, O'Dell and Vivian mention the first two elements. This definition of KM seems to originate from O'Dell. NCC has the first three elements, but it's not clear where they got it from.
So does anyone know who’s the 'owner' of NCC's definition? And if my(?) definition is published somewhere?
This is a very very rough draft of the outline for what the Archetypes look like in a community (mostly thrown up here from TextPad notes). It is important to note that all of these community archetypes play highly positive roles in various communities.In my post on the Wikinomics book, I mentioned that I miss wiki-roles (or archetypes) in the book. Could this list be a good starting point? It looks like it. However w.r.t. wiki's I miss a role in Tara's list. I'd call them: ‘pruners’/'cleaners’. These people that go through wiki pages, don't really add content, but make sure the content is readable. They remove typos, correct layout issues, etc. Is there such a or a comparable role in communities?
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Friday, August 17, 2007
But Stephen has more to share. Looking for interesting presentations to explain your IT department how you want to work? Look here! Or, need to explain to someone what social media is and what it could mean for your company? Look here! Thanks a lot for sharing, Stephen - and Luis.
In the meantime ReadWriteWeb has an interesting post on a new feedreader, called fav.or.it that:
...lets you read feed content and comment, all within the app. The comments can be two-way, meaning publishers can choose to aggregate fav.or.it comments into their blogs.A video also gives you an idea what it looks like and how it works.
Is this the answer to my question? It sure looks like it! But we'll have to see in practice. Soon they'll be open to the public.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
What they also do is integrate your personal calender (e.g. Google Calender) with with your other calender (e.g. your work calender, which usually is Outlook). I use SynMyCal for that now (which works wonderfully for me).
Here's a post on how Timebridge works and what new products they have to offer. (There's also a video on how Timebridge works.)
By the way, maybe Douglas can tell me about Google's information management/architecture? Or write about it on his blog?
All that raises a fundamental question about technology's ultimate impact on workers. Will this be a new world of empowered individuals encased in a bubble of time-saving technologies? Or will it be a brave new world of virtual sweatshops, where all but a tech-savvy few are relegated to an always-on world in which keystrokes, contacts, and purchases are tracked and fed into the faceless corporate maw?Ah, well actually that is exactly what I was missing in this article. Where's paper? Will we live in a digital world and read everything from devices? Practice and the book "The Myth of the Paperless Office" say 'no'. And isn't that where complexity comes in: the real problem with work is moving between our fysical (e.g. face-to-face) and virtual, paper and digital worlds. Two worlds organised in different ways.
It's safe to say we'll see some of both. But perhaps we can comfort ourselves by realizing that, while technology will change the nature of work, it can't change human nature. "All of these technologies," says Charles Grantham, executive producer of the research group Work Design Collaborative, "aren't going to be a substitute for face-to-face interaction."
Friday, August 10, 2007
Simply search for a keyword of what your [note: typo, should be "you"] wish to make or work with to see the tools & Web 2.0 links available.Very unclear description of what this search engine is about... I tried the engine by typing in "blogging". The result list you get is not insightful either. There's no information on how the result list is defined. Is it a ranked list? Or is the top result that latest information on this topic?
Actually I was hoping it would give a list of all - in this case - "blogging" tools ((non-)commercial) out there. Something like web2logo (which also has a search engine).
Thanks for the tip, Wolf!
Thursday, August 9, 2007
It was basically a PowerPoint with some live demonstration of a few queries where Powerset got much better results than Google. (No surprises there.) Note that all the demos throughout the evening were only searching over Wikipedia.And:
The interesting part of the night was the demo station where they allow people to compare search results between Powerset and Google. The queries were limited to the form of “What did ___ say?” and people were welcomed to fill in the blank with famous names.And:
After each query, the user was encouraged to vote using one of the three buttons underneath the search box. He could vote that 1) Powerset results were better, 2) Google results were better, or 3) It’s a tie, and the buttons kept track of the counts. In almost all cases, the results were either a tie or Powerset had better answers.There'll be a 'part 2' soon describing in more detail what he saw .
This at least gives an idea of where Powerset is heading and, although the demo was limited (and, indeed, not always easy to follow), it makes me curious what the live version of Powerset will bring us.
Wonderful, by the way, how everything was recorded on video! Thanks Data Strategy!
I missed the reference to the definition of Web 3.0 given on the O'Reilly Radar some time ago. It relates to Schmidt's definition but it's much more elaborate. Tim O'Reilly also gave his definition in an interview (on IT conversations?). Tim's definition was more about "always being online" and "Internet moving to devices".
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
I'll give a (short) summary of the talk, but please block an hour and sit back, learn and apply. It worked for me, although most of it can also be read in David Allen's, "Getting things done" (GTD) - which is very worth the read. I apply it to my daily work and it helped me be more productive.
Here goes the summary:
Email was like a little hug I (Merlin) was giving people a hug and getting hugs from people.
But it didn’t always stay that way.
Email became the one source for all incoming and outgoing information. You didn’t need a system to handle email. Now you do. A simple and complete framework how to deal with your email. More and more people live in their email. They do everything in there (for practical purposes). They have their system in there. That is not a way to live, according to Mann. You should have a system outside email to cope with email.
As a knowledge worker the two most precious things you have are you time and attention. They are finite (it fits in “a box”) and irreplaceable. Multitasking is a myth, according to Merlin.
Use walls. Have a healthy relationship with your email. Make decisions about how your time and attention are related to email.
Manage attention. If you’re managing attention your making sure that your time and attention are always mapping to the things that you claim are important. This implies that you could be spending less time on email.
Merlin takes a lot of ideas from David Allen’s "Getting things done" (which is “Advanced common sense”). The problem is we don’t always do the obvious.
Email is a medium. It’s not where the action is. I have a question here though: I agree with the fact that the action is not in email. But could we put the action there? If email is the core tool of a knowledge worker, shouldn't more tools integrate with email? E.g. why can't I just write a document in my email? Or the other way around: why can't I just write a document in Word and decide that I want to send the content as an email? (Note: I don't mean attaching the document to an email!)
There’s a single place for anything. Note by Samuel: my first thought was this contradicts what we see in practice and for instance what Weinberger says. However, Merlin actually implies something else, see point 1!
Process to zero. That’s more than checking. And less than responding. It’s: so what do I with it?
Convert everything to actions.
What can happen to an email?:
- Delete (or Archive = a single folder! It’s not the 24 folder system. Don’t spend the time of sorting out where to archive it.)
- Delegate (but use 'waiting for' to track it)
- Respond (quick and short responses, 5 sentences?)
- Defer (this is tricky, stuff you will need later or deal with later, e.g. put it in a to-respond folder, leave the inbox for what you have not read/processed)
- Do (it now! or capture a placeholder for that action, e.g. your calendar, don’t decide what you do for the day by looking at your inbox. Keep a tasklist.) Note: I agree with the tasklist! I use one since I read "Getting things done", with categories (action, waiting for, call, etc) and it really works and keeps me (more) focused.
Always choose one of the above!
Tweak this to your own work habits. But make a sound, complete system. Make it a habit, do it and you will see great differences.
Other tips: don’t leave your email open all the time. Don’t turn on the auto-check. Set up a check email schedule. You’ll learn that a lot of email is less urgent, than you thought. Check it and get back to work.
Use email templates. Note and question: I don’t use them. Anyone got examples of use? Merlin’s example sounded difficult… (at 29:00) Merlin suggested of thinking about email responses you write a lot. I’ll try that, but where do you save the templates? In your email?
If you do this well, it becomes more like 1993… (when Merlin got his first email account and felt sending and receiving an email was like a hug).
Merlin also took questions:
One question was about expectances: depends on your team or on who evaluates you. Work it out! Talk about it with your colleagues and agree upon the way you use email.
He also comments GTD tools: usually they focus to much on the tool as the solution but it's not. You have to have the system first. If you use a tool to support the system it should be seamless, easily to change modes and easy to use.
Also talks about the processing the pile of email when you get back from vacation.Wow, (at 55:00) a Google lady told that they have David Allen come to Google regularly to give 'Getting things done' courses!
End of summary.
The slides of the Tech Talk can be found here.
Google Reader, the company's syndicated newsreader, is search-less today, despite significant demand for the ability to search through news feeds and other RSS subscriptions. A few hacks to search through Google Reader feeds have even popped up on the Internet. The Google Reader team "gets the message," according to Google software engineer Matt Cutts, and Google Reader search is one of the top priorities on the team's list.
Looking forward to it! And how about adding Google Reader to the Google Apps package?
Monday, August 6, 2007
I find it disappointing that he didn't go into the fact(?) that not everything will be digitalized. Remember "The myth of the paperless office"? We live in a mixed world, with paper and digital information, with structured and unstructured information. The real question is: how do we cope with that, how do we organize this way of living, can it be done? Furthermore, I simply can't seem to understand the point Keen is making. Every time Keen says/writes something I came up with an answer (except for the points that Weinberger agrees with such as "authority on the web"). And, funny enough, Weinberger gives the same answers I would give (only of course more elaborate, as an expert - which I am not - would do). (Also refer to Snowden's short post on this debate.) Example: in the WSJ article Keen says:
But once everthing is flattened, when books are digitized, when libraries becomes adjuncts of Google, when writers are transformed into sales and marketing reps of their own brands, what then?What then?! This won't become reality, as far as I see it. Why? Because we see more books being published (also due to the fact that books can be published more easily). It's also a fact that you sell more books if you put (part of) your book on the Web (too). (Up until about a year ago print volumes continued to grow.)
So I (mostly) agree with Weinberger and not with Keen? Yes and no. Yes, I agree with what Weinberger is stating. But I'm also intrigued by what Keen is saying and questioning myself: Am I missing something? Keen's story relates to my earlier post about Sanger's "Who says we know". I had the same weird experience when I read Sanger's essay: I don't agree with the statement that's being made, but still...
Thursday, August 2, 2007
It says that feedback is appreciated. Well, I was looking for a way to subscribe to the feed, but couldn't find it...
UPDATE: One day later... WebbAlert has a news feed. Thanks!