Eighth Knowledge Management Roundtable
Convened on February 8, 2001 at
The MITRE Corporation
McLean, Virginia
Resources:
Agenda
Participants
Organization List
Certification Objectives
Flow of Knowledge
Brief:
The MITRE Corporation hosted the eighth event in the Capital region's Knowledge Management Roundtable (KM RT) series on February 8, 2001
Held in conjunction with School of Public Policy's International Center for Applied Studies in Information Technology (ICASIT) at George Mason University and Virginia's Center for Innovative Technology (CIT), the KM RT seeks to broaden the application and advance the effectiveness of KM practice in organizations in the region. CIT seeks to increase the Commonwealth's economic competitiveness and quality of life by advancing the development of Virginia as a technology state and by creating and retaining technology-based jobs and businesses.
As part of its efforts to achieve these results, CIT provided a grant to ICASIT to help initiate a shared KM culture among organizations in Virginia by identifying organizations interested in KM and convening the first KM Roundtable that was held in March 1999 (KM Roundtable, March 1999). Subsequently, a KM RT has been convened nearly every quarter: KM Roundtable, June 1999, KM Roundtable, September 1999, KM Roundtable, February 2000, KM Roundtable, May 2000, KM Roundtable, August 2000 and KM Roundtable, November 2000. Over the past year the KM RT has transitioned to become a regional advocate for KM processes in both private and governmental organizations in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia, and CIT confirmed its support of KM processes by partially funding KM RT activities for the next 12 months.
With this event, eight meetings have been held since initiation of the KM RT two years ago; an average of 46 individuals have participated in each event. The February 8th meeting (Agenda) was attended by 54 participants (Participants). Based upon attendance at this meeting at MITRE, some 215 practitioners representing 100 organizations are now involved in the KM RT program. (Organization List).
Last December, civilian and military CKOs convened a two-day symposium to address issues influencing and curriculum for certification of KM practitioners. This event primarily consisted of presentations and subsequent discussion by representatives of several organizations that offer a variety of training in KM. Since this topic has import beyond those involved in the December meeting, the KM RT Working Group determined that it would be a timely topic for the next KM RT meeting, and this report presents a summary of that meeting
Although not present at the December symposium, Geoffrey Malafsky, a long-time member of the KM RT Working Group, volunteered to summarize the two-day meeting with a 15-minute presentation. Dr. Malafsky possess 20 years of research, program management, technical support, and marketing experience in projects ranging from basic science to industrial equipment in a variety of fields, including Knowledge Management. Currently President and Chief Scientist with Technology Intelligence International, Malafsky describes himself as a technologist who provides clients advice about emerging technologies and how they might be applied to enhance the client's core capabilities.
After overcoming some minor technical problems, Malafsky initiated his presentation with a discussion of 14 objectives of certification (Certification Objectives) under consideration by the KM Working Group of the Federal CIO Council. In summary, this group of federal practitioners is exploring how to make KM a sustainable activity in federal agencies and, as part of that initiative, is trying to determine what it might mean to be a "certified KM practitioner" or to be "certified in KM."
Malafsky than presented a summary illustration of KM from one perspective of KM practitioners in the Department of the Navy (Flow of Knowledge). One of the critical issues in KM involves defining the broad environment encompassed by the term KM. This diagram depicts the flow of knowledge and the multiple relationships among people, processes, and technology.
Before presenting overviews of the various curricula, Malafsky outlined some of the issues and concerns with certification that have been raised in the KM community. These concerns address issues related to accreditation, skills needed, standards, quality, industry perception of and trust in a certificate/degree in KM, potential benefits from such a certificate, and the possible value that might accrue to the individual and her organization because of certification.
Malafsky had obtained copies of the PowerPoint files that were used for the presentations in December and summarized each organization's offering on two images. For this report, these organizations were offered the opportunity to edit the images and submit a short description of their program. The resulting illustrations and descriptions, presented randomly below, present several different perspectives of KM and demonstrate the wide range of sub disciplines that comprise the field.
Innovation Management Institute
Knowledge Management Consortium International
After Malafsky presented an overview of the offerings from these six organizations, several representatives offered further insight. Michael Stankosky, leader of the KM effort at GWU, discussed an urgent need for a framework for KM that combines the theory and practice. Mark Addleson, professor of public policy at GMU, supported this concept and mentioned discussions of possible collaboration in the KM arena between GWU and GMU. Douglas Weidner discussed the KMCI program using the two images presented above, and Deane Williams further discussed the IMI KM program.
An open, honest, and free flowing discussion ensued, and most participants offered opinions or asked questions. Much discussion addressed what course work a KM certificate might include and how a certificate in KM would compare with other professional certificates. These ideas and questions were addressed from multiple perspectives, and we all left with a more robust understanding of what is available, but no agreement or consensus was attained concerning the optimum program.
Written comments on the certification issue include the following:
"The process of certification is an excellent indicator of actions taken to individually (or corporately) establish a level of training associated with KM. In the process of implementing KM, an organization might seek the advice and support of a consulting firm. "Certification" should not be a substitute on the part of the consultant for actually doing KM and bringing that "Knowledge" to the client. The certification process needs an aspect of ethics ensuring that certified consultants are actually KM practitioners." - Clay Dean
"A review of the limits resulting from the professionalization of Medicine lends some insight to 'where' we are and might end up when we start to discuss the imposition of "standards" on the discipline of Knowledge Management.
Only after university training was established in Europe in the 1600's did "medicine" receive a "professional" distinction apart from that of the "wise-man/woman." However important regimented medical study was to the student's "knowledge base," only the experience gained in internship and residency provided the graduate the ability to become a responsible and accountable practitioner.
Many of the standards espoused by physicians through the 20th century were often without scientific rationale to heal -- and did not. While many of the treatments involving herbs handed down and used by naturopaths are now scientifically proven for their healing merit, these were mostly ignored by the university-trained practitioners, whose "standards" were deemed more prestigious than the naturopaths.
Just as the early discounting of neuropathy by university trained physicians held back progress in medicine, the discussion of KM standards may be premature. Even at the most basic level we seem to be a grappling with the basics of definitions of purpose and motivation.
As Professor Stankosky suggested at the KM RT meeting on certification, we need an underlying theory of KM to provide an essential framework with which operating principles may be tested and refined in a better-managed set of initiatives. Imposing standards now without a full picture of "what" KM is could severely limit the budding discipline's potential and possible discount its value as a recognized field of practice." -- Susan Trinter
"I can't support "certification" for KM for the following reasons:
- from my observations, most of the KM certifiers have never actually delivered KM in a manner that has produced reported, tangible results for their customers, hence their own ability is quite suspect; the certification process would have to be based largely on "customer" input to lend any credibility to the process; and
- knowledge sharing and re-use is too personal to have certification associated with it (I would, however, support the development of company-by-company self-assurance standards for KM); and until the universities and academics significantly increase our understanding of an underlying theory for our practice, we don't have much of a basis on which to certify people." -- Kent Greenes
Next KM RT:
Please reserve May 17 on your calendars for the next KM RT meeting, which will feature Alex Bennet, Deputy CIO for EI, Department of the Navy.
Special thanks to Jean Tatalias and Gail Hart for arranging the meeting at
The MITRE Corporation, to Jiwan Giri for sharing his notes from the meeting,
and to David Melia for adroitly integrating all the pieces of this report
on ICASIT's website.
Please send comments on this report format, suggestions for improvements to
the KM RT, or suggestions for topics, speakers, and venues for future KM RT
events to Virgil Frizzell, Senior Consultant for KM for the School of Public
Policy's International Center for Applied Studies in Information Technology
at George Mason University: vfrizzel@osf1.gmu.edu.