Carla Verwijs discusses KM is (more than) technology and reading it we must be living in totally separated worlds. Most of the KM papers (reports, web things, etc.) I see are words, words and more words. From time to time a picture shows up that should back up the words (it is called a model). Seldomly one sees usable technology for KM.
Carla says:
In that booklet we distinguished three approaches: knowledge storage; knowledge processes; and learning processes (actually, we had four approaches with knowledge measuring as the fourth, but this one is a bit out of line with the others).
Now what I would like to know is what "this one is a bit out of line" means. If the benefits of KM (introduced by technology or otherwise) are not measurable we should forget about it. Compare marketing, big companies spent an enormous amount on this (15% of the retail price is not unusual) and then they pay market researchers to study the impact. KM in general is never going to be accepted if it cannot pay its own existence. So we need things to measure if only to convince.
Comments