Dina Mehta recently posted her thoughts on what a knowledge management system should be like. She describes an interaction with a client using a "traditional" KM product--mostly archiving documentation. The system wasn't used very much, as is the case with most of these types of systems. So Mehta started asking questions, and came up with some interesting insights:
What it revealed is the need is not as much for a Content Management System as much as it is for a system that allows them to dialogue and converse effortlessly and seamlessly, brainstorm on ideas and projects, in a manner that is as 'face-to-face' as possible.
The KM system in this vision acts more like glue between people and projects rather than a centralized repository. Mehta lays out three components to this vision: presence indicators (who's available), real-time communication (videoconferences, voip), and collaboration spaces (weblogs, wikis, etc).
Another observation: the systems envisioned by Mehta support a project-based environment, as opposed to a bureaucratic environment. A bureaucratic organization is going to be much more interested in a "knowledge repository" type of system than a system that enables collaboration in a project scenerio. Mehta's system won't work for every organization.
(via Column Two)
Posted by Karl
February 24, 2004 08:19 PM