Home
Bertrand Duperrin's Library tagged → View Popular, Search in Google
"On a cru au départ au grand paradigme de la transformation globale et uniforme de l’entreprise traditionnelle en entreprise 2.0. La pratique est en train de prouver le contraire… En effet, plus je travaille avec mes clients au déploiement de stratégies Web 2.0 et de certains de ses outils à l’intérieur de leurs entreprises, plus je m’aperçois que ce déploiement doit se faire de façon graduelle, par projets pilotes."
-
Premier niveau
Comme nous venons de le voir, le premier niveau de communauté touche l’entreprise dans son ensemble. Des communautés que je nomme d’intérêt et qui sont ouvertes à tous les employés: profil personnel et professionnel à partager avec tous afin de faciliter la communication et la conversation, faciliter aussi l’identification des expertises et faciliter l’innovation participative.
-
Deuxième niveau
À ce niveau, les communautés se spécialisent et deviennent des communautés de pratique, si chères aux spécialistes des ressources humaines qui ne jurent que par la gestion du savoir. En effet, c’est à ce niveau que les communautés génèrent des contenus d’expertise ou de mémoire d’entreprise™ à partager entre employés d’une même spécialité en vue d’un transfert générationnel.
- 1 more annotation(s)...
Le modèle du KWC (Knowledge Workers Community) propose 4 phases dans le cycle de vie d’une communauté. Cela signifie, dans le cas d’une communauté de connaissance ou d’une communauté d’intérêt, qu’il ne suffit absolument pas de créer un outil et d’auto-déclarer une communauté, mais bien d’organiser des rencontres pour aller vers une phase de formalisation, qui elle même repose sur des échanges
-
Là ou la communauté de pratique va concevoir la veille (étape 3) comme une phase intermédiaire (phase 3) au service de la constitution de communauté, dans la communauté marketing la veille est l’objet de la communauté.
-
Là ou la communauté de pratique va concevoir la veille (étape 3) comme une phase intermédiaire (phase 3) au service de la constitution de communauté, dans la communauté marketing la veille est l’objet de la communauté.
- 5 more annotation(s)...
The big issue? Whether functions are determined by job type(engineering, sales, etc.) or by market segment (consumer, channel, etc.), corporate priorities and initiatives typically cross function. That may not seem so bad, except that each functional head understands the priorities just a little bit differently. One function may see the number 1 priority as 10x more important than the number 2 priority while their colleague may see them as roughly equal in importance. That has huge implications on how many and which resources get assigned to different initiatives. Below is my simplistic graphic of this problem:
-
why don't companies staff initiatives instead of functional groups? For example, a corporate initiative could be to increase customer satisfaction.
-
I think initiative focused cross-functional teams would be an interesting way to approach this problem. Hire pure resource managers to manage people who are 'on the beach' as we used to say in consulting and between initiatives. In my mind that would give individuals one primary goal - for the length of the initiative (which could be multi-year if it involved expanding into a new market). Communities of practice could then be set up - using social software - to help share skill-specific best practices across individuals.
I’m just going to comment on the Local vs Global paradox in relation to Communities of Practice as it relates to current talks I’m having at the moment in creating communities for a Procurement practice.
Do we create multiple communities by region, by specialty, do we also have a general community (where there is overlap in interests)? What’s the downside of splintered communities? Will people identify and participate in a general community?
-
The 4 KM paradoxes are:
1. Tacit vs Explicit
2. Local vs Global
3. Open vs Closed
4. Quantity vs Quality -
“It is relatively easy to establish a community for knowledge sharing within a local area. Sharing involves trust and trust is easier to establish among people who share physical and cultural proximity.”
- 3 more annotation(s)...
The Knowledge Management Section of the U.S. Army’s Field Manual FM 6-01.1 is a classic example of the formal structure and organization one can apply to just about any organizational process that requires management
-
Figure 3-2 illustrates a pyramidal hierarchy of collaboration styles that I have found to be unrealistic in typical organizations. Just as there are multiple organizational structures that may or may not map to what you see on the formal organizational chart, you also see people engaing in different types of collaboration at different times for different purposes. Sometimes this collaboration can be planned, and sometimes it emerges spontaneously. Fixating too solidly as a manger on a theoretical progression of collaboration types may be less useful than concentrating on identifying when different type of collaboration make sense and making sure the resources are available to support what is needed.
-
In other words, it’s a process that lays out the role of knowledge management and how learning can be captured and fed back to improve operations. It’s no better nor worse than any other set of “process steps.”
We build community out of crisis and we build community by accident, but we do not know how to build community by design.
Selected Tags
Related Tags
communitiesofpractices (3)- enterprise2.0 (2)
- organization (2)
- knowledgemanagement (2)
- implementation (1)
- pilots (1)
- projectcommunities (1)
- knowledgeworkers (1)
- KWN (1)
- management (1)
- initiative (1)
- priorities (1)
- knowledgesharing (1)
- scope (1)
- process (1)
- informalnetworks (1)
- formalnetworks (1)
- communitiesofpurpose (1)
Diigo is about better ways to research, share and collaborate on information. Learn more »
Join Diigo