Registration is now open for Critical Success Factors: Measuring Knowledge Services. For knowledge workers, few subjects generate as much interest (and discussion) as measurement and metrics. In Critical Success Factors, we tackle the subject head-on, spending three weeks working together to identify methodologies, tools, and techniques that we can put to work in evaluating (and conveying the value of) information management, knowledge management, and strategic learning for colleagues in the parent organization.
The course is part of Click U’s Premium Programs series, sponsored by SLA (but membership in SLA is not required to take the course). Critical Success Factors: Measuring Knowledge Services is offered both as an individual course and as part of the certificate program, and although there are considerable financial advantages to signing on for the certificate program, all courses are offered à la carte and all knowledge workers are welcome to participate.
Critical Success Factors: Measuring Knowledge Services begins on September 14. There are five course meetings, all online: three Monday lectures (September 14, 21, and 28), a live discussion among participants on Wednesday, September 23, and a course wrap-up and thematic discussion on Thursday, October 1. All programs begin at 3:00 PM EDT, and recordings of all meetings are available for re-play immediately following each meeting.
Go here for more information and to register.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Connecting Drucker's "Meaningful Outside" to Knowledge Services
With management and service delivery responsibility for knowledge services, the organization's knowledge services director has a unique two-sided role to play. On the one hand, this person is the knowledge thought leader for the entire enterprise, with all the innovation-directed and future planning pressure that goes with that role. On the other hand, as the manager of the knowledge services business unit, however it is structured in the larger organization, this manager must ensure that information, knowledge, and strategic learning products and services are delivered as required. It's a challenging task, this business of being two things at once.
And part of the challenge is defining the "audience" (we might call it) for the knowledge services work. Who benefits?
Peter Drucker might have provided us with an answer. Or at least with a provocative way of thinking about the people we're trying to reach.
One of Drucker's concepts, discussed last night among the participants at a meeting of The Drucker Society of New York City, is the role of the CEO in linking between what Drucker referred to as the Inside - i.e., "the organization" - and the Outside, all those external infuences that drive our work. And why is it important to make that distinction? Drucker answered that in an article in The Wall Street Journal in 2004 ("Management Today: The American CEO" - December 30, 2004): "Inside, there are only costs. Results are only on the outside."
Well, of course. And it's the results we're after, isn't it, as we seek to use knowledge services to ensure that the company is functioning as a knowledge culture? So how do we arrive at that "meaningful Outside" Drucker wrote about and apply those principles to knowledge services?
For the knowledge services director, it is important to recognize that there are two "Outsides." Thinking in terms of the larger enterprise, that Outside can be described as Drucker described it: "society, the economy, technology, markets, customers, the media, pubic opinion." For the knowledge services business unit - whether it is a research department, a specialized library, a knowledge center, or any of a variety of other business units providing knowledge services - the Outside is everybody and everything affiliiated with the company for which knowledge services are provided.
There are many, many practical applications that can be used to demonstrate how these Outsides become "meaningful," and we can look at a couple. And they apply - going back to the conundrum posed in the first paragraph - whether I'm doing my job as enterprise-wide knowledge thought leader or as the manager of a single, specific, knowledge-focused business unit.
For example, we can identify at least one element of Drucker's "Outside" for providing "meaningful" results if we have built, say, an expertise database (for the company or for an individual business unit) and we are able to monitor how many people - outside the domain of the knowledge services business unit - are working with this tool without being directed to it or shown how to use it by the knowledge services staff. The users are "outside" my realm of responsibility but how they use the tool provided by my business unit is meaningful, telling me much about my success. And I'm doing the same thing Drucker's CEO is doing, I'm serving as the link between my unit's Outside (the larger enterprise) and the Inside (the knowledge services business unit and its staff).
Another example might be on a less specific level, to think about the effect or impact of some action I take without having a measurable result in hand. As the knowledge thought leader, one of my jobs is to give attention to how people act differently in the workplace after they have been exposed to or participated in some initiative from my unit. If it's the result we are looking for, what might be the result after several weeks (months? years?) of working with staff in team-building situations, working with them in programs and learning activities relating specifically to knowledge sharing or in activities having to do with a project focus that is not especially knowledge related? It all boils down to the same thing, doesn't it? The impact or the effect is an organizational ambiance in which team work is expected, trust is a given, and collegiality is built into the process. It might not be a result that can be measured in quite the same way as the number of hits in an expertise database but it is, nevertheless, a result to be desired and sought after.
And part of the challenge is defining the "audience" (we might call it) for the knowledge services work. Who benefits?
Peter Drucker might have provided us with an answer. Or at least with a provocative way of thinking about the people we're trying to reach.
One of Drucker's concepts, discussed last night among the participants at a meeting of The Drucker Society of New York City, is the role of the CEO in linking between what Drucker referred to as the Inside - i.e., "the organization" - and the Outside, all those external infuences that drive our work. And why is it important to make that distinction? Drucker answered that in an article in The Wall Street Journal in 2004 ("Management Today: The American CEO" - December 30, 2004): "Inside, there are only costs. Results are only on the outside."
Well, of course. And it's the results we're after, isn't it, as we seek to use knowledge services to ensure that the company is functioning as a knowledge culture? So how do we arrive at that "meaningful Outside" Drucker wrote about and apply those principles to knowledge services?
For the knowledge services director, it is important to recognize that there are two "Outsides." Thinking in terms of the larger enterprise, that Outside can be described as Drucker described it: "society, the economy, technology, markets, customers, the media, pubic opinion." For the knowledge services business unit - whether it is a research department, a specialized library, a knowledge center, or any of a variety of other business units providing knowledge services - the Outside is everybody and everything affiliiated with the company for which knowledge services are provided.
There are many, many practical applications that can be used to demonstrate how these Outsides become "meaningful," and we can look at a couple. And they apply - going back to the conundrum posed in the first paragraph - whether I'm doing my job as enterprise-wide knowledge thought leader or as the manager of a single, specific, knowledge-focused business unit.
For example, we can identify at least one element of Drucker's "Outside" for providing "meaningful" results if we have built, say, an expertise database (for the company or for an individual business unit) and we are able to monitor how many people - outside the domain of the knowledge services business unit - are working with this tool without being directed to it or shown how to use it by the knowledge services staff. The users are "outside" my realm of responsibility but how they use the tool provided by my business unit is meaningful, telling me much about my success. And I'm doing the same thing Drucker's CEO is doing, I'm serving as the link between my unit's Outside (the larger enterprise) and the Inside (the knowledge services business unit and its staff).
Another example might be on a less specific level, to think about the effect or impact of some action I take without having a measurable result in hand. As the knowledge thought leader, one of my jobs is to give attention to how people act differently in the workplace after they have been exposed to or participated in some initiative from my unit. If it's the result we are looking for, what might be the result after several weeks (months? years?) of working with staff in team-building situations, working with them in programs and learning activities relating specifically to knowledge sharing or in activities having to do with a project focus that is not especially knowledge related? It all boils down to the same thing, doesn't it? The impact or the effect is an organizational ambiance in which team work is expected, trust is a given, and collegiality is built into the process. It might not be a result that can be measured in quite the same way as the number of hits in an expertise database but it is, nevertheless, a result to be desired and sought after.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
From Communication to KD/KS
We spend a lot of time thinking about our work as knowledge thought leaders, driving the knowledge development/knowledge sharing (KD/KS) process in the organizations where we are employed. And as I've been re-reading Brain Reich and Dan Solomon (their book Media Rules! Mastering Today's Technology to Connect with and Keep Your Audience), I'm even more convinced now that it's the communication "piece" that makes success happen when we're seeking to build a knowledge culture in workplace.
Whether we're dealing with an external goal (like trying to bring a product to market - or keep it there) or working within the organization (like seeking to meet the needs of the people who come to the knowledge services business unit), we have to give attention to how people get the word, how they learn about what we have to offer, and how to take us up on it.
It's communication, and communicating with specific and directed tools to different target groups. But that communication has to be built on a foundation that gets people interested enough to learn what we do and to have respect for what we do (as well as understand what the pay-off will be for them, of course).
Reich and Solomon give us the clue: "Everything is social," they say. "All of it is reputation driven."
Reputation. And influence. Because the people who are listened to in the larger enterprise, the people with influence, are the people who have the reputation for being right, for being worth listening to. How do they do it? How do we build influence and strengthen our reputation?
There are five critical elements.
Core Vision and Responsibility
The knowledge services business unit - and the services it provides - won't go far if the director/manager and organizational leaders have not agreed on what they want to unit to be. It's time to get rid of old-fashioned words and descriptions that call up an image that does not relate to the work being done. If the business unit is supporting the corporate business strategy, that must be stated. What words are used to title the knowledge services business unit and describe its products, services, and consultations? Do they make sense?
Related to this (from an organizational management perspective) is responsibility. Who has management and service delivery responsibility for the knowledge services unit? What happens when its work is not successful? Who gets the kudos when the services of the knowledge services business lead to an enterprise-wide success?
The Best Team
The playing field is full these days, and there are a lot of knowledge workers out there who are - how do we say it kindly? - perhaps not up to the demands and do not have the qualifications to perform as well as the company requires. Move on, and establish the knowledge services business unit as the best managed and best staffed business unit in the organization. In today's knowledge workplace, the company can't afford mediocre knowledge services professionals. So hire the best people and give them the best and most interesting work you can find.
At the same time, we know success in knowledge services is all about partnering, so link up with other business units that are doing really good work. Identify departments and sections that are succeeding and succeeding well. Identify (with their leaders, of course) how the knowledge services business unit and that department can share resources, responsibilities, and - of course - success.
Perfection? Perhaps Not
Relax about seeking perfection. We knowledge workers know that our profession's reputation (especially when we were librarians) was built on tracking down every last resource to ensure that the patron got every bit of information we could provide, just in case they needed it.
Perhaps that approach is not necessary anymore. As Anh Huynh points out in a recent article about specialized libraries working with a company's business development staff, it's important to understand clients' needs and preferences. It's our job to "seek to determine the 'good enough' point" when providing information and knowledge services. We need to work with the user to ensure that we don't go overboard, wasting scarce resources. Sometimes "good enough" truly is good enough.
Integrity, Honesty, and Openness
There shouldn't be any need to mention this when we speak about knowledge services, but we still find ourselves hearing about ethical lapses, betrayed confidences, and inattention of intellectual property basics.
Not good. Word gets around. Whether inside the company or through some public awkwardness, people will know (probably sooner rather than later) when some stupid decision has damaged the reputation of a colleague or, worse, of a department or business unit. Transparency - except in proprietary or otherwise privileged situations - does much to sustain integrity, and it should be encouraged in all transactions involving the knowledge services business unit.
Generosity Trumps Privacy
If there's any single attribute that guarantees KD/KS success, it's generosity. Bruce Rosenstein describes beautifully how generosity was built into Peter Drucker's management philosophy in his new book, Living in More Than One World: How Peter Drucker's Wisdom Can Inspire and Transform Your Life, and I'm so taken with this idea that I'm sure I'll be coming back to it from time to time. For now, though, let's just remember that it is through the generosity of knowledge professionals - and their generosity in giving of themselves and their time to see another person or another unit succeed - that ultimately builds the reputation of the knowledge services business unit. The success of knowledge professinals is summed up in their generosity.
Whether we're dealing with an external goal (like trying to bring a product to market - or keep it there) or working within the organization (like seeking to meet the needs of the people who come to the knowledge services business unit), we have to give attention to how people get the word, how they learn about what we have to offer, and how to take us up on it.
It's communication, and communicating with specific and directed tools to different target groups. But that communication has to be built on a foundation that gets people interested enough to learn what we do and to have respect for what we do (as well as understand what the pay-off will be for them, of course).
Reich and Solomon give us the clue: "Everything is social," they say. "All of it is reputation driven."
Reputation. And influence. Because the people who are listened to in the larger enterprise, the people with influence, are the people who have the reputation for being right, for being worth listening to. How do they do it? How do we build influence and strengthen our reputation?
There are five critical elements.
Core Vision and Responsibility
The knowledge services business unit - and the services it provides - won't go far if the director/manager and organizational leaders have not agreed on what they want to unit to be. It's time to get rid of old-fashioned words and descriptions that call up an image that does not relate to the work being done. If the business unit is supporting the corporate business strategy, that must be stated. What words are used to title the knowledge services business unit and describe its products, services, and consultations? Do they make sense?
Related to this (from an organizational management perspective) is responsibility. Who has management and service delivery responsibility for the knowledge services unit? What happens when its work is not successful? Who gets the kudos when the services of the knowledge services business lead to an enterprise-wide success?
The Best Team
The playing field is full these days, and there are a lot of knowledge workers out there who are - how do we say it kindly? - perhaps not up to the demands and do not have the qualifications to perform as well as the company requires. Move on, and establish the knowledge services business unit as the best managed and best staffed business unit in the organization. In today's knowledge workplace, the company can't afford mediocre knowledge services professionals. So hire the best people and give them the best and most interesting work you can find.
At the same time, we know success in knowledge services is all about partnering, so link up with other business units that are doing really good work. Identify departments and sections that are succeeding and succeeding well. Identify (with their leaders, of course) how the knowledge services business unit and that department can share resources, responsibilities, and - of course - success.
Perfection? Perhaps Not
Relax about seeking perfection. We knowledge workers know that our profession's reputation (especially when we were librarians) was built on tracking down every last resource to ensure that the patron got every bit of information we could provide, just in case they needed it.
Perhaps that approach is not necessary anymore. As Anh Huynh points out in a recent article about specialized libraries working with a company's business development staff, it's important to understand clients' needs and preferences. It's our job to "seek to determine the 'good enough' point" when providing information and knowledge services. We need to work with the user to ensure that we don't go overboard, wasting scarce resources. Sometimes "good enough" truly is good enough.
Integrity, Honesty, and Openness
There shouldn't be any need to mention this when we speak about knowledge services, but we still find ourselves hearing about ethical lapses, betrayed confidences, and inattention of intellectual property basics.
Not good. Word gets around. Whether inside the company or through some public awkwardness, people will know (probably sooner rather than later) when some stupid decision has damaged the reputation of a colleague or, worse, of a department or business unit. Transparency - except in proprietary or otherwise privileged situations - does much to sustain integrity, and it should be encouraged in all transactions involving the knowledge services business unit.
Generosity Trumps Privacy
If there's any single attribute that guarantees KD/KS success, it's generosity. Bruce Rosenstein describes beautifully how generosity was built into Peter Drucker's management philosophy in his new book, Living in More Than One World: How Peter Drucker's Wisdom Can Inspire and Transform Your Life, and I'm so taken with this idea that I'm sure I'll be coming back to it from time to time. For now, though, let's just remember that it is through the generosity of knowledge professionals - and their generosity in giving of themselves and their time to see another person or another unit succeed - that ultimately builds the reputation of the knowledge services business unit. The success of knowledge professinals is summed up in their generosity.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Kindle Thoughts (2)
The last post was Mr. Guy asking us to be a little patient with the so-called problems some folks are having with the Kindle.
And I promised another post about a second subject having to do with the Kindle, but now there might have to be a third, since B&N has now entered the electronic reader marketplace in direct competition with Amazon.
No. Don’t worry. Won’t get into that.
This second Kindle post is about a more important subject relating to what’s happening in the Kindle marketplace. This is a much more disturbing story, and connects, I fear, much more directly to our work as knowledge services directors in our companies and organizations.
By now we’ve all heard about the Kindle 1984 “scandal,” as it’s been called, Amazon’s remote deletion of e-books from the Kindle. On July 20Farhad Manjoo posted on Slate his reaction to the story.
Turns out it wasn’t just Orwell’s titles but Ayn Rand’s as well, as perhaps others. Amazon acknowledged the error and, according to Manjoo, promised that it will no longer delete customers’ books.
Not too impressed, Manjoo is wondering if Amazon’s action (the deletions, not the apology) “paves the way for book-banning’s digital future.” Now this is truly a scary proposition, with enormous implications for knowledge workers. For people like us, we live and die (professionally speaking – and hopefully even personally as well) by our ability to distinguish between what’s good and what’s bad in the information, knowledge, and strategic learning realm. We also, as knowledge professionals, willingly share our skills for making such distinctions with our corporate affiliates, and if we have recommended to or assisted a colleague in accessing an electronic tool that one day just isn’t there anymore, we have a bleak future waiting for us.
Anne Mintz and her colleagues got us to thinking about these things in her book, Web of Deception: Misinformation on the Internet. While the disappearance of information wasn’t the subject of the book, much of the advice contained therein can be applied in the current environment (especially the advice provided in Carol Ebbinghouse’s essay on legal advice on the Internet: “Make Sure to Read the Fine Print”). And, as Manjoo notes, in Harvard law professor Jonathan Zittrain’s book (The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It), the concept of “tethering” appliances and, in our case, content is dangerous if that “tethering” is under the control of forces that are not, ultimately, concerned with the benefit of the appliance – or the content – to the person or organization that has acquired it.
But we are so tempted by the newness of it all, aren't we? And we’re just human after all. We want to trust the people and the companies that are bringing us information that reports on and describes other people’s knowledge development experiences, information that – fundamental to our work – is then made available for sharing as needed. So what’s the solution for those of us who build our careers on advising others about these matters?
For one thing, we have to use incidents like the recent Amazon deletions to keep the dialogue going. We have to make sure that our intellectual and professional leaders and, yes, even our political leaders are made aware of how important it is to figure out how to prevent such incidents in the future. And the time to do it is now – as the growth of digital information still accounts for only part of all recorded information. In the current environment, hard copy books and other hard copy materials are purchased and become the property of the buyer, who cannot necessarily be forced to return the materials, as Manjoo points out. But with an electronic reading device, the “purchaser” is acquiring a service, one which can have a multiplicity of variations and restrictions, depending on what is stated in the service’s terms of agreement?
Knowledge professionals can also – in discussions in the workplace, in brown-bag lunchtime workshops, in project teams and task forces, in practice groups – review company practices and procedures. Beyond the immediate discussion, when informed (and even legal) advice is needed, experts can be identified and invited to contribute to a strategic learning activity, either in the workplace or – more likely – at professional conferences. There are definitely ways to keep thinking about this scary possibility. We’re the knowledge thought leaders in our companies and our opinions count. We should be advising our organizations about this.
And I promised another post about a second subject having to do with the Kindle, but now there might have to be a third, since B&N has now entered the electronic reader marketplace in direct competition with Amazon.
No. Don’t worry. Won’t get into that.
This second Kindle post is about a more important subject relating to what’s happening in the Kindle marketplace. This is a much more disturbing story, and connects, I fear, much more directly to our work as knowledge services directors in our companies and organizations.
By now we’ve all heard about the Kindle 1984 “scandal,” as it’s been called, Amazon’s remote deletion of e-books from the Kindle. On July 20Farhad Manjoo posted on Slate his reaction to the story.
Turns out it wasn’t just Orwell’s titles but Ayn Rand’s as well, as perhaps others. Amazon acknowledged the error and, according to Manjoo, promised that it will no longer delete customers’ books.
Not too impressed, Manjoo is wondering if Amazon’s action (the deletions, not the apology) “paves the way for book-banning’s digital future.” Now this is truly a scary proposition, with enormous implications for knowledge workers. For people like us, we live and die (professionally speaking – and hopefully even personally as well) by our ability to distinguish between what’s good and what’s bad in the information, knowledge, and strategic learning realm. We also, as knowledge professionals, willingly share our skills for making such distinctions with our corporate affiliates, and if we have recommended to or assisted a colleague in accessing an electronic tool that one day just isn’t there anymore, we have a bleak future waiting for us.
Anne Mintz and her colleagues got us to thinking about these things in her book, Web of Deception: Misinformation on the Internet. While the disappearance of information wasn’t the subject of the book, much of the advice contained therein can be applied in the current environment (especially the advice provided in Carol Ebbinghouse’s essay on legal advice on the Internet: “Make Sure to Read the Fine Print”). And, as Manjoo notes, in Harvard law professor Jonathan Zittrain’s book (The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It), the concept of “tethering” appliances and, in our case, content is dangerous if that “tethering” is under the control of forces that are not, ultimately, concerned with the benefit of the appliance – or the content – to the person or organization that has acquired it.
But we are so tempted by the newness of it all, aren't we? And we’re just human after all. We want to trust the people and the companies that are bringing us information that reports on and describes other people’s knowledge development experiences, information that – fundamental to our work – is then made available for sharing as needed. So what’s the solution for those of us who build our careers on advising others about these matters?
For one thing, we have to use incidents like the recent Amazon deletions to keep the dialogue going. We have to make sure that our intellectual and professional leaders and, yes, even our political leaders are made aware of how important it is to figure out how to prevent such incidents in the future. And the time to do it is now – as the growth of digital information still accounts for only part of all recorded information. In the current environment, hard copy books and other hard copy materials are purchased and become the property of the buyer, who cannot necessarily be forced to return the materials, as Manjoo points out. But with an electronic reading device, the “purchaser” is acquiring a service, one which can have a multiplicity of variations and restrictions, depending on what is stated in the service’s terms of agreement?
Knowledge professionals can also – in discussions in the workplace, in brown-bag lunchtime workshops, in project teams and task forces, in practice groups – review company practices and procedures. Beyond the immediate discussion, when informed (and even legal) advice is needed, experts can be identified and invited to contribute to a strategic learning activity, either in the workplace or – more likely – at professional conferences. There are definitely ways to keep thinking about this scary possibility. We’re the knowledge thought leaders in our companies and our opinions count. We should be advising our organizations about this.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Kindle Thoughts
Not just thinking about Kindle, but trying to connect some of the current Kindle controversy to what we do for our clients and users with KM/knowledge services. And to our role as knowledge thought leaders in the companies where we are employed.
Two recent articles caught my attention, not surprisingly since (full disclosure) I’m a serious Kindle user. I’m what some people refer to as a “big reader,” currently plowing through the recent translation of War and Peace on my Kindle, and really loving the experience (this book is much better now than when I first read it at 22!). So I’m not a disinterested spectator in the Kindle discussions, and I can’t help wondering how the perspectives offered in two recent articles transition over to our tasks as knowledge professionals.
First of all, I should point out that we are dealing with two different subjects here. In one, Nicholson Baker – famous for his distress at the closing of library card catalogs and the disposal of hard copy newspaper collections – writes in the August 3 issue of The New Yorker about the Kindle as a product. Baker shares with us his disappointment that what he sees on the Kindle – if he is reading a book – isn’t a book. Or if he is reading a newspaper, that what he’s reading isn’t a newspaper. All he’s getting is the content, conveyed to him through an electronic medium that is sort of book-like (or newspaper-like).
And to be fair, Baker puts forward some very legitimate complaints, as when he describes scientific journals that in print display important color-coded charts which, on the Kindle, aren’t color-coded. But that takes me back to my original problem with this whole discussion: if the content isn’t appropriate for reading on the Kindle, why view it on the Kindle? Why would anyone purchase the Kindle version of a scientific journal that required color-coding? And of more concern, why would Amazon sell it? My guess is that Amazon acquired the publisher’s entire list – or the portion of the list that happened to contain these materials – and simply didn’t road test the material before it was made available.
That’s why I’m having a little problem with this particular piece of the Kindle controversy, and that relates to my attempt to connect the Kindle “idea” with our work in KM/knowledge services. Our job is to get the user the content, in the format he/she requires. If all the user needs is the text (like me with the new translation of War and Peace), what’s the difference if it’s read on Kindle? And especially if I prefer to read it this way, since I am the reader and it’s my choice. If I want to, I can purchase the hard copy or the paperback and lug it around with me, but I travel a lot and carrying around the Kindle is much easier. And I don’t remember having any problem accommodating (if that’s the right word) myself to the format. It works for me.
So perhaps thinking in terms of the-one-or-the-other isn’t the way to go here. Perhaps “balance” is a more appropriate attribute, as Mary Tripsas writes in yesterday’s New York Times. In her article about how innovation often takes a long time to take hold. Tripsas makes it clear that just thinking about the “old” as a cash cow or as a source of inertia holds us back. She asks for “selective, intelligent innovation” and perhaps that’s what we’re looking for as we – as knowledge professionals – seek to move our companies toward a knowledge culture.
And not to be in too big a hurry (after all, as Tripsas coincidentally just happens to note, “despite the recent buzz over the Kindle and other electronic reading devices, e-books are still less than 5 percent of overall book sales”). So perhaps the future for us, for the Nicholson Bakers of the world, and particularly for our users who come to us for KM/knowledge services advice, is to take it easy and recognize that reading newspapers and books represents one way of acquiring content and using a Kindle (or Kindle-like) device for the same or similar content is another way. It all just depends (very simply, really) on which version of the “content” the user wants or requires.
Two recent articles caught my attention, not surprisingly since (full disclosure) I’m a serious Kindle user. I’m what some people refer to as a “big reader,” currently plowing through the recent translation of War and Peace on my Kindle, and really loving the experience (this book is much better now than when I first read it at 22!). So I’m not a disinterested spectator in the Kindle discussions, and I can’t help wondering how the perspectives offered in two recent articles transition over to our tasks as knowledge professionals.
First of all, I should point out that we are dealing with two different subjects here. In one, Nicholson Baker – famous for his distress at the closing of library card catalogs and the disposal of hard copy newspaper collections – writes in the August 3 issue of The New Yorker about the Kindle as a product. Baker shares with us his disappointment that what he sees on the Kindle – if he is reading a book – isn’t a book. Or if he is reading a newspaper, that what he’s reading isn’t a newspaper. All he’s getting is the content, conveyed to him through an electronic medium that is sort of book-like (or newspaper-like).
And to be fair, Baker puts forward some very legitimate complaints, as when he describes scientific journals that in print display important color-coded charts which, on the Kindle, aren’t color-coded. But that takes me back to my original problem with this whole discussion: if the content isn’t appropriate for reading on the Kindle, why view it on the Kindle? Why would anyone purchase the Kindle version of a scientific journal that required color-coding? And of more concern, why would Amazon sell it? My guess is that Amazon acquired the publisher’s entire list – or the portion of the list that happened to contain these materials – and simply didn’t road test the material before it was made available.
That’s why I’m having a little problem with this particular piece of the Kindle controversy, and that relates to my attempt to connect the Kindle “idea” with our work in KM/knowledge services. Our job is to get the user the content, in the format he/she requires. If all the user needs is the text (like me with the new translation of War and Peace), what’s the difference if it’s read on Kindle? And especially if I prefer to read it this way, since I am the reader and it’s my choice. If I want to, I can purchase the hard copy or the paperback and lug it around with me, but I travel a lot and carrying around the Kindle is much easier. And I don’t remember having any problem accommodating (if that’s the right word) myself to the format. It works for me.
So perhaps thinking in terms of the-one-or-the-other isn’t the way to go here. Perhaps “balance” is a more appropriate attribute, as Mary Tripsas writes in yesterday’s New York Times. In her article about how innovation often takes a long time to take hold. Tripsas makes it clear that just thinking about the “old” as a cash cow or as a source of inertia holds us back. She asks for “selective, intelligent innovation” and perhaps that’s what we’re looking for as we – as knowledge professionals – seek to move our companies toward a knowledge culture.
And not to be in too big a hurry (after all, as Tripsas coincidentally just happens to note, “despite the recent buzz over the Kindle and other electronic reading devices, e-books are still less than 5 percent of overall book sales”). So perhaps the future for us, for the Nicholson Bakers of the world, and particularly for our users who come to us for KM/knowledge services advice, is to take it easy and recognize that reading newspapers and books represents one way of acquiring content and using a Kindle (or Kindle-like) device for the same or similar content is another way. It all just depends (very simply, really) on which version of the “content” the user wants or requires.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Up-Coming: PKM and the Mission-Specific Focus
What: Click U Course: Personal Knowledge Management (PKM) and the Mission-Specific Focus
When: August 10 - 27
Who: Guy St. Clair, Instructor, with Dale Stanley
Where: Online
Cost: $495.00 (SLA Members) $595.00 (Non-Members)
Register online at Click U - PKM
Learn more: Hear Dale Stanley and Guy St. Clair talk about the course and about PKM here. Or contact Guy St. Clair directly at smrknowledge@verizon.net
The course begins August 10, and includes three online lectures, on August 10, 17, and 24.
Also included is a facilitated live discussion (online) on Wednesday, August 19, with Guest Participant Libby Trudell, Senior Vice President, Market Development at Dialog, a ProQuest Company. Trudell is a recognized leader in KM/knowledge services, and just recently completed a term on SLA’s Board of Directors. She will join participants to discuss her experience and recommendations for PKM applications in the workplace.
The course concludes with a course wrap-up and thematic discussion (online) on Thursday, August 27. All programs begin at 3:00 PM EDT.
Note that membership in SLA is not required. Non-SLA colleagues are welcome.
When: August 10 - 27
Who: Guy St. Clair, Instructor, with Dale Stanley
Where: Online
Cost: $495.00 (SLA Members) $595.00 (Non-Members)
Register online at Click U - PKM
Learn more: Hear Dale Stanley and Guy St. Clair talk about the course and about PKM here. Or contact Guy St. Clair directly at smrknowledge@verizon.net
The course begins August 10, and includes three online lectures, on August 10, 17, and 24.
Also included is a facilitated live discussion (online) on Wednesday, August 19, with Guest Participant Libby Trudell, Senior Vice President, Market Development at Dialog, a ProQuest Company. Trudell is a recognized leader in KM/knowledge services, and just recently completed a term on SLA’s Board of Directors. She will join participants to discuss her experience and recommendations for PKM applications in the workplace.
The course concludes with a course wrap-up and thematic discussion (online) on Thursday, August 27. All programs begin at 3:00 PM EDT.
Note that membership in SLA is not required. Non-SLA colleagues are welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
