Power Corrupts: Testing Lord Acton’s Dictum » Corruption, Leadership, Morality, Power » InsideWork Giving people power really does corrupt. Why we should be so wary of hierarchy. Library clips :: The myth of knowledge objects : the gap between…

To me your KM 2.0 and KM 3.0 are the same thing.

KM 2.0 is not just about sharing, it’s using your network to filter, help, and learn…sense-make, and make decisions. It allows for conversations to turn information into a usable context to act on and create personal knowledge.

At the moment we have new silos, only they are not closed. Well I’d call them islands, and it’s natural for these to exist, so it’s not about smashing them, but bridging them.

I think we need to move away from thinking online CoPs are where it’s at…we need existing tools to be socialised. Blogs, forums, wikis are not just for sharing and learning, they can be used to do project work.
If you are using email for help, announcements, discussions, coordinating etc in whatever context (team, CoP, BU, taskforce), then you can substitute the one-to-many communications with these new tools.

I like your KM 3.0 part 1 post, but what does “unnecessary knowledge collection and sharing mean”

I think the more sharing and awareness the better. Look at the glass half full, it’s more about filter failure, rather than information overload…you just tune into what’s relevant. That’s going to be the last of our problem anyway, facilitating people to share in the first place is a more pressing issue.

In your KM 3.0 Part 2 post…forget about just relying on the project review in retrospect. We need to use social tools as it happens…the conversations of work need to happen here rather than email (as long as it has relevance for many people).
Learn in fragments as it happens helps with the digestion.

In your KM 3.0 Part 3 post I agree on the importance of personal KM. That’s what most of KM is anyway, but rather than stacking a pile of productive people, we connect these people so the organisation becomes smarter as well as themselves.
Here are my thoughts http://libraryclips.blogsome.com/2009/05/18/sensemaking-pkm-and-networks/

In your KM 3.0 Part 4 post I think the key to sharing and the worry that you may be dispensable as a result is “engagement”. Creating conditions for engagement can build reputations…the less we say the less opportunities we create for ourselves. And if it’s true KM the only way you are remotely replaceable is via mentoring, apprenticeship, etc…
Here are my thoughts http://libraryclips.blogsome.com/2010/01/28/its-not-about-knowledge-sharing-its-about-engagement-and-context/

The value of knowledge depends on several factors, among them
- Value (worth vs. cost)
- Scope (e.g., organization, department, project, personal)
- Expiration time (short vs. long term, static vs. dynamic)

If the knowledge isn’t used, then it’s useless

My 2 cents on this topic:
- http://www.ppcsoft.com/blog/km-3.asp