Clearly a title like “Whatever Happened to Knowledge Management?” is going to catch my eye. In this WSJ piece, Thomas Davenport sheds some light on the present state of affairs for KM, and touches on some interesting points about SharePoint:
The technology that organizations wanted to employ was Microsoft’s SharePoint. There were several generations of KM technology—remember Lotus Notes, for example?—but over time the dominant system became SharePoint. It’s not a bad technology by any means, but Microsoft didn’t market it very effectively and didn’t market KM at all.
and something quite prevalent in my world (you may have heard of this “big data” thing):
KM never incorporated knowledge derived from data and analytics. I tried to get my knowledge management friends to incorporate analytical insights into their worlds, but most had an antipathy to that topic. It seems that in this world you either like text or you like numbers, and few people like both. I shifted into focusing on analytics and Big Data, but few of the KM crowd joined me.
In my view, one thing is certain: there is tremendous value locked in the heads of employees, hiding in content of all types, and waiting to be found in large data sets.
Enterprise tools of all kinds, from content management to search to analytics, are continuing to evolve. The increasing demands of global competition are driving a more collaborative workforce.
Regardless of wether we continue to label efforts to unlock that value as knowledge management, they will remain important.
Long live knowledge management.
From this article in Fierce Content Management… (Source)
The market has moved very rapidly. The preponderance of the Global 2000 have structured enterprise social initiatives today. Organizations see changing their collaboration paradigm from document- or artifact-centricity, to people-centered, as a vital competitive advantage. Companies talk to us about their need to ‘roll out the social fabric’ as broadly and quickly as possible. They understand that their workforce now expects to work that way, and that the advantages to ‘social’ increase exponentially as a function of the number of people who have access to the capability.
Spot on analysis from this Doculabs whitepaper… (Source)
What should you do if you’re a pharma at this inflection point? We recommend the following:
1) At a minimum, consider a two-platform consolidation strategy. Over the next few years this approach would bring you to SharePoint for management of uncontrolled documents, a single application suite for management of controlled documents (probably CSC FirsDoc), and a single platform for controlled DM (Documentum).
2) But also consider a one-platform consolidation strategy. This would bring you to SharePoint for management of uncontrolled documents, and either FirstPoint or NextDocs for management of controlled documents – both based on SharePoint.
3) Do a formal empirical evaluation of the three solution options at your organization. Do a bakeoff between FirstDoc/Documentum, FirstPoint/SharePoint, and NextDocs/SharePoint. It will require some time and resources, but the stakes are high enough to justify it. In my next post on this topic, I will explain exactly how to conduct such an evaluation.
From this Redmond Channel Partner article… (Source)
Cutler, of Slalom Consulting, says his company sees an opportunity to deliver numerous new services, especially as they relate to building applications on top of SharePoint Online. “There’s a lot more in the application development space, so now that you’ve got a platform like SharePoint, people are now saying, ‘Well, you’ve got this great platform. Now we can enable all kinds of business processes.’ So we can build the applications on top of that. It’s actually expanding the work that we can do with our clients and the value they’re getting out of that work.”