In my first post on this topic, I looked at the fundamental flaw in self-driving cars – the inability to respond to the unexpected, such as suddenly encountering a lady and a duck in the middle of the road. As mentioned, this story is very applicable to the way we build our knowledge management systems and information centers.

If you have been following the developments, dreams, and travails in the quest to build a self-driving car, you may have heard the story about the lady with a duck. I think this story has great applicability as we build our knowledge management systems and information centers.

McKinsey & Company’s recent podcast, How Companies Become Digital Leaders, raised a number of key points that we can all apply to our own careers. Jay Scanlan, head of McKinsey’s Digital Strategy Practice, states in the podcast, “[companies that are] digital leaders massively outperform digital followers and digital laggards.” This applies equally to knowledge management professionals.

In my first post on the changing habits of information consumers and the changing role of information professionals as part of the knowledge supply chain, I shared examples of increasing complexity, underpinned by technology and changes in personal preference. In this post, let’s take a look at the third paradigm (KM 3.0) and see what it means for the sustainability and relevance of knowledge managers and special librarians.

As I was finishing last week’s successful webinar on KM Pitfalls with Stan Garfield, an audience member asked a question about Enterprise Social Networks and their value. It made me think about Lucidea CEO Ron Aspe’s blog post on the ways in which information consumption is changing, and has changed over time - and how our personal habits are a key driver of this change. Let me explain…

So, you don’t tweet. Should you? Research shows that Millennials, who have entry-and mid-level jobs in the companies you and I work in, have different expectations about getting and sharing information. Tweeting, pinning, linking, and “Instagramming” are the new information channels.

The way people engage with information every day is changing. Why is this important? It’s not about what we industry veterans think is the “best way” to find important content - it’s what our end users think that matters.

I was speaking with a client the other day about faceted search. (For more information on that subject see my recent blog post “A Firm Foundation for Faceted Search.”) We discussed the need for well-organized and well-structured data to support useful faceted searching. The client challenged that need, and stated she had read and been told that some forms of search require no data preparation and will work with completely unstructured data.

Faceted searching works well when your content is well organized and well cataloged. What exactly does that mean, and what are the benefits of faceted searching?

I just read a CMSWire blog post on “Preparing for the Future of Knowledge Management.” While the article contains some excellent advice, I strongly disagree with one of the core recommendations.

The other day I joined a discussion on content migration with a client who is beginning a KM project. While preparing for the meeting I ran into this post. It’s from a customer support company, but many of the migration issues they face are similar to my KM experiences. I’d like to share some of the strategies we’ve used over time to turn this early implementation challenge into an opportunity for KM success.

When I read David Gurteen’s post on IM and KM (Information Management and Knowledge Management) it reminded me of a specific KM project I was involved with. In his post, David raises the issue of “what is IM and what is KM?” Where does the first stop and the other begin? This question has been discussed many times in the past. I think it is critical that we all agree with David when he says “Does it really matter? I don't think so.” Okay, with that out of the way, let’s have some fun with this question.