*****************Internet E-Mail Confidentiality Header**********************

Information contained in this E-Mail transmission is privileged and confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute, or reproduce this transmission.  If you have received
this E-Mail transmission in error, please call our Technical Support at 612-349-8799.

Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.
www.rkmc.com

*************************************************************************************

I'm not on the Knowledge Management bandwagon yet.  It's a great word for a software salesman; it sounds like just what everyone's enterprise needs.  I like the concept, but it might forever remain just a concept.  If we can't arrive at a universal definition for a record I don't know how realistic it is to hope to define knowledge management.  The scope of what's being managed seems to be getting broader with each generation of this strain of buzzword:  document management> records management> knowledge management> then maybe culture management> then, I propose:  management management.  Odds are good that in a few months the term knowledge management will slip into obscurity like so many other buzzwords have.  Maybe it will turn out KM is exactly the platform to serve us for the next century.  In the meantime, Records Management suits me just fine.

Gary L. Grieme
Records Manager
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.
Minneapolis, MN
612-349-8538
[log in to unmask]

>>> "John J. O'Brien, CRM, MLT" <[log in to unmask]> 6/28/00 9:17:44 AM >>>
Robert Bailey's post peeked my interest - looking forward to seeing list responses.  In the mean time, given the very creative definitions extant for knowledge management, I'd appreciate hearing where he and others draw the line. My own firmly held belief is that technology does not knowledge management make (though it sure can help). My approach to work in knowledge resource management is founded in:

-- the principles of RIM with which most are familiar;
-- "whole systems analysis" to ensure effective integration of recommended solutions;
-- action research to provoke meaningful participation of stakeholders in solution design;
-- appropriate technology selection(s) to ensure that technology is a support for, not a driver of systems; and
-- strategic cultural change/learning community development to ensure that information itself is valued for decision making, accountability and planning.

This last point is fundamental, seen as a "given" to the extent that it is really so much lip service in many organizations. You can't have knowledge without the valuing of information as the field from which knowledge is drawn. And, information isn't valued if the RIM story isn't a good one, people are cavalier about recording, hidden systems, etc.

How do others see it?

Regards,
John

____________________________________________________
John J. O'Brien, CRM, MLT
ISI Global - Coach & Principal Consultant
www.crosswinds.net/~isi

Interactive Strategies, Inc.
Aligning Vision, Process & Outcomes
Organizational Knowledge Systems Design & Audit
Professional Development Education & Executive Coaching

Regent, Certification Maintenance Program
Board of Regents, Institute of Certified Records Managers (ICRM)

Voice/fax: 1-250-388-7791     ICQ #23282396 "ISIGlobal"
email: Please reply to  [log in to unmask]  for a timely response.

<snip>
  Earlier this year I asked this same question [with] minor response.  Maybe we can do better this time.
  I am attempting to identify city, county, state or federal organizations that are attempting or have completed some phase of  or completed a Knowledge Management System.  Anyone that know of such activities and/or a contact to find out more details, please contact me.