Mark

There is a = way of course to get a system working to some degree which SABMiller has done = what they call a Competency Acquisition Process (CAP) where continual learning is = linked to the outputs so they have some idea of the elasticity between know-how = and specific sales revenues (market channels) and quantities. This process was done = in the early 90’s on clunky systems but they knew if there was an increase in = say some competency as it was linked to some group of KPI’s so they could = tell what the effect of the knowledge acquisition = was.

There was an = excellent example of this when a new beer was introduced to the market. The sales = reps were trained up and off they went to do their thing. But the sales revenues = did not increase at all, the marketing people said that the sales people were just = useless (the sales people said the marketing people didn’t have the product = right); however the training and competency level (of the CAP system) showed they knew = what they were doing. With this the marketing people decided to go back to = the market and find out what the real problem was. The upshot was there was = a problem with the packing as the market segment they were selling to = rejected the volume size. This was changed and then the reps were sent out again = and the sales revenues starting increasing as would have been expected with the knowledge acquisition. But what we have here is a link between knowledge = and action with linked outcomes to the channel segment = markets.

Interesting = there were some of the older managers that refused to use the system and those that = took to it like ducks to water. The difference in performance between the CAP = users and non CAP users was not only staggering it was scary, eventually the resistors could resist no more. The proof was in the = pudding.

Of course = they were not SABMiller then just SAB and then only the 12 biggest brewer in the = world today they stand at no2. Not testament to the CAP system but a testament = to very clever people (very high capability) within the organisation. I = would not be surprised if they become the no1 brewer in the world within the next = decade.

This industry = takes knowledge acquisition very seriously; I was involved with Librix = Learning (I think called Maritz now) who sold their = systems to the other US giant brewer.

Another big = issue glanced over by the KM folks is the issue of mental capability of the managerial = team. Have a look at Elliot Jaques on Stratified Systems Theory. Know-how as = relating to effective decision making is as much internal as = external.

Regards

gavin

-----Original = Message-----
From: = complex-science at necsi.org [mailto:complex-science at necsi.org] On Behalf Of Mark Montgomery
Sent: = Sunday, 19 September = 2004 12:53 p.m.
To: = complex-science at necsi.org
Subject: Re: Intro- = Montgomery now KM

Thanks Gavin,

Yes we tech investors certainly are faced with complexity (and I argue = constantly that we need to better understand the macro issues), and of course most of us = wear multiple hats.

You are not alone in your theory on KM. In fact I came out of hiding to debate = the issue last week in public at www.knowledgeboard.com , but deleted my posts after finding that too many had too much invested = in KM to seriously discuss knowledge systems. The discussion continued in = private, including with board members of major organizations and CIOs who = have implemented KM - several of whom now have positions close to yours. = I've found business leaders are in general not terribly pleased with KM as it = has evolved.

I'm not willing to go as far as you- that KM never existed, because many good = people are extracting value from the practice, but I've had serious problems = with the terminology, the certification systems, the conflicts, some of the = processes (although a few appear to be quite good), and the = architecture.

The debate at Kboard was with one of the co-chairs of the largest = certification training systems for KM was on KM Strategy, where he basically attempted = to place his system as the definition (which is one reason why I opposed it = in my paper in '02 "Navigating the Obstacles to Knowledge Yield" where I do the same with KYield.... http://lawlibrary.ucdavis.edu/LAWLIB/march02/at= t-0147/01-Navigating_the_obstacles_to_.doc ).

He then claimed to own the fist R&D on knowledge portals & was quite = adamant that those of us studying same in the mid-90s couldn't have been..... = while in private informed him that we indeed were (and may not have been the = first - probably were not), ....nice enough guy but obviously too much invested = in the space for objectivity.

In any event, I went through my archives and updated my own definition which = some may find interesting, if not a target for dart = throwing...

Definition of (organizational) "Knowledge = Strategy"

The art and science of creating, expanding, protecting and employing the = knowledge of an organization or group of organizations to afford the maximum support = to the adopted mission of the organization (s).

Shockingly to me, the current (I was told leading) certification = system for KM practitioners does not allow for organizational mission or even business strategy for profit organizations. To some it appears to be = more of a political & social movement than a learning tool, a perception that = creates serious fiduciary questions for many.

I'd suggest that KM exists due to the number of people employed and the = amount of money that has been expended, but whether or not it should have existed = in particular forms- now that is something worthy of = debate;-)

The tragedy is of course that (especially in this environment) funding for knowledge systems is difficult at best- it can cause great pain = and long term damage when widely adopted systems fail. This is perhaps more = true with learning systems than most others obvious to me. =

I prefer to study the macro area and refer to the practice as knowledge systems architecture or design, and I prefer to focus on what I coined in '01 as "Yield Management of Knowledge".

The reason is simple - our internal R&D suggests that while we may not = be able to "manage knowledge", we have been able to affect = "knowledge yield", and that the latter is a more proper target (albeit moving = and slippery).

Best, = MM

Mark Montgomery

Founding Partner
Initium Venture Capital
www.initiumcapital.com

----- Original Message = -----

From: Gavin Ritz =

To:<= /font> complex-science at necsi.org

Sent: Monday, September 13, = 2004 7:29 AM

Subject: Intro- Montgomery now KM

Mark

=

I said welcome in a private note to you; it is very nice to have a colleague on = this list from a very similar field. (you are the first I = think)

=

What is instantly noticeable is that you have the Systems Thinking (ala MIT) = slant issues right down to the KM factor.

=

What is even more interesting we are in the process of funding an IT company = (with a major US Venture Fund) that takes a totally different view on the Oracle = or Microsoft view of KM or its poor brother = information? The Reason is we don’t think that KM has ever existed. We are more = or less vindicated in some sense by Ford throwing out its Oracle system and = going back to its legacy systems. My client has taken the complexity route = which is integration, process and dependence, and far beyond BPM (Business = process Management). That is saying to companies “keep your legacy = systems” they can be integrated and you create “on-demand” software = for whatever process is required. That is don’t take months or years = to get to systems and databases working together take just days. That is = organically grown software.

=

To kick off an interesting debate, I might as well say from the start there is = no such thing as KM. The issue of = the “know-how” growth factor of organisation has been tackled = from very novel view points by: = Elliot Jaques with his Stratified Systems Theory, Stafford Beer with Managerial = Cybernetics and my most favorite Cybernetic Strategist Wolfgang Mewes with his = Engpass Konzentrierten Strategie (EKS), who did a lot of work with Hans Hass and = his “Energon Theory and OBS Optimal Business = Strategy”.

=

I actually have a paper on getting equity using a complexity = approach.

=

Your comment on the “protection” of IP cuts to the very heart of Hass’ Energon Theory specifically around the psycho-split (a Hass = term) and the human capacity for predation. I steer you to Hass’ note on = the Semi-Predator.

=

Regards

gavin<= /span>

=

-----Original = Message-----
From: = complex-science at necsi.org [mailto:complex-science at necsi.org] On Behalf Of Mark Montgomery
Sent: = Monday, 6 September = 2004 2:40 p.m.
To: = complex-science at necsi.org
Subject: Intro- = Montgomery

I was recently invited to join this list and have been lurking for a few days = while reading the discussions with interest, so I thought I would introduce = myself.

My perspective is a bit different than many as I do not have a formal = academic background in any particular field, and for ten years I've been = operating a small private lab and early stage tech fund. I do work with many thought leaders in highly technical niches, and I have a personal interest in convergence areas that are often ignored within our trendy world- = especially those that may have a significant positive = impact.

If I have a specialty, it's in the area of knowledge system architecture, = where we must deal with complexity across multiple disciplines, to include social, = technical, organizational, and economic issues to name a few, although our goal in = applied R&D is to simplify as much as possible in serving identifiable = customers.

Some may have an interest in this paper where I struggle with related issues = while attempting to protect IP and still add something of = significance.

Navigating the obstacles to knowledge yield (2002)
http://lawlibrary.ucdavis.edu/LAWLIB/march02/at= t-0147/01-Navigating_the_obstacles_to_.doc

I likely won't engage in theoretical debates, but may post in areas where my = personal experience appears to add value. I look forward to learning more about = how others are perceiving complexity, especially in terms of labeling and organizing the area of study/practice.

Regards,

Mark Montgomery

Founding Partner
Initium Venture Capital
www.initiumcapital.com