Transcript of "Organizational Memory Systems -- Are they "real"? April 27, 21:00 UTC (5pm EDT, 2pm PDT) (orientation session at 20:30 UTC) Lorne Olfman, Claremont Graduate University Site: VMC @ Temple University This conference was sponsored by the ISWorld Net Virtual Meeting Center (VMC) http://www.isworld.org/vmc The contents of this transcript may be further distributed if the complete transcript is kept together including this message. The contents many not be analyzed, quoted, reported or otherwise disseminated without the explicit permission of the VMC The slides associated with this transcript are the full record of this conference. The slides are available from the VMC web site. Participants Marcel Hoffmann, Dortmund, Germany JoAnn Brooks, USA Joel Muzard, Canada Lehner Franz, Germany Joyce Noe, USA Dave Croasdell, College Station, TX USA Ravi Krovi, Greensboro, NC USA Renata Araujo,Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Frada Burstein, Australia Gail Rein, USA Murray Jennex, USA Jeff Conklin, USA Munir Mandviwalla, Philadelphia, USA Lorne Olfman, Claremont, CA USA MAIN SESSION (see below for orientation session) 5:01:36:Lorne Olfman:Agenda: I want to focus on five topics in order as below. Let's spend about 10-12 minutes on each: 1. What is organizational memory and how does it relate to knowledge management? 2. Why have there not been commercial implementations of organizational memory systems? 3. Can OM be systematized (can we really build OMS)? 4. If 3 is possible, then will OMS be created? 5. What needs to be done to do 4 above? 5:03:17:Ravi Krovi:Ok. Shall we start with 1 5:03:48:Lorne Olfman:Yes, we should start with point 1. Does everyone know Stein & Zwass' article? 5:04:44:Lorne Olfman:Stein and Zwass defined an OMS as: "a system that functions to provide a means by which knowledge from the past is brought to bear on present activities, thus resulting in increased levels of effectiveness for the organization." 5:05:33:Lehner Franz:yes we know the article and the definition but have developed new definitions. 5:05:53:Frada Burstein:Yes.Stein and Zwass definition of OMS is good, but it assums that OMS and OK are equivalent 5:06:25:Lorne Olfman:Is everyone on board? I want to discuss whether organizational memory is different from the concept of knowledge management. Of course the former is a "thing" while the latter is a "process". 5:07:06:Lorne Olfman:Franz: Do your definitions relate more closely to the concept of knowledge management? 5:07:27:JoAnn Brooks:Kent Sandoe also came up with a different definition, but now I can't remember what it was.t 5:07:29:Munir Mandviwalla:I would agree with Franz, the definition does not take into account the active development of memory - think that building memory is the key to OMS (that makes it closer to a process aka know mgt.) 5:07:32:Ravi Krovi:Sure... it appears that OMS is a product of better KM. But should there be implicit in the definition a distinction of knowledge types 5:07:53:Lorne Olfman:Frada: I would say that memory and knowledge are definitely related. 5:08:56:Dave Croasdell:RE: Defining Org memory vs. Knowledge management - what if we break this down to memory vs knowledge? Multiple views on each. I suggest that knowledge is contextualized (has meaning) where as artifacts of memory (depending on the level of ganularity)aren't necessarily tied to a context. 5:09:10:Lorne Olfman:re Kent: He makes the point that OM is not Org. Learning. 5:09:12:Joyce Noe:ReMS, some firms are beginning to construct data bases to formalize retention of theirOMS 5:09:37:Lehner Franz:We distinguish between between a concept view and a construct view (well and there are two more views we use) 5:10:35:Lorne Olfman:re retention of OM: data warehouses (data bases) help retain some form of information, but they are not in themselves, OM systems. 5:11:07:JoAnn Brooks:re: Dave's point -- much of memory is contextual; the difference may have more to do with artifacts 5:11:23:Lorne Olfman:re Franz's definition: Give us more. 5:11:29:Munir Mandviwalla:re datawarehouses: why not OM? 5:12:23:Lorne Olfman:re Dave's point: In fact, I think that OM is contextual at the outset, but can be used as pointers to use in other contexts. 5:12:37:Frada Burstein:Re: OM vs OK. My guess is that thedifference comes from the purpose an OMS is considered for. As the push is for OM to serve a better management of the organisation, the content of the OMS becomes much more selective (see Renata's message) 5:12:49:Ravi Krovi:Re; Franz does a construct view refer to a specific memory structure 5:13:30:Marcel Hoffmann:I believe that In contrast to KM OMS provide suggestions or advice, rationale for decision, background information on difficult questions, experiences from user users, who encountered the same problem etc. proactively whereas conventional KMS store the data without much support for the retrieval. 5:13:31:Lorne Olfman:re datawarehouses: they are just data but don't have a context or reference point. But, they can be processed to create OM. 5:14:38:Joyce Noe:Lorne: Do you know of any examples of software that creat OM from data bases? 5:14:53:Lorne Olfman:re Marcel's and Frada's points: I think your points are well stated. 5:15:00:Gail Rein:And datawarehouses are on the knowledge mgt side. 5:15:24:JoAnn Brooks:Could we clarify whether OM _presumes_ a technological system or not? 5:15:26:Frada Burstein:Isn't the precess of datawarehose design assume some model of the context? 5:15:36:Lorne Olfman:re Joyce's question: No I do not know of such products, and that leads us to start to think about why there are no OMS "on the market". 5:15:57:Gail Rein:What are some datawarehousing processing techiniques that yield OM? 5:16:20:Lorne Olfman:re JoAnn's question: OM does not presume a technological side, necessarily. 5:17:18:Ravi Krovi:I see so there could be manual OM management 5:17:38:Frada Burstein:Good question! What's the difference between OMS and KMS? 5:17:53:JoAnn Brooks:There is a lot of OM that is retained in tacit routines 5:18:26:Munir Mandviwalla:Perhaps the data warehouses and knowledge management systems are the OMS on the market? 5:18:28:Ravi Krovi:Re: tacit do u mean automatic knowledge processes 5:19:10:Gail Rein:I thought tacit meant implicit... 5:19:38:JoAnn Brooks:re Ravi's question -- automatized within people, such as "how to discuss a topic" 5:19:55:Lorne Olfman:re Munir's recent point: I don't see datawarehouses as OMS. But, they could be OMS engines. However, we can also capture OM through other data inputs: documents, conversations, meeting minutes, etc. 5:20:02:Marcel Hoffmann:re JoAnnīs question: Maybe OMS does not presume a technological side but as a computer scientist I am interessend in the supporting OMS by technical means. What I believe is possible. 5:20:40:Ravi Krovi:Adding to Joann's point there are no OMS because it is difficult to capture this kind of tacit knowledge 5:20:46:Lorne Olfman:re tacit: Yes, tacit memory is implicit. It is mirrored in standard procedures and in the "ecology" of the organization. 5:20:52:Lehner Franz:Re: Frada: OMS is the more general concept, and as a consequence superior 5:21:00:Gail Rein:This is one reason why I asked what sorts of processing techniques work on data (like what's in data warehouses) to give OM... seems like won't get at the interesting OM with a simple processing tech 5:21:05:Joyce Noe:re: both OM and KM, individual memory seems to be the most valuable yet elusive body of information to capture and manage for the sake of the organization 5:21:26:JoAnn Brooks:re Gail's question -- it's hard to distinguish tacit from implicit; both are different from explicit; which is still (at least sometimes) different from artifacts - or is it? 5:21:33:Renata Araujo:Re no commercial OMS: I think that we have not reached a good way for representing organizational memory. Without representation, we can't build effective tools for capturing and retrieving it. 5:22:00:Ravi Krovi:So is the real problerm OM acquisiton and not representation 5:22:23:Lorne Olfman:re commerical implementations: I think part of it may be the problem of tacit knowledge. But, I think that another part is that the definition of OM is quite vague. It is easy to think of knowledge as data, but not so easy to conceive of memories as data. 5:22:53:Lorne Olfman:re Renata: you said it better than I. 5:23:10:Munir Mandviwalla:Re representation. I agree completely. What I don't understand is why people feel a need to go after the tacit -- why not start with what we know? 5:23:13:Gail Rein:Yes, I think the acquistion problem is challenging (perhaps more challenguing than how to represent it). 5:23:27:Dave Croasdell:OM may not presume a technological system, but OMS would (by definition?) As for systems in the market - QuestMap (Conklin) attempts to capture process knowledge - (tacit, implicit). IS this be considered commercial OMS by this group? 5:23:37:Frada Burstein:re Ravi's point: acquisition includes elicitation and representation of knowledge 5:23:38:Joyce Noe:Munir: good point 5:23:38:Ravi Krovi:Also I am not sure there is a good way to represent. Is there a way to have an integrated representation of multiple forms of knowledge: audio, video, text, memos etc.. 5:23:59:Gail Rein:Because what we know is obvious 5:24:06:Lehner Franz:in my opinion OM incorporate KM, because OM is the more general concept. Exploring the literature on OM you can find that this concept is used by different disciplines (organizational learning, knowledge management, organizational intelligence - I think we should understand OMS as systems referring to the concept of OM. 5:24:22:Lorne Olfman:re Ravi's recent point: I think both factors are problematic. Acquisition involves getting people to store their individual and group memories. Representation of so much information is also an issue, though. 5:24:27:Gail Rein:The OM that we can about is what is not so well known or obvious, but useful! 5:24:40:Lehner Franz:We developed several definitions which differ from those you can find in the literature. For instance we distinguish between a concept and a construct view, which leads to new insights Definition: An Organisational Memory System (OMS) is a system, (a) which realises parts of the organisational knowledge base with the help of information and communications technologies and/or (b) realises and supports tasks, functions and procedures that are connected to the use of the organisational knowled 5:25:02:JoAnn Brooks:Conklin's system is interesting in that it forces people to become more explicit about what they are expressing 5:26:04:Lorne Olfman:Seems we moved right into point 3: "Can OM be systematized". 5:26:22:Joyce Noe:re representation: I agree with JoAnn; OMS depends on goood communication processes 5:26:50:Lehner Franz:2nd part (Defs truncated) Concept view: an OMS is a concept describing and explaining certain phenomena and abilities of an organization. They are in close connection with the concepts of organizational learning, knowledge management, organizational Intelligence and others. Computer-based implementation or support of certain parts or processes is seen as part of this abstract concept (which is real only in a certain context) 5:27:25:Munir Mandviwalla:There is also a commercial cognitive mapping system from England. Is cognitive mapping the "systematization"? (which goes back to representation) 5:27:35:Lorne Olfman:re Conklin's system: Yes, it was a commercial venture, but I don't know how it has been retained. 5:28:01:Murray Jennex:sorry i'm late, but as to can OM be systemized, I think it can be broken down into components of which the computer is one part, that part can be systemized. I found such examples at a nuclear plant 5:28:15:Gail Rein:COnklin was registered for the session -- wish he would enter! 5:28:37:Lorne Olfman:re systematization: I wanted to discuss how to acquire and represent OM in terms of a computer-based system. Seems we are well into that discussion. 5:29:15:Munir Mandviwalla:Conklin's system was folded into a large concept. He said he would be late for the session. More info on: http://www.gdss.com 5:29:26:Renata Araujo:Re expressing ideas: But I remember that people discusses that expressing ideas is difficult when we have to categorize them (issues, positions etc). We don't know yet if the models proposed are effective for memory acquisition 5:29:37:Lehner Franz:I think we have to change our idea of how these systems should look alike. A good guideline is the TMS-concept. Anyone familiar with this concept? 5:29:49:Lorne Olfman:re systematization: It is true that OM need not be represented as computer- based, but I'm interested in knowing whether it is possible. 5:30:14:Joyce Noe:re systemization: in architectural project management there are some devices such as Project Net and the Zip Bau that are data management systems 5:30:25:Ravi Krovi:Group meeting recording tools can record transcripts such as this one 5:30:26:Gail Rein:What is TMS? Pls elaborate. 5:30:40:Lorne Olfman:re Franz: What is TMS? Transendental Meditation -- just a bit of levity here. 5:30:45:JoAnn Brooks:Conklin's system, now GDSS, is based on a small handful of types, e.g. "idea", "question", "goal" (I could be off on some of these). It's a tad akin to the coordinator, but once someone learns to work with it, it seems to make a big difference in retaining group memory over time. 5:31:46:Renata Araujo:Re TMS: I'm affraid I don't know TMS either... 5:32:04:Lorne Olfman:re systems: There are a number of "memory in the small systems". I guess Jeff Conklin's is the only one that is a so-called commercial implementation. Ackerman's ASSIST is used but is not commercial. 5:32:07:Lehner Franz:TMS means Transactive Memory System - I think this is quite a useful theory for understanding OM 5:32:58:Lorne Olfman:re TMS: OK, give us more. Is it related to capturing transactions of communications? 5:32:59:Marcel Hoffman:In my point of view Systems that urge users to explicitly descibe their ideas, solutions to problems oder memories are doomed t ofailure. What we need is systems that capture as much organizational knowledge or memory as possible with as little effort as necessary. 5:33:11:JoAnn Brooks:Is TMS Wegner's work, about how two different partners in a couple know that each other knows different things? 5:33:25:Lehner Franz:References for TMS Hartwick et al. 1982, Clark/Stephenson 1989 5:34:12:JoAnn Brooks:This TMS could be something like the "social capital" work that's coming into attention? 5:34:16:Lehner Franz:Re JoAnn Brooks: yes Wegner uses the TMS concept in his work 5:34:20:Ravi Krovi:Re: Marcel. Good point... are there automatic / interactive knowledge capture tools 5:34:25:Lorne Olfman:re Marcel: That is a key point. Who has time to write down summaries of their knowledge. It must be explicitly captured in the way work and documentation are structured. But, just capturing data is not good enough I don't think. 5:34:29:Dave Croasdell:RE systematization: Fundamentally, a system has inputs, processes, and outputs. By this definition, one should ask why can't an OM be systematized. The key seems to define the inputs, process and outputs. How can we "systematize the inputs? the processes? How do we align these to create systematized outputs? Much more involved than just the computer components. However, IT is an integral part of collecting, processing, and disseminating ... 5:34:47:Frada Burstein:Re Marcel's point: This is a tricky one, leading to Notes being OMS by definition. I don't agree.. 5:34:57:Marcel Hoffmann:recommender Systems and collaborative filtering systems might lead the way to OMS 5:35:59:Lorne Olfman:re Dave: You are right. We should be able to create the systems. Franz has outlined one possible framework for capturing memories. 5:36:06:Ravi Krovi:Re: lorne. You mean we have to be able to represent as well as be able to mine the knowledge for effective use 5:36:17:Gail Rein:I propose those of us interested in exploring TMS break out in a separate room... 5:36:17:JoAnn Brooks:Marcel's point about recommender systems and collab. filtering is good, because its IT in support of existing tacit processes 5:36:43:Marcel Hoffmann:re Freda: In my point of view Notes can very well be a means to building an Computer Supported OMS. Whatīs wrong with that? 5:36:48:Lorne Olfman:re Frada: Good point. I think we generally do not accept Notes as an OMS; or at least Notes is not referred to as an OMS. Maybe it is. 5:36:50:Munir Mandviwalla:Re Frada: Why can't we call Notes an OMS if it is used for that? 5:37:15:Gail Rein:TMS discussion - got to breakout room1 5:37:17:JoAnn Brooks:Notes has been possibly the most studied IT system in the literature on OM 5:38:03:Munir Mandviwalla:Or put another way. Is OMS a feature, a package, or a use? 5:38:52:Murray Jennex:how about an inherent requirement 5:38:57:Lorne Olfman:It is time to move on to the next topic. I am interested in exploring whether there will be Organizational Memory Systems on the market. Will they be written up in textbooks? Will they be the subject of courses? 5:39:23:Frada Burstein:Re Notes: If we agree that data is knowledge then Notes are OMS. However, they do provide a platform to build one 5:40:12:Murray Jennex:I think as we develop better intranets you will see them, i think they will have to be enterprise/org wide systems 5:40:21:Lorne Olfman:re Munir: If OM is a feature of a system, then we don't really have a basis for OMS. That is one of my concerns. If it is a package then the idea of OMS should be manifested in those kinds of systems. A use? I'm not sure what you mean. 5:41:00:Munir Mandviwalla:Re use: Using Notes to build an OMS. Using a word processor for OM. 5:41:15:Ravi Krovi:Re: Murray .... yes but reluctance might be due to the inability to visualize its functions which goes back to definition. 5:41:16:Frada Burstein:Re OMS tools: KMS are 'relabled' record management tools and like and are very havily marketed by IM people 5:41:20:Lorne Olfman:re Murray/Frada: But, we will refer to them as groupware or intranets or some such term, but not OMS. 5:41:27:Murray Jennex:re lorne, i think that systems have an inherent requirement to store memory as a part of meeting user requiruements 5:42:04:Murray Jennex:i think KMS is the user function that decides what goes to the OMS 5:42:41:Murray Jennex:re agreed, i'm not sure OMS is a separate system 5:42:57:Marcel Hoffmann:I believe that there will be Computer Supported OM that include many different forms of Software ranging from intelligent agents to INtranet Solutions Multimedia Databases. 5:43:10:Ravi Krovi:Organizations are not convinced about the viability. How many people actually record their knowledge process 5:43:23:Lorne Olfman:re Murray: OK, if knowledge management is a function for syphoning data into subsystems, why are there knowledge management systems but no OMS? 5:43:37:Murray Jennex:from what i've seen, OMSs built as separate systems have failed. what succeeds are systems that incorporate OMS requirements 5:44:14:Murray Jennex:KMS is a process that determines what knowledge is important, OMS provides storage, retrieval, etc. 5:44:47:Lorne Olfman:re Ravi's and recording knowledge processes: You are probably right, but I wonder if other types of systems were put on the back burner because they were thought not viable. 5:45:17:Murray Jennex:KMS and OMS I don't think, can exist by themselves, but must be part of what the organization does, hence they need to be tied to action systems 5:45:20:Munir Mandviwalla:re why KMS and no OMS: the marketing people haven't jumped on OMS? In some ways KMS is just as vague... 5:45:44:Lorne Olfman:re Marcel: Yes, we can integrate all kinds of agents and data bases, but will we be able to package them as OMS? 5:46:05:Frada Burstein:Re Murray: KM'S' can't be a process, it's a system too. However, OMS is a wider term, as memory is wider than knowledge (?) 5:46:11:Murray Jennex:KMS is pushed by Davenport, a big name, but reading his book he is also doing OM 5:46:36:Lorne Olfman:re marketing: But, why is organizational memory so much less marketable than knowledge management. Maybe you don't have to promise as much in the latter format. 5:46:52:Murray Jennex:KMS can be a process, the process of deciding what is knowledge, this is the human part of OMS that we can't necessarily computerized 5:47:22:Ravi Krovi:Re: lorne... Agents can be integrated with the databases as long as these agents have specific OM related functions: recording, representing, mining etc.. 5:47:22:Munir Mandviwalla:Maybe I am wrong but my impression is that KMS came from industry while OMS came from research? 5:48:10:Murray Jennex:Marketing KMS over OMS sounds better because that is what the business people call OMS. but looking at E&Y's system I can say they have a OMS part 5:48:16:Lorne Olfman:Last Topic. If we haven't run out of steam, let's summarize ideas for what needs to be done to make OMS of the class of systems like groupware, DSS, and so forth. 5:48:33:Murray Jennex:re. munir, yes i agree it came from business 5:48:59:Murray Jennex:I think it needs to become part of the ISDT 5:49:31:JoAnn Brooks:To some extent, we're in need of a conceptual model. OM is hard to grasp just like memory itself is -- we know it when we see it, but it's hard to explain (whereas KM is targeted towards mgt people) 5:49:32:Lorne Olfman:re ISDT: Murray please elaborate. 5:49:33:Murray Jennex:also, more case study research showing how it can influence productivity is good. that is what is fueling KMS work 5:49:38:Gail Rein:Lesson Learned: one question (they were all good) would have been enough 5:49:48:Ravi Krovi:We have to show OM benefits thru case studies 5:50:17:Marcel Hoffmann:I am afraid that selling OMS as "OMS" will be quit difficult. Many companies I git to know recently have vast amount of data of documentations from ISO 9000 Projects or BPR-Efforts that will never be update, no matter stored on CD or Paper. 5:50:49:Lorne Olfman:re JoAnn: Do you think KM is so much easier to understand than OM? I see both as vague and confusing terms. But so are terms such as decision support. 5:50:52:Murray Jennex:ISDT, IS Design Theory, believes that there are inherent basic design characteristics of systems that all systems must meet 5:51:08:Renata Araujo:Re Last Topic: Case studies! This will help us understand memory "in action". 5:51:12:Marcel Hoffmann:Last Topic: The main objectives seems to be to develop support for gathering and storing knowledge and to provide relevant knowledge without much extra effort. Another point is to provide adequate representations of vague or uncertain knowledge or as Goguen puts it the "information wet" 5:51:43:Frada Burstein:Information management (and record keepting) was long time recognised as a necessity in organisations, this is why KMS are new names for the old libraries (very simplistic point) 5:52:00:Munir Mandviwalla:re last topic: we need an example OMS that can be explained in one sentence 5:52:06:Ravi Krovi:framworks which help to visualize the functions or features of an OMS 5:52:17:Murray Jennex:of course the real question on case studies is how to publish them, they may not necessarily be in the format of a classical case study 5:52:28:Gail Rein:Virtual Meeting Lesson Learned: one of the questions we touched on would have been enough... fun... thanks! 5:52:55:Ravi Krovi:Murray can u elaborate 5:52:57:Joel Muzard:I see the work with Ontologies related to OM 5:53:27:JoAnn Brooks:re Lorne's question - I think neither is easy to define or understand, but KM is easier to sell, since it has a business flavor 5:53:51:Murray Jennex:re. Ravi, I did a detailed case study on an OMS in a nuclear plant, it is not filled with statistics and am having trouble finding a home for it 5:54:14:JoAnn Brooks:(continued) that's why going back to what is known about human memory seems a good place to start understanding what OM systems can really be 5:54:30:Lorne Olfman:re KM vs OM saleability: I guess the proof is in the reality, but I don't think any of us have stated a good reason why one is more saleable. 5:54:52:Murray Jennex:I guess the problem with case studies of OMS is that for now they are mostly qualitative, we do not have good tools or models for discussing them 5:55:11:Frada Burstein:Re JoAnn: good point. Organisations are after 'corparate memory' now - observation from the KM showcase attended 5:55:18:Murray Jennex:I don't think we should try to sell one over the other, i think they are both related and equal 5:55:34:Munir Mandviwalla:re saleable: I am not sure that KM is making a lot of sales. Just getting a lot of press with some sales. 5:55:49:Lorne Olfman:re JoAnn: Walls, Widmeyer and El Sawy tell us that we can create systems based on reference theories. I assume that the memory theories can provide that kind of reference for construction. 5:56:28:Joyce Noe:reKM vs OM saleability: perhaps km is more defineable in little bites 5:56:42:Murray Jennex:i see KM selling now because of consulting firms which are obvious knowledge firms, we need cases from non-obvious firms to show a general applicability 5:57:18:Joyce Noe:Murray could you explain non-obvious firms? 5:57:19:Lorne Olfman:re what needs to be done: I think JoAnn is right that we have to find some reference theories that can be the basis for system construction. We can use those to define prototypes. But, how to sell these to venture capitalists ... I don't know. 5:57:23:Joel Muzard:What you mean by reference theories? 5:57:25:Joel Muzard:What you mean by reference theories? 5:57:31:Marcel Hoffmann:OMS are not so good to be sold like Groupware etc. There ist still to much extra effort and to little profit for the user. One Exception may be knowledge intesive businesses like teaching of consulting. Where people are used to search for advise and information. 5:58:05:Jeff Conklin:re saleable: When we started Corporate Memory Systems it seemed very saleable in industries that needed an audit trail of decisions and their rationale. Experience was that the fear (of documentation) factor balanced the need, in addition to many other factors. 5:58:16:Lehner Franz:re: JoAnn - human memory: agree with u; human memory is seen as a dynamic device which works to a certain degree autonomous and without central control. 5:58:34:JoAnn Brooks:There are a lot of theories on memory, but not a lot that tie together different memory phenomena (e.g. reference, procedural v. declarative, episodic,etc.) what would be useful to the OMS crowd would be an overarching framework, rather than a single shot metaphor. (I'm trying to work on it) 5:59:47:Ravi Krovi:Jeff could it be possible that employees may not be willing to share private informal knowledge 5:59:51:Lorne Olfman:re saleablility: Recall that Wanda Orlikowski documented that a consulting firm rejected Notes because it meant sharing knowledge but knowledge was how one got a partnership, so there was no incentive. Somehow that incentive got changed so consultants are major purveyors of Knowledge Management. Maybe knowledge is memory after all. 6:00:02:Murray Jennex:non-obvious firms are those that use OMS in everyday business but don't no it. Maintenace organizations, power plants, engineering firms all use OMS but don't call it such, we can model their OMS 6:00:27:Lehner Franz:reference theories could be TMS and group remembering, but we also need to link managment concepts to these theories (OL, KM, OI imlicitely do) 6:00:40:Murray Jennex:and then show how to make them better with computer components 6:01:14:Murray Jennex:maybe the reference theories aren't memory theories, but rather organizational theories 6:01:32:Lorne Olfman:OK Folks, we have reached 6PM. The formal agenda is over. Those who want to keep talking, please feel free to do so. I would love to continue this discussion and will try to put together an ongoing conversation. 6:01:51:Munir Mandviwalla:One could say that this primitive system is also an OMS since a transcript is being recorded (and I often use it to catch up during a session). 6:02:04:Murray Jennex:I found that corporate culture determines how much sharing there is 6:02:23:Munir Mandviwalla:Before you leave please help us by filling in a feedback form on http://ww2.cis.temple.edu/isworld/vmc/feedback.htm 6:02:24:Jeff Conklin:re Ravi: I didn't see many times when people were reluctant because knowledge was private. These were big, public projects with huge stakes. The barrier was the making thinking explicit by typing it was hard for a critical few. 6:02:24:Joyce Noe:Will there be some sort of written record of this chat? 6:02:55:Lehner Franz:re reference theories - theories on human memory are not real useful because we have to consider social aspects (power structure, organization, etc.) 6:02:59:Joel Muzard:ref: cognitive tools; You may have a look at AiA's IdeaProcessor (www.a-i-a.com) 6:03:16:Murray Jennex:re Jeff, i agree, i found that in engineering firms to be true 6:03:24:Renata Araujo:Thank you all for the discussion, but unfortunately, I have to leave. Bye! 6:03:59:Ravi Krovi:Munir..enjoyed it ... thanks for the tech help 6:04:00:Lorne Olfman:Thanks everyone. Sorry it goes so fast. 6:04:52:Jeff Conklin:Sorry I missed so much -- it looks like it was a rich session. bye. 6:05:24:Murray Jennex:does reengineering have a theoretical basis? it would seem OM/KM comes out of that process to some degree ORIENTATION SESSSION 4:29:17:Joyce Noe:Hello Munir, L. Olfmann, thank you for the reminders 4:30:54:Munir Mandviwalla:Hi Joyce! 4:32:20:Munir Mandviwalla:Hi Dave. 4:33:20:Dave Croasdell:Hello all of you organizational memory guru's. Show me something we can all remember 4:34:00:Joyce Noe:Hi Dave Where are you from? 4:34:22:Munir Mandviwalla:Now do you mean "show" in an abstract or concrete form 4:34:51:Dave Croasdell:Munir, is this the chat room for the interactive tutorial? I have been through the web pages, but am still a little uncomfortable witht the technology 4:35:14:Munir Mandviwalla:Dave, you are in the right place! 4:35:30:Dave Croasdell:Hi Joyce - I am from Texan A&M University 4:36:15:Dave Croasdell:Munir, the answer to your question is "Yes!" 4:36:24:Munir Mandviwalla:Hi Lorne 4:36:46:Dave Croasdell:Howdy, Lorne 4:37:08:Munir Mandviwalla:The agenda is that I will go over some technical tips and social protocol till about 5pm (the time you see on your screen). Then Lorne will take over. 4:37:37:Lorne Olfman:Hi, everyone. I got a little confused, but now I'm on board. 4:37:42:Joyce Noe:Dave I hear someone from Texas A&M is coming to the GSD to teach Workplace for the future do you know who that might be? 4:38:01:Dave Croasdell:Joyce, I see from your profile that you are at Harvard. Do you do any work at MIT's Center for Organizational Learning? 4:38:03:Munir Mandviwalla:I see that about 10 people are logged on. They will eventually find their way here (like Lorne 4:38:33:Munir Mandviwalla:This technology is very primitive but there are still a few things that you need to know to survive (follows) 4:38:39:Ravi Krovi:Hi folks ... 4:38:46:Joyce Noe:Munir I see only 5, is my reception slow? What can I do about it 4:38:57:Munir Mandviwalla:Hi Ravi 4:39:38:Lorne Olfman:No, reception seems OK; I counted you, Joyce, Ravi, Dave, and me. How do you know others will arrive? 4:39:41:Munir Mandviwalla:You should know: 1. How to use the refresh command 2. How to compose longer messages 3. How to send private messages 4. The impact of delayed responses 4:39:48:Dave Croasdell:Joyce, Joobin Choobineh is the man you are are referring to. He is very excited about the opportunity. I will teach his class for him while he is in Boston. 4:40:08:Munir Mandviwalla:Hi Joann 4:40:16:Lorne Olfman:And, JoAnn. I guess they just arrive. 4:40:40:Joyce Noe:Thanks Dave perhaps we can chat about Joobin later 4:41:41:Munir Mandviwalla:The refresh command is very important. Please try setting it to your preference. 4:42:28:JoAnn Brooks:Hi! I couldn't find the window where you are. Had to change machines. 4:42:29:Munir Mandviwalla:The software will not let you set a rate faster than it can sustain so you may not be able to set a rate lower than 10 seconds (which works well for me anyway) 4:43:39:Dave Croasdell:Joyce, Joobin is right down the hall, I will ask him to join us later for a discussion in one of the breakout rooms. 4:45:14:Dave Croasdell:Munir, how are your creating those smiley faces? Is there a default text editor you are using that we are not using? 4:45:14:JoAnn Brooks:Hi again - don't mind me, I'm just testing the "compose" feature. 4:45:16:Munir Mandviwalla:That is it for technical tips. Any questions. Please do try the refresh command. It will be a lifesaver later. Also you can set refresh to zero if you want to read the previous comments without having the screen jump around. 4:45:27:Lorne Olfman:When the session starts, I will use blue colored messages like this to manage process. For example, changing topics. 4:46:01:Munir Mandviwalla:The secret to the smiley faces is a colon such as : followed by a close parenthesis such as ) 4:46:48:Joyce Noe:Munir: Thanks for the tip on the 4:46:53:Munir Mandviwalla:Social protocol to follow 4:47:08:Munir Mandviwalla:Also try the frown 4:47:31:Munir Mandviwalla:1. Flow: Please stay within one concept of the issue currently under discussion. 4:47:47:Lorne Olfman:OK, I can't resist trying these either and 4:47:54:Munir Mandviwalla:For example, the moderator suggests we discuss "how X relates to Y." Points you raise about X, Y, and their relationship will clearly be on topic. In addition, you are also encouraged to bring in for example, "how X relates to A." Expanding the discussion in this manner often leads to new insights and makes for an interesting conversation. However, starting a discussion on "A" by itself or "how A relates to B" will make the session less coherent for everybody. 4:48:14:Munir Mandviwalla:Protocol number 2 coming up. 4:48:37:Munir Mandviwalla:2. Moderator: Please respect the moderator's wish to move to the next topic. 4:49:00:Munir Mandviwalla:2. Moderator: Please respect the moderator's wish to move to the next topic. The moderator will use a special color (blue) to highlight process messages such as "Lets set aside topic A for now and talk about topic B." If you would like to continue the topic you could try sending a private message to the moderator or inviting a subset of people to join you in one of the breakout rooms. 4:49:18:Munir Mandviwalla:Hi Renata 4:49:22:Dave Croasdell:Munir, thanks for the face painting lessons 4:49:42:Munir Mandviwalla:last protocol coming up 4:49:55:Munir Mandviwalla:3. Referencing: Please use the phrase "Re topicname" to respond to specific issues or comments or people. For example, "Re topic A" or "Re Munir's point." 4:49:58:Lorne Olfman:Hi Renata; Hi Ravi 4:50:37:Ravi Krovi:Hi Lorne. will you specify the agenda up front 4:50:43:Munir Mandviwalla:Hi Lehner 4:51:06:JoAnn Brooks:Hi Folks - I seem to be getting the hang of things, now. Thanks for the tips, Munir. 4:51:25:Lorne Olfman:Hi Franz -- or is it Lehner? 4:51:27:Renata Araujo:Hello everybody! Greetings from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 4:51:32:Lorne Olfman:Hi Frada. 4:51:46:Lorne Olfman:Hi Renata. 4:52:30:Munir Mandviwalla:For the people arriving I will quickly review some technical tips(with apologies to the ones already here -- try the private mesages) 4:52:55:Lehner Franz:Hi all; my first name is Franz. unfortunately it has turned to Lehner. So if possible please use Franz. 4:53:26:Munir Mandviwalla:The refresh rate is your friend. Please set it so that your screen is comfortable for you. 4:55:16:Lorne Olfman:Re refresh rate: seems to work well for me at 15 seconds. 4:55:41:Munir Mandviwalla:And a quick review of the social protocol 4:56:14:JoAnn Brooks:Hi Munir - Is this the correct way to send a private message? 5:00:02:Joyce Noe:Hi...everybody am I still in the room? 5:00:25:JoAnn Brooks:Hi Joyce - It did seem very quiet there for a while. 5:00:33:Munir Mandviwalla:Welcome everybody. I will be handing over to Lorne now. Please send additional technical issues to me as private messages. 5:00:50:Ravi Krovi:Thanks Munir 5:00:57:Frada Burstein:Hi, I've sent a test message but can't see it on the list. Do you?