ActKM: Story of a Community

1. ActKM: Story of a Community Shawn Callahan Trish Milne

2. Research project funded by the University of Canberra • Aim • To develop a conceptual framework for the study of communities of practice • To apply the framework to an investigation of ActKM • To explore the impact of ActKM on the understanding and practice of KM

3. Specific research objectives • To discover • Value of ActKM to members • How members managed postings • Degree of off-list activity • Impact of ActKM on KM practice

4. Aspects completed to date • Axelrod and Cohen’s model based on complexity • Stage one of the application of the model reported at two conferences • Sydney • Spain • Purpose of this paper is to provide a detailed overview of the results and an analysis of the viewpoints of the respondents

5. Paper will cover • Responses from main questionnaire • Responses from frequent contributors • Responses from the Core Team

6. Data collection • To achieve research objectives • Email questionnaire to all list members • Telephone interviews with seven frequent contributors • Telephone interviews with two internationally recognised thought leaders • Email questionnaire to core team

7. Demographics • 20% response rate to main questionnaire • 75% from Australia • 5% from each UK, US, NZ + nine other countries • 35% members < 1 year • 37% members 1 - 2 years • 28% members > 3 years • 38% public sector • 38.9% private sector • 16.7% university sector

8. Survey population • Respondents to census survey self-selected • Provided unique viewpoint as contribution pattern showed consisted largely of Wenger’s ‘Legitimate Peripheral Participants’ or ‘LPPs’ • 5.7% contributed monthly • 49.1% contributed infrequently • 29.2% never contributed • 16% indicated some reasons • Inhibited by public service position - individual replies off-list • Decision to contribute depends on topic

9. Position in organisations • Too varied to categorise, includes many types of managers, directors, consultants, academics • 46% had a KM role, varied but includes • K manager, IT manager, EDMS manager • Experience transfer manager • KM strategy • Chair, KM committee

10. What prompted them to join • Wanted to keep current with KM issues • Develop/maintain a KM network • Be part of a KM community • Wanted to learn about KM • Why ActKM? • List has an excellent reputation • Was recommended

11. Managing the postings • 25.5% read and delete immediately • 34% move to folder to read later • Many variations • Read some, delete most • Only read those that interest • Only read those from particular contributors • Use digest

12. Pattern of reading • 9.4% read all postings in full • 52.8% only skim long messages • 4.7% ignore long messages • 64.2% only read those of interest • 15.1% depends on time

13. Impact of ActKM • 21.9% has sparked specific initiative • Impact has included • Confirms and/or clarifies issues • If not sparking, then informs initiatives • Immediate source of information • Increased levels of personal confidence through learning from list postings

14. Off-list contacts • 34.3% initiated off-list contact (email, phone, meeting) • 81% of this contact was with people not previously known • Why? • Follow-up comments made to list • When issue was thought to be sensitive • When wanted to discuss issue in more depth

15. Off-list discussions with work colleagues • 72.3% had regular discussions with work colleagues about list postings • 13.7% with other members • 45.2% with people not members • 41.1% with both members and non-members

16. Valued contributors • Those named included international thought leaders + many from Australia • Why are these contributors valued? • Practical approach to KM • Thought provoking • Insightful • Considered to be knowledgeable about KM • Express thoughts clearly and intelligently - don’t ‘waffle’

17. Reaction to controversially heated debate • Spectrum from ‘love them’ to ‘ignore them’! • Most agreed that debate is fine as long as it doesn’t get personal - at this point they ‘turn off’ • Fine if it is relevant and ‘productive’(but not personal) • Shouldn’t be censored unless it borders on libel or pure invective

18. Value from membership • Networking • Greater awareness of KM issues • Can learn from experiences of others • That one gem in 100 messages • Shows who is doing what • Provides current information about KM

19. What is the main purpose of ActKM? • Infrastructure for a community of practice - brings together people who wouldn’t otherwise meet • Facility for K sharing • To stimulate and promote new thinking and discussion

20. Two final comments • Respondents to the main questionnaire generally noted • A strong agreement that the list shouldn’t be used to market goods and/or services or for any type of self-promotion • That ActKM is the most interesting lists of those around and the level of intelligent contributions is much higher

21. What do frequent contributors say? • Most excited about participating when issue • Resonates with own current problem • Provides guidance on practice • Is one where they can make a difference • Is controversial - leads to new insights and understandings • Is about lessons learnt

22. What do frequent contributors say? • Can’t be bothered contributing • When discussion becomes ethereal and has no practical application • Most frustrated when • People put in two lines - not worth opening • People go off target • Discussion is academic and suggests issues are black and white • Discussion lacks focus • Discussion is personal and/or opinionated

23. What do frequent contributors say? • Most exhilarated when • Formation of trust groups to ‘chew the fat’ • Input from people dealing with same issues • Great input from thought leaders • Debate is at a high level • Point of view types of responses • Found personally had something to contribute

24. What do frequent contributors say? • Pattern of own contributions • Range between dashing off answer immediately and considering for some time before sending • Censor own views occasionally usually in polemic debates • Manage messages • Read as they arrive - is a gauge of what is happening • Changed over time - now read more selectively

25. What do frequent contributors say? • Off-list activities • Receive numerous off-list contacts • Sometimes they make the contact for a more personal discussion • When part of a controversial debate receive supportive emails from people who won’t post them to the public discussion • Some receive calls form vendors • Should go off-list when only two people involved

26. What do frequent contributors say? • Gandalf syndrome • Should identify as gives context • Should identify as gives authority • Pleased when disclosed

27. What do frequent contributors say? • Reaction to ‘bad’ behaviour • Stop reading when gets personal • Consider ‘self-promotion’ is bad behaviour • Consider ‘leaders’ putting down others is bad behaviour

28. Frequent contributors noted list value found in • Lessons learned from others most valuable • Using what they learned to shift management thinking • Discussions that help keep their thinking current • Off-list discussions (particularly monthly meetings)

29. Frequent contributors noted list value found in • Human network that sits behind the list • Expertise on list that can inform any topic • Links to international thought leaders • Finally the KM community is much stronger because of ActKM

30. Views of the Core Team • How much time is spent • Varies according to activity: conference, moderating, setting up awards • Period of membership • Varies: some original members, some newer • Activities • Core team meetings • Conference planning, monthly meetings • List moderation • Awards program

31. Why be on the Core Team? • Passionate about KM • Support KM community • Learn from watching group grow and change • Apply learning in own workplace • Like working on conference committee • Just enjoy working with Core Team

32. What does the Core Team feel is the purpose of ActKM? • Forum for KM practitioners • Further implementation of KM in public sector • Raise profile of KM • Support people involved in KM • Fellowship of like-minded people

33. Is ActKM fulfilling this role? • ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ • Not active enough in providing leadership and promoting KM at the higher levels of influence in the public sector • Yes, but slowly. APS needs to be more motivated to deal with issues around KM • As a community of practice - does an excellent job • High penetration of practitioners and academics - not management

34. How does Core Team see role of meetings and conference • Face-to-face meetings • Strengthen connections • Develop higher levels of loyalty • Keep topics alive • Allow people to vent about list discussions • Allow additional opportunities for learning • Good to provide range of ways for people to communicate

35. Most proud to be a Core Team member when • Worked on conference committee • Conference is in full swing • See the growth in membership • See what has been accomplished at ‘yearly wrap-up’ • Member achieves something significant and thanks list members for input

36. Role of list moderator • Ideal is for list to be self-moderating • Should moderate when discussion degenerates to personal attacks • Unexpected outcomes from being on Core Team • Led to meeting a wide range of people • Outcomes always better than hoped

37. Conclusions • Members indicate high-value personal gains • Networking is the most significant • Keeping current • Learning

38. Conclusions • If you want your posting read • Keep to the point - don’t waffle • Keep it relatively short • Applied rather than academic focus • Case studies and/or analogies are good for getting the point across • Don’t make personal attacks or ‘put down’ another point of view • Don’t make anonymous postings • Don’t use list for personal publicity