Post on 18-Dec-2014
description
Adaptive Knowledge Architectures
Andrew GentMay 2009
Copyright 2009 by Andrew Gent
2
Disclaimer
The following presentation discusses a combination of theory and practice. The theories and scenarios presented are based on work done at Hewlett-Packard between the years 2002-2008.However, the ideas and opinions presented here are solely those of the author and in no way represent the views of, or an endorsement by, HP.
3
Agenda• Scenario:− Business problem− Original solution− Real-world outcome
• Adaptive Knowledge Architecture:− Rethinking the solution− Requirements & responsibilities for adaptive
architecture• Conclusion:− Final outcome
4
Business Scenario
• Provide KM support to a global organization of SI consultants− 12,000 employees− 800-1,000 projects a year
• Employees managed by region• Strategic direction set by HQ
“practices” (manufacturing, financial, infrastructure, etc.)
5
Original Architecture
• “3-Tier Architecture” simplified to address operational & strategic needs.
SIHP Services
HP…Intranet
Communities of Practice
Teams
Managed Content
Open, Globally Shared Content
Secure, Operational Content
6
Communities of Practice• This presentation focuses on the middle layer.
• The CoPs combined both actual communities of people and the technology to support them.
• Specifically, SharePoint sites for capturing/sharing examples, reports, papers, best practices, etc.
MissionCritical Etc.
Security CIM .
7
Architecture Theory
• The intent was for subject matter experts to lead the communities, delegate & manage the associated spaces.
• Both global and local search (augmented by metadata) made content accessible and reusable at multiple levels.
8
Business Realities
• Mgt liked the strategy – so much they claimed responsibility (and ownership) over them:− Mgt selected CoP leaders as a business role− They “managed” the content:
• Focus on driving business strategies• Insisted on “qualifying” content• Removed “non-strategic” content• Locked down content to specific audiences
− Mapped CoPs to operational practices 1-for-1
9
The Conflict
• However… the content comes from the field (i.e. the regions).
• Regions wanted to manage their own content.
• CoPs as managed portals discouraged contributions.
10
The Outcome
• CoPs became islands of (unused) content.• Regions created their own repositories,
disconnected from larger framework.• “Balkanization” of knowledge.
MissionCritical
Security CIM
USAsia
UKItaly
11
Rethinking the Architecture
12
Rethinking the Architecture• Original KM architecture defined according to
strict principles:• Global not local• Single infrastructure for reduced cost, simplification• Communities of Practice as collection point of refined
knowledge• The architecture is under attack, constantly
fighting to keep up with competing requests:− local vs. global− closed vs. open
• Inherent problems for architecture:− Conflicting requirements with no principles to resolve
differences− “Missing” requirements – no matter how complete the list, new
requirements or new priorities keep coming up.− Unclear any architecture can meet all of the requirements.
13
Rethinking Architecture (contd.)
• Constraints:− Management insists on controlling how
information is seen (i.e. the view)− Different views for different groups− Control of the content (ownership) is critical
• Solution:− Separate storage/ownership from presentation
14
Adaptive Knowledge Architecture: Basic Principles• Architecture is a loose, dynamic collection
of rich content• Don’t care where people store documents
(as long as they meet minimum criteria)• Can add and remove content sources from
the “pool” dynamically or systemically.• Focus of KM is on “enabling”:− Maintaining minimum criteria standards− Providing compliant infrastructure− Design and construction of useful functions using the total
pool of content (think Project Finder, community directory, and more…)
15
KM “Laws of inclusion”
Minimum Criteria:• Content is reachable (& crawlable)• Content is owned (& managed) • Content is semantically rich (i.e.
metadata)• There is a common semantic
vocabulary
16
What Adaptive Architecture Looks like
Portal
Content
Scope
ManagementDomain
Practice
Region
Global
Blogs?
17
Adaptive Architecture Requirements• Must have clear, complete, common
metadata.• Management of content delegated to
content “owners” (practice, region, etc.)• Focus of global KM shifts from managing
to using content to enable business operations.
• Architecture encourages/adapts to localized innovation
18
Adaptive Architecture Consequences• No single point for contributions
(submitted where the content is managed).
• There will be overlap and possible competition (region vs. practice, etc.)
19
Risks
• Revolutionary: − Given freedom of control, groups may rebel and try to
separate entirely.− Answer: Use management goals and measurability as
“stick” (to enforce minimum criteria) to the self-management “carrot”
• Reactionary: − Groups may complain about having to take
responsibility for their own content, will demand more hands-on from global KM.− Answer: Provide compliant infrastructure, guidelines,
and consulting to enable local KM teams.
20
Final Outcome• Architecture proposed twice:− 1st time the global practices rejected the architecture,
refusing to accept alternate views.− 2nd time accepted, but then rescinded (by practices)
before implementation.• Alternative:− CoPs left in hands of the practices− Project Document Library created to capture reusable
documents, organized (and managed) by region.
Practices Regions
Global Search
21
Hindsight
• Beware of successBut you cannot stop it
• Stick to your principlesThey define what you do
• You cannot fix dysfunctional behavior with KMBut avoiding reproducing it
22
Foresight
• You cannot fix dysfunctional behavior with web 2.0
• Beware of:− Security on wikis− Permissions on blogging− Scoped or segregated search
23
Questions?Contact Info:Email: ajgent@yahoo.comBlog: http://incrediblydull.blogspot.com/Website: http://www.radiopoets.com/Twitter: http://twitter.com/AndrewGent