Forester bringt im eigenen Blog eine kurze Einleitung ins Thema:
“Forrester’s Social Technographics® classifies consumers into six overlapping levels of participation (see short presentation). Based on our survey data we can see how participation varies among different groups of consumers, globally. We also analyze the participation of people who buy technology.”

Und ganz im Sinne des “widgetized online marketings”, gibt’s natürlich auch einen “embeddable widget” für die eigene Website:

“It is easy to fall in love with technology. It is equally easy to fear it. [...] Those who are immersed in a techno-savvy, technophilic community are far more likely to embrace technology than those whose social world is shaped by other patterns of consumption and communication. People’s practices are also shaped by those around them. There are cluster effects to socio-technical engagement. In other words, people do what their friends do.
[...]
Rejecting technological determinism should be a mantra in our professional conversations. It’s really easy to get in the habit of seeing a new shiny piece of technology and just assume that we can dump it into an educational setting and !voila! miracles will happen.
[...]
There are also no such things as “digital natives.” Just because many of today’s youth are growing up in a society dripping with technology does not mean that they inherently know how to use it. They don’t. Most of you have a better sense of how to get information from Google than the average youth. Most of you know how to navigate privacy settings of a social media tool better than the average teen. Understanding technology requires learning.
[...]

Understanding technology requires learning.

Along the same lines, keep in mind that the technology that you adore may hold no interest for your students. They don’t use del.icio.us or Second Life or Ning or Twitter as a part of their everyday practices. And the ways that they use Facebook and MySpace and YouTube are quite different than the ways in which you do. [...] Yet, when we introduce technology in an educational setting, we often mistakenly assume that students will embrace the technology in the same way that we do. This never works out and can cause unexpected strife.
[...]

Technology is a wonderful tool but it is not a panacea.

As we talk about the wonderfulness of technology, please keep in mind the complexities involved. Technology is a wonderful tool but it is not a panacea. It cannot solve all societal ills just by its mere existence. To have relevance and power, it must be leveraged by people to meet needs. This requires all of us to push past what we hope might happen and focus on introducing technology in a context that makes sense.

Hier ist sein Artikel: Clash of the Mindsets: How Indian And Western Engineers View the World Differently. Den letzten Satz des Artikels: “It’s time for B-Schools in the West (and in India) to start teaching a course titled “Managing cross-cultural innovation networks.” I am sure it will be a hit.” würde ich allerdings umschreiben. Es ist an der Zeit, die Kultur als Wissensressource zu betrachten und die inter- bzw. transkulturelle Zusammenarbeit aus wissensorientierter Perspektive zu erforschen. Demnach sollte der Kurs folgendermaßen heißen: “Managing cross-cultural knowledge networks”.

Nun eine kurze Darstellung wesentlicher Faktoren, die Navi Radjou beschreibt.

Because Indian and Western engineers completely differ in their:

1) Reasoning. Unlike Western engineers, who reason with a predicate logic (a statement is either true (1) or false (0)), Indian engineers solve problems using a fuzzy logic (the degree of truth of a statement can range anywhere between 0 and 1). Both reasoning styles have their own merit. In the exploratory stage of product development, Indian engineers’ creativity and flexibility help solve ambiguous technical problems with imprecise data. But Western engineers’ quest for predictability brings stability to the development process later as it gets closer to commercialization. One Indian exec who manages a multinational R&D team joked he felt like a diplomat as he must constantly broker peace between uncertainty-loathing Western engineers and ambiguity-loving Indian scientists!

Another major difference I have noticed is the way Indian and Western prefer to communicate. Indian tend to be more comfortable with verbal communication and Westerners are more comfortable with written communication. (Udayan Banerjee)

2) Problem-solving. Given their average age (mid-20s), Indian engineers belong to the Generation Y, or the Millennials, who learn through hands-on experiments (think video-games) and peer-to-peer interactions (instant messaging anyone?). When solving a problem, these grown-up “kids” harness the multiplicative power of social networking tools to experiment with multiple solutions simultaneously, and select the optimal one based on peer input. You can call this problem-solving approach “Collaborative Darwinism.” By contrast, Western engineers, many in their 30s/40s/50s, theoretically weigh the pros and cons of every single solution before even trying it, and feel too proud to ask for help when stuck solving a problem. It’s the “ostrich-style” problem-solving.

3) Market expectations. It’s hard for Western engineers living in rich economies with advanced infrastructure to design products for use by customers in developing economies with poor roads and unreliable electrical and water supply. But that’s second nature for Indian engineers in Bangalore, with its ever-congested roads and frequent power cuts. As a US tech multinational’s exec eloquently puts it: “Western engineers’ product ideas are shaped by laws of abundance whereas Eastern engineers’ inventions are motivated by the rules of scarcity. Our Silicon Valley engineers don’t even know what “low-cost” product means. And they would have never conceived, let alone marketed, a telecom router with embedded back-up power-supply, as our India team did, to cope with India’s constant power shortage.” Necessity is indeed the mother of invention.

As India integrates its engineering and scientific talent into global innovation networks, Western and Indian multinationals need culturally-savvy managers adept at harmonizing and synergizing the opposing mindsets in their transnational R&D teams. It’s time for B-Schools in the West (and in India) to start teaching a course titled “Managing cross-cultural innovation networks.” I am sure it will be a hit.

STEP 1 (5 Minutes) Set Plan for Day. Before turning on your computer, sit down with a blank piece of paper and decide what will make this day highly successful. What can you realistically accomplish that will further your goals and allow you to leave at the end of the day feeling like you’ve been productive and successful? Write those things down.
Now, most importantly, take your calendar and schedule those things into time slots, placing the hardest and most important items at the beginning of the day. And by the beginning of the day I mean, if possible, before even checking your email. If your entire list does not fit into your calendar, reprioritize your list.

STEP 2 (1 minute every hour) Refocus. Set your watch, phone, or computer to ring every hour. When it rings, take a deep breath, look at your list and ask yourself if you spent your last hour productively. Then look at your calendar and deliberately recommit to how you are going to use the next hour. Manage your day hour by hour. Don’t let the hours manage you.

If you want to get something done, decide when and where you’re going to do it. Otherwise, take it off your list.

STEP 3 (5 minutes) Review. Shut off your computer and review your day. What worked? Where did you focus? Where did you get distracted? What did you learn that will help you be more productive tomorrow?
The power of rituals is their predictability. You do the same thing in the same way over and over again. And so the outcome of a ritual is predictable too. If you choose your focus deliberately and wisely and consistently remind yourself of that focus, you will stay focused. It’s simple.

Ich werde mir die Inhalte in den nächsten Tagen näher anschauen. Vorab eine kurze Info zum Studientext:

“Ziel dieses Studientextes ist es, in die Grundlagen des Wissensmanagements
einzuführen. Es handelt sich dabei um ein interdisziplinäres Thema, das inzwi-
schen auch im deutschsprachigen Raum auf eine ca. zwanzigjährige Geschich-
te zurückblicken kann und in der Praxis von Organisationen, in der Wissen-
schaft und in diversen Ausbildungsgängen eine wichtige Rolle spielt.
Der Studientext liefert einen Überblick über die wichtigsten Hintergründe,
Begriffe, Komponenten, Modelle, Methoden und aktuellen Entwicklungen des
Wissensmanagements. “

Zum Aufbau
Das Skript gliedert sich in sechs Kapitel, die sich den Kernfragen zum Wis-
sensmanagement widmen, die man sowohl in der Wissenschaft als auch in der
Praxis stellen kann: (1) Warum braucht man Wissensmanagement? (2) Kann
man Wissen managen? (3) Was gehört zum Wissensmanagement? (4) Wie
kann man Wissensmanagement darstellen? (5) Wie setzt man Wissensmana-
gement um? (6) Wohin entwickelt sich Wissensmanagement?

Sie schreibt zu ihrer Studie:
“The focus of this study is on how weblogs support one specific aspect of knowledge work – developing ideas. Although I share the belief that knowledge is socially constructed, here I look at this process from a personal perspective, using my own example to explore how a weblog could be used to aid individual contributions to the collective whole.“

Dabei hebt Lilia Efimova folgende Aspekte des Bloggens hervor (ich fasse zusammen):

1. Using weblog as a personal knowledge base: a permanent “overhead” practice of building one’s own knowledge
2. Processing of turning fuzzy early insights into a specific product (idea): “Activation-awareness
3. Exploring contextual factors by examining what issues arise as a result of blogging being situated at an intersection of personal, social and organisational contexts.

Für Lilia ist ein Blog – in erster Linie – “a personal thinking space”. Sie schreibt dazu:

“And, on the top of it, I get annoyed when blogging is conceptualised primarily as a medium for public communication (especially with microphones or megaphones as a visual metaphor ;). So, working on a PhD chapter that describes my own blogging practices, I wanted to show the other side of it – blogging for myself”.

Das passt ganz gut, dem kann ich mich nämlich anschliessen.
Und das motiviert mich zu weiteren Beiträgen. :)

Blog von Lilia Efimova: http://blog.mathemagenic.com

“And I am surprised at just how many people especially knowledge managers are not using social tools (not necessarily internally but on the web for personal use) and consequently do not really understand their power as knowledge sharing and informal learning tools.”

und er setzt fort:

“I think that many people are so busy they have got out of the habit of informal learning – maybe they never got into it. Its not seen as a priority. So can I make a suggestion – if you are one of those people who are not keeping up with your with new developments and thinking in your field of endeavour then take a few minutes to think about how important is it to you compared with everything else that you do. And if you decide it is important then commit to doing it. Start to use social tools as learning tools. Put aside a little time each day or each week to learn in what ever way works best for you :-)”

… ich denke, David ist – wie die meisten in meinem “KM Umfeld” – der Realität mehrere Schritte voraus. Social Software – das sind und bleiben weiterhin Tools. Und der Mensch – als Wissender (!) – geht in der entflammten Web 2.0 Euphorie wieder ein Mal verloren.

Lernen sowie Wissenskommunikation setzen bestimmte Fähigkeiten, Kompetenzen und Rahmenbedingungen voraus, die nicht im Web 2.0 zu suchen sind – sondern den Menschen beizubringen, zu erklären sind. Was nützt einem Twitter oder RSS-Feed, wenn er/sie sich nicht ein Mal für die Tätigkeit einer anderen Abteilung in seiner/ihrer Firma interessiert? Was kann man schon aus der Informationsflut des Mach-Mit Webs an Wissen gewinnen, wenn er/sie nicht ein Mal die Prozesstrukturen des eigenen Unternehmens verstehen/überblicken kann? Das sind Alltagserscheinungen, die ein klare Grenze zwischen Information und Wissen zeichnen.

Social Tools – sind wichtige Werkzeuge, die nur bei richtiger Anwendung und klarer Zielsetzung ihre Kraft entfalten können. Und da sind wir wieder bei Menschen. Meiner Ansicht nach müssen noch einige Schritte in die Richtung getan werden – insbesondere auf der Ebene der Fähigkeiten und Kompetenz. Wir dürfen nicht noch ein Mal den Fehler machen und die Menschen vergessen. Denn anderenfalls drohen die Social Tools uns in der Informationsflut zu begraben und alte Wunden aufzureißen (Vorgänger-Generation von KM).

Einige aus meinem Bekanntenkreis – und darunter auch richtige Web 2.0 Nerds – haben bereits präventive Maßnahmen ergriffen. Und die Lösung heißt: “Weniger ist Mehr!”. Und siehe da – ein lockeres Mitarbeitergespräch beim Kaffee-trinken hat viel mehr gebracht, als wochenlange “Twittereien” und lähmende Blogeskapaden. Mehr Zeit zum Nachdenken und Reflektieren (und nicht ständig Blogs, Tweets etc, reinsaugen) hat zum besseren Verständnis und zum neuen anwendbaren (!) Wissen geführt.  So kann’s auch gehen! Und das zeichnet – meiner Meinung nach – das Wesen von Wissen aus.

If you want to elicit stories around the theme of, say. leadership simply spread the cards face up on a table (or the floor) and say, “today we are focussed on the issue of leadership. Take a look at these pictures and pick up the one that grabs your attention and reminds you of something that happened in relation to leadership.”

Everyone picks up a card. Then you go around the group asking them to recount the experience that was triggered by the picture. You will be amazed at the depth and variety of the stories you collect.

(Via Anecdotally Newsletter, March 2009 Issue)

• - Wissen als transplantierbares Gut definiert, das man zentral bereitstellt.
• - Wissensbereitstellung fordert, ohne ein Publikum zu schaffen.
• - Wissen managen will.

”
Ist Social Software die Antwort auf die neuen Anforderungen? Muß Wissensmanagement also mit Social Software gemacht werden? Nein, dazu gehört mehr! Der erste Teil einer sehr guten Präsentation liefert eine klare Botschaft:

(Frank Wolf, Christoph Rauhut, Simone Happ, Christopher Buschow und Katja Dräger, T-Systems Multimedia )

Weiter lesen: http://enterprise2blog.com/2008/09/social-media-vs-knowledge-management-a-generational-war/

Ich hab’s mir einfach erlaubt die sieben Prinzipien des Wissensmanagements aus dem Blogpost von Dave Showden hier direkt zu übernehmen.

• # Knowledge can only be volunteered it cannot be conscripted. You can’t make someone share their knowledge, because you can never measure if they have. You can measure information transfer or process compliance, but you can’t determine if a senior partner has truly passed on all their experience or knowledge of a case.
• # We only know what we know when we need to know it. Human knowledge is deeply contextual and requires stimulus for recall. Unlike computers we do not have a list-all function. Small verbal or nonverbal clues can provide those ah-ha moments when a memory or series of memories are suddenly recalled, in context to enable us to act. When we sleep on things we are engaged in a complex organic form of knowledge recall and creation; in contrast a computer would need to be rebooted.
• # In the context of real need few people will withhold their knowledge. A genuine request for help is not often refused unless there is literally no time or a previous history of distrust. On the other hand ask people to codify all that they know in advance of a contextual enquiry and it will be refused (in practice its impossible anyway). Linking and connecting people is more important than storing their artifacts.
• # Everything is fragmented. We evolved to handle unstructured fragmented fine granularity information objects, not highly structured documents. People will spend hours on the internet, or in casual conversation without any incentive or pressure. However creating and using structured documents requires considerably more effort and time. Our brains evolved to handle fragmented patterns not information.
• # Tolerated failure imprints learning better than success. When my young son burnt his finger on a match he learnt more about the dangers of fire than any amount of parental instruction cold provide. All human cultures have developed forms that allow stories of failure to spread without attribution of blame. Avoidance of failure has greater evolutionary advantage than imitation of success. It follows that attempting to impose best practice systems is flying in the face of over a hundred thousand years of evolution that says it is a bad thing.
• # The way we know things is not the way we report we know things. There is an increasing body of research data which indicates that in the practice of knowledge people use heuristics, past pattern matching and extrapolation to make decisions, coupled with complex blending of ideas and experiences that takes place in nanoseconds. Asked to describe how they made a decision after the event they will tend to provide a more structured process oriented approach which does not match reality. This has major consequences for knowledge management practice.
• # We always know more than we can say, and we will always say more than we can write down. This is probably the most important. The process of taking things from our heads, to our mouths (speaking it) to our hands (writing it down) involves loss of content and context. It is always less than it could have been as it is increasingly codified.

Cognitive Edge

Besonders treffend (und erschütternd zugleich) fand ich vor allem folgende Fragen/Feststellungen:

- Do you constantly check your email, Twitter replies tab or other online servicebecause you are afraid that if you don’t, you will become so far behind that you will never catch up?
- Are you subscribed to so many blogs that you can’t read them and it makes you feel bad?
- Do you feel that you have to read word for word all information that comes into your email box or RSS reader or Twitter?
- Do you open up multiple tabs in your browser and then forget what you were going to do?

Und wie schlimm sieht es bei ihnen aus? 20 Fragen zum Information Overload

Besonders interessant finde ich allerdings die Diskussion zum Blog-Post. Letztendlich geht es nicht um die Informationsflut an sich, sondern um unser Verhalten, das die Informationsflut auslöst. Persönliches Wissensmanagement braucht Disziplin!

Zitat: “Dave Winer, Scripting.com: «I don’t know – I don’t have information overload. I keep wanting more. More! I want more! :-)»”

Außerdem gibt es zu diesem Thema folgende Websites/Blogs:

• Tips For Dealing With Information Overload
• Managing Information and Communication Overload (by Jeff Davidson)
• ManagingIO – Ideas and trends to tackle information overload (absolut empfehlenswert!)
• Master Your Information Manifesto: 21 Tips to Deal with Info Overload (by WebWorkersDaily)

Oder vielleicht hilft das?

Fokussiert werden während des Online-Tutorials: LibraryThing (als einziges Web 2.0 Tool), Google Scholar und Worldcat – beides Recherchetools, wobei Worldcat in registrierten Bibliothekenbeständen sucht. Und natürlich Zotero – dieses Firefox Plugin scheint Christian Kohls Liebligs-Tools zu sein. (ich verwende es übrigens auch :) )

Insgesamt ein sehr interessantes Tutorial. Vermisst habe ich die Vorstellung von scholarz.net – diese webbasierte Plattform fürs kollaborative wissenschaftliche Arbeiten ist auf jeden Fall interessant, obwohl das junge Projekt noch zahlreiche Schwachstellen aufweist.

Außerdem zum Thema:

• Vergleich der Literaturverwaltungsprogramme von Tobias Schächtelin (PDF)
• Literaturmanagement Portal