ActKM: Story of a Community

Shawn Callahan

Trish Milne

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

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

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

Paper will cover

• Responses from main questionnaire

• Responses from frequent contributors

• Responses from the Core Team

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do frequent contributors say?• Gandalf syndrome

– Should identify as gives context– Should identify as gives authority– Pleased when disclosed

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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