Comments for Systemscope

Comment on Failing Forward by Employee Innovation Program Considerations | Systemscope

Employee Innovation Program Considerations | Systemscope — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:23:19 +0000

[...] a profit motive, and particularly given the heightened political risk of failure (see previous post Failing Forward), public servants often have little incentive to push forward ideas for improvements that might [...]

Comment on Failing Forward by Embrace the Buzz | Systemscope

Embrace the Buzz | Systemscope — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 18:22:26 +0000

[...] an earlier Blog post I talked about the barriers to innovation in the public sector – delivery pressures and [...]

Comment on When Social Media in Government Works…Or Not So Much by If I Could Be a Government Web Site Manager « Systemscope

If I Could Be a Government Web Site Manager « Systemscope — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 19:04:04 +0000

[...] moderated it myself, and can report the site activity to management. It involves extra work but as EPA web 2.0 guru Jeffrey Levy told me last year, you learn by doing. We’ll keep an eye on performance and keep tweaking it as [...]

Comment on Lindsay Fraser by Google – Better on the Outside than on the Inside? « Systemscope

Google – Better on the Outside than on the Inside? « Systemscope — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:08:15 +0000

[...] Lindsay Fraser [...]

Comment on GTEC 2009 – Architecting for the E-Record by Systemscope at GTEC 2009 « Systemscope

Systemscope at GTEC 2009 « Systemscope — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 15:57:33 +0000

[...] Architecting for the E-Record [...]

Comment on “Let’s give ‘em something to talk about:” Discussions of GCpedia on the Internet by Emily Gusba

Emily Gusba — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:19:44 +0000

Agreed!

Comment on “Let’s give ‘em something to talk about:” Discussions of GCpedia on the Internet by Paul McDowall

Paul McDowall — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:08:57 +0000

Hi Emily,
All collaborative tools can be powerful enablers for improved organizational collaboration and ultimately effectiveness and efficiency. As I said in my post, GCPEDIA is great and is promising as an enabler. The key word is ‘enabler’.
Paul

Comment on “Let’s give ‘em something to talk about:” Discussions of GCpedia on the Internet by Emily Gusba

Emily Gusba — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 18:06:59 +0000

Paul –

Thanks for your comment. While it pertains directly to Eaves’ original post, I still find it interesting. You are right that tools are just that – implements we use to work towards our goal (whether that be knowledge management, cooking dinner, or building a cabinet); of course it will be human intervention that saves the public service, ultimately. GCpedia cannot write itself. What you did not address, however, is the thrust of Eaves’ post – which is that GCpedia is a tool that is especially suited to supporting public servants in their KM efforts. If, that is, they use GCpedia in that capacity.

I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who disagrees with your contention that thoughtful discussion and leadership are key to strengthening the public service. But I think that you are underestimating the value that the use of the right tool can bring to any project, and the dearth of KM tools available to public servants pre-GCpedia. Plus, not only does GCpedia allow for knowledge capture, but it also facilitates the discussions that you endorse so strongly.

Cheers,
Emily

Comment on “Let’s give ‘em something to talk about:” Discussions of GCpedia on the Internet by Paul McDowall

Paul McDowall — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:26:13 +0000

I am cross-posting (apologies) my response to the ludicrous assertion you reference in point number 2 above, as follows.

Will GCPEDIA save the public service, or capture all the tacit knowledge that will walk out the door? No, of course not! To suggest otherwise is, frankly, naive hyperbole.

As great and as promising as GCPEDIA and other Web 2.0 tools are, tools will never save the public service. People are the public service and only people have the capacity to save the public service, and it will take a whole lot more to improve the weak areas of the public service than a tool. Things like leadership play a pretty important role in organizational effectiveness. There are many good Organizational Excellence models (I have researched this area) and they all include people and leadership as two elements, but funny enough, tools aren’t included. Why? Because it is not so much a tool issue as it is a craftsman issue.

With respect to your comment about tacit knowledge and social capital (not the same things by the way), I think it might be helpful to brush up on what tacit knowledge is, and what Knowledge Management is.

It is unquestionably true that the public service continues to face a potential impact from demographic changes that are both extremely significant and yet unquantified. It is also unquestionably true that most public service organizations haven’t truly understood or addressed these potential impacts, to say nothing of the potential of improving their effectiness right NOW from better Knowledge Management (productivity, innovation, etc).

These issues need to be addressed by public service leaders in an intelligent and thoughtful manner. Tools can and certainly should help but only when wielded by craftsmen and women. For too long vendors have made grandiose and unrealizable promises about their ’solutions’. I thought we had learned our lessons from all that experience.

Let’s not get the cart before the horse, shall we?

Paul McDowall
Knowledge Management Advisor
and chairperson of the Interdepartmental Knowledge Management Forum