Tag: KM

Posted on

The Automation Paradox: Why AI Makes Human Capacity More Valuable (Not Less)

(This post was originally shared on my LinkedIn Profile.)

We’re told AI will handle routine work, freeing humans for creativity and critical thinking. Sounds great. So why do leaders I speak with say their organisations feel less creative, not more? (Some have said they feel like AI is making them dumb.)

The problem isn’t AI. It’s that we’ve been systematically dismantling the conditions humans need to think, create, and judge well—and we did it before AI arrived.

The Post-mortem of Lost Capacity

Over the last 15+ years, organisations have optimised for efficiency: fewer meetings (no, we added more), faster decision-making (no, we added layers of approval), knowledge capture (no, we built systems nobody uses). The net result? Cognitive exhaustion. People are too busy processing information to actually think with it.

Add AI to this picture, and something shifts. Organisations realise they can automate tasks, but they can’t automate the parts of work that matter: understanding what problem actually needs solving, sensing when the data is misleading you, creating something genuinely new, making judgements that hold human values.

Suddenly, the capacity for critical thinking, intuition, and creativity isn’t a nice-to-have. It’s everything.

But here’s the trap: you can’t generate that capacity on demand. It requires conditions. Uninterrupted thinking time. Psychological safety to challenge ideas. Exposure to perspectives that collide with your own. Reflection. Sense and meaning-making.

Most organisations have actively eliminated these conditions in the name of efficiency.

Where Knowledge Management Has Failed (And Why It Can Recover)

Traditional KM treated knowledge like widgets: capture it, store it, retrieve it. The assumption was that better information architecture = better decisions. It didn’t account for the human dimension.

We lost the messy, generative stuff: the conversations where ideas collide, the storytelling that embeds wisdom, the reflection that turns experience into judgement. We built systems, not cultures.

So, when AI arrived, organisations had already stripped away the human conditions for thinking. The software wasn’t the problem. The culture was.

Radical KM: People-First, Not Technology-First

This is where the work shifts. If human capacity for creation, critical thinking, and judgement is the competitive advantage in an AI world, then KM isn’t about technology adoption. It’s about designing the conditions that allow humans to do what humans do best.

That means:

  1. Making space for thinking. Not as something to aspire to, something that is structurally embedded in the systems. Protected time. Simplified information. Reduction of noise.
  2. Reactivating curiosity through exposure. Cross-sector conversations. Diverse perspectives. Learning that isn’t bounded by function. This is where intuition develops—through pattern recognition across domains.
  3. Creating safety for dissent and iteration. Humans refine judgement through being challenged. Organisations that treat disagreement as a threat lose their smartest people.
  4. Embodying knowledge differently. Not everything knowable fits in a database. Wisdom about how to navigate ambiguity, where to apply intuition, when the data is lying to you—these are often learned through story, conversation, and shared sense-making.

Using arts-based approaches to do all of this.

I know that last line raises eyebrows. But arts-based interventions—guided visualisations, drawing, painting, storytelling, reflection practices—aren’t luxuries. They work because they interrupt the efficiency mindset, create psychological safety, and make knowledge shareable in ways that pure information architecture can’t reach.

A facilitated drawing exercise doesn’t seem like “knowledge work.” But it’s creating the conditions where people actually think together instead of just exchanging information.

The Choice

You can treat AI as a threat to human work, and race to automate more. Or you can treat it as a signal: the human work matters now more than ever. Which means investing in the conditions that allow humans to create, think critically, and exercise sound judgement.

That investment starts with culture, not code. With people, not platforms. With how you design the rhythm and psychology of work itself.

Organisations that get this right won’t lose to AI. They’ll use it to do what it does—handle volume, pattern-match, optimise routine—while reclaiming the uniquely human work their people are actually capable of.

The question for your leadership team: Are the conditions in your organisation supporting human capacity, or eroding it?

Posted on

No, I Don’t Think AI Is the Enemy. I Just Know It Isn’t the Answer

(This post originally appeared on my LinkedIn Profile.)

A colleague said something to me recently that gave me pause.

“You’re a bit of a Luddite when it comes to AI, aren’t you?”

It was said with a smile,  the kind of gentle ribbing that comes from genuine curiosity rather than criticism. But it stuck with me, because I realised I haven’t been clear enough about where I actually stand.

So let me be direct: I think AI is remarkable. I use it. I find it genuinely useful. I’m curious (and also deeply concerned) about where it’s headed. And in the context of Knowledge Management specifically, I believe it has real and growing value.

What I don’t believe, and what I’ll continue to push back on, is the idea that AI solves Knowledge Management. Because that framing, however appealing, leads organisations down a very expensive and frustrating path.

The Seductive Logic of the Tech Solution

There’s a pattern I’ve watched repeat itself across organisations for years, and AI is simply the latest chapter in a long story.

It went like this: first, we were going to solve knowledge management with intranets. Then wikis. Then SharePoint. Then enterprise social networks. Then big data platforms. Each time, the pitch was essentially the same: “This technology will finally make your organisational knowledge accessible, searchable, and usable.”

And each time, organisations discovered the same uncomfortable truth: the technology worked. It was the knowledge management that didn’t.

Files sat untagged. Content became stale within months. People reverted to emailing each other, because the system was technically available but practically ignored. Adoption curves flattened. The investment quietly became shelfware.

AI doesn’t change this dynamic. It accelerates it, in both directions. Deploy AI on top of well-structured, well-governed, actively maintained knowledge assets, and it can be genuinely transformative. Deploy it on top of the organisational equivalent of a cluttered attic, and it will confidently surface the wrong answer, twice as fast. (Wrong answers at scale, as I recently commented to another colleague.)

Knowledge Management Is a People Problem First

Here’s the thing that no vendor wants to put on a slide: most knowledge management failures are not technology failures.

They’re culture failures. Process failures. Leadership failures.

When an organisation loses critical expertise because a senior employee retires, that’s not a software gap, it’s a knowledge transfer gap that nobody prioritised until it was too late. When two teams duplicate months of research because they had no way of knowing what each other had already done, that’s a collaboration and communication failure. When a new hire spends their first three months reinventing wheels, that’s an onboarding and documentation failure.

No AI tool, however sophisticated, fixes those problems at the root. It might paper over some of the symptoms and sometimes that’s genuinely useful, but it doesn’t address the underlying conditions that created the problem in the first place.

The Five Pillars That Actually Matter

Effective Knowledge Management rests on five interconnected foundations:

People: Knowledge lives in people’s heads first. Building a knowledge-sharing culture, incentivising contribution, and reducing the friction between “someone knows this” and “the organisation benefits from this” is fundamentally a human challenge. It requires trust, psychological safety, and genuine leadership commitment.

Process: How does knowledge get created, validated, stored, retrieved, and retired? Without intentional, well-designed processes, even the best technology becomes a dumping ground. Process is the architecture that gives technology its shape.

Technology: Yes, absolutely. The right tools, well-chosen and properly implemented, are a genuine enabler. AI included. But technology is an enabler of a good strategy, not a substitute for one.

Governance: Who owns the knowledge? Who decides what’s accurate, current, and trusted? Who has authority to retire outdated content? Without governance, knowledge systems decay. This is the unglamorous work that makes everything else sustainable.

Strategy: What are you actually trying to achieve? Knowledge Management without a clear strategic anchor is just tidying. It needs to connect to organisational goals: accelerating innovation, reducing risk, improving customer outcomes, developing capability. Strategy is what makes the whole system purposeful.

These five pillars don’t operate in isolation, they’re deeply interdependent. A brilliant technology choice undermined by weak governance will still fail. Strong processes with no cultural buy-in will still fail. Strategy without execution infrastructure will still fail.

There Are No Easy Answers and That’s Important to Say Out Loud

One of the most valuable things a Knowledge Management professional can do is resist the pressure to promise simplicity.

Organisations want easy answers. They want to hear that the new platform, the new AI integration, the new taxonomy framework will sort things out. And sometimes, in the short term, a well-chosen tool can create enough momentum to feel like progress.

But sustainable Knowledge Management, the kind that actually compounds in value over time, requires patience, iteration, and a willingness to do genuinely hard organisational work. It requires leaders who understand that knowledge is a strategic asset, not an IT problem. It requires investment in people and process, not just licences and implementations.

The organisations that get this right don’t treat Knowledge Management as a project with an end date. They treat it as an ongoing capability, like finance or HR, something that needs continuous attention, resourcing, and refinement.

So Where Does That Leave AI?

Exactly where good tools always belong as a powerful enabler within a thoughtful, well-structured Knowledge Management strategy.

Used well, AI can dramatically improve knowledge discovery. It can surface connections between documents that no human would have the bandwidth to find. It can reduce the cost of creating knowledge assets. It can personalise the knowledge experience for different roles and contexts. These are real benefits, and they matter.

But AI doesn’t replace the need for governance. It doesn’t create a culture of sharing where none exists. It doesn’t write your knowledge strategy for you, or decide which expertise is critical to capture, or ensure that the knowledge your organisation produces is accurate and trustworthy.

Those are human responsibilities. And until we’re honest about that, we’ll keep buying technology solutions to organisational problems and wondering why the needle doesn’t move.

I’m not anti-technology. I’m anti-magical-thinking.

The organisations that thrive in the long run are the ones willing to do both: invest in excellent tools and do the harder, slower, more human work of building the conditions in which those tools can actually deliver.

That’s not a pessimistic message. I think it’s actually a hopeful one. Because it means the answer is within reach, it just takes more than a software purchase to get there.

Posted on

We Didn’t Lose Productivity. We Lost Each Other.

(The post was originally shared on my LinkedIn Profile.)

There’s a feeling many of us carry into work that’s hard to name. A sense that despite the tools, the platforms, the dashboards, and the metrics — something fundamental has gone missing. That we’re busier than ever, but less effective. That we collaborate more and connect less.

The research says we’re right.

The social capital haemorrhage

McKinsey surveyed over 5,500 workers on the state of their workplace networks. What they found was striking: more than three-quarters reported connecting with others less frequently, maintaining smaller networks, and spending less time building relationships than before.

But here’s the detail that matters. Of the connections people still maintain, 57% are for sharing work-related information. 48% for career advice. Only 29% involve any kind of genuine social engagement.

What passes for collaboration in most organisations has become almost entirely transactional. Information exchange has replaced relationship. Efficiency has displaced trust.

And trust, it turns out, is not optional. Research consistently finds that mutual trust, reciprocity, and genuine collegial connection are among the strongest predictors of innovation, knowledge-sharing, and organisational effectiveness.

The silos aren’t a bug. They’re a feature of how we work now.

The most compelling evidence here comes from a 2022 Nature Human Behaviour study of over 61,000 Microsoft employees. When the company shifted to firm-wide remote work, something happened to its collaboration networks: they became static and siloed, with fewer bridges between different parts of the organisation.

The share of collaboration time employees spent with cross-group connections dropped by 25%.

This matters because of what those cross-group connections do. Sociologist Mark Granovetter called them “weak ties” — the loose connections across different teams, functions, and disciplines. They’re not where your most frequent interactions happen. But they’re where new knowledge comes from. They’re the connections that carry different perspectives, unexpected information, and creative friction.

We optimised them out of existence.

High productivity is masking exhaustion

Here’s the dangerous part: standard metrics often won’t show you this is happening.

Microsoft’s Work Trend Index, covering 31,000 workers across 31 countries, flagged it explicitly: high productivity is masking an exhausted workforce, and shrinking networks are endangering innovation.

A separate study of over 10,000 technology professionals found that after the shift to remote work, hours worked went up, output declined slightly, and productivity fell by 8–19%. More meetings. More messages. More coordination activity. Less actual work done.

More activity. Less capability.

This is what efficiency culture does

This didn’t happen by accident. It’s the predictable outcome of decades of management doctrine that treats organisations primarily as efficiency machines — measuring outputs, eliminating waste, standardising process, and optimising everything that can be quantified.

The problem is that genuine collaboration, learning, trust, and tacit knowledge are hard to quantify. So they don’t show up on the efficiency scorecard. And what doesn’t show up on the scorecard doesn’t get invested in.

UK government research on organisational effectiveness puts it plainly: the literature points to the failures of managerialism and market mechanisms to address complex challenges — and argues that those very challenges require genuine collaboration and inter-organisational cooperation to solve.

We’ve built management systems that are structurally antagonistic to the capabilities we actually need.

What this means for knowledge management

I’ve been making this argument for a long time: knowledge is not a technology problem.

Knowledge lives in relationships. It moves through trust. It surfaces in the informal conversation after the meeting ends, the cross-team question that no one put on a ticket, the senior person who explains the context behind the decision.

None of that is produced by a better platform. All of it depends on social capital — the networks, norms, and trust between people that make knowledge genuinely flow.

And the evidence is clear: that social capital has been eroding, quietly, for years. Not because people stopped caring, but because the conditions for building it have been systematically deprioritised in the name of efficiency.

Knowledge doesn’t walk out the door because of inadequate tooling. It walks out because the human infrastructure that carries it was allowed to decay.

The good news is that this is reversible. But it requires treating human connection, relational trust, and genuine collaboration as strategic organisational assets — not as pleasant by-products of getting the processes right.

Because they’re not by-products. They’re the foundation.

References available on request. Key sources include Yang et al. (2022), Nature Human Behaviour; McKinsey Quarterly (2022); Microsoft Work Trend Index (2021); Gibbs, Mengel & Siemroth (2022), Journal of Political Economy Microeconomics.

Posted on

How to Approach Radical KM

Radical KM
Radical Knowledge Management

Radical KM is not analytical or creative, it’s both.

Much the same way that to be successful with the analytical side (traditional KM), one needs to work from both the bottom and the top of the organisation chart, to be successful with Radical KM, and therefore successful as we move further into the 21st century and the knowledge economy, we have to be successful with creativity as well as the analytical.

If and organisation believes it has the traditional KM side worked out, but needs help with the creative, then, focus on the creative and the integration points with the analytical, to bring them together.

If an organisation has the creative side figured out, then focus on the analytical and the integration points with the creative.

If both sides are immature, then create a strategy that includes both the analytical and creative and their integration points and move forward from there.

See also: Radical KM and blog posts.

Posted on

How your KM Program can help you for life after Coronavirus (COVID-19), part 2

Right now (March 2020), hopefully, your KM Program is helping people adjust to remote work. Helping them use the collaboration tools that maybe they’ve only used occasionally before. Helping them facilitate engaging, creative online meetings . But once the initial panic subsides and people become more accustomed to working remotely, what next?

Lots of organisations have KM programs that focus on the traditional KM activities, things like lessons learned, communities of practice, collaboration; activities that support learning and creating new knowledge, or managing and sharing knowledge that already exists. My ex-HP colleague, Stan Garfield, published a list/ presentation of all the things that can comprise a KM program, you can find his list here. It’s a good list, especially if you are new to the world of KM.

When KM is done well, it is pretty invisible. Nobody really thinks about it, and that’s okay, until, it isn’t. Do you have a KM program that is invisible or non-existent? Maybe this is the first time you’ve thought about KM, or maybe you have an existing KM program that is looking to evolve. If you are wondering about the future of your KM program, read on, if not, you can stop now.

Things are shifting at an accelerated pace and also, somehow slowing down; things are chaotic, to say the least. How do we manage that chaos and come through it better off? How do the skills and abilities that exist within the KM Program and those activities help an organisation come through our current, chaotic situation and not just survive, but thrive afterwards, and maybe even during?

How can the KM program help?

KM programs that are successful are about learning, and adapting; they use people, process, and technology to support the organisation in effectively and efficiently using its knowledge and creating new knowledge.

How do those skills apply in this situation, how can the KM program facilitate the successful navigation of the current crisis and help the organisation adapt so that it is ready for what comes after?

What does come after? Do we go back to the way things were? Are things permanently changed?

No one really knows, although lots of people have guesses, and there’s lots of wishful thinking out there. It probably won’t be “business as usual”, but what exactly it will be is anyone’s guess, and depends exactly what happens during this period and how long it goes on.

So, how does the KM program help? What skills and abilities can they share and help others develop that can help.

In my experience, people who are successful in KM are often good at these knowledge culture behaviours:
• sharing openly
• willingness to teach, mentor, coach
• ideas can be freely challenged
• knowledge and ideas can come from other sources (e.g. other departments, organisations, and industries) 
• sharing comes through many different means:  conversations, meetings, processes, best practices, data bases, and questioning

How can these behaviours be taught, if people don’t exhibit them already?

Well, there are lots of different ways people might learn the things that give them the ability to exhibit these behaviours, some of them are learned when we are children (like learning to share) and stick with us, and others are learned and then forgotten as life progresses and evolves. As adults, how do we remember these behaviours or maybe even learn them for the first time?

The best way is to learn through doing, having the experience or insight ourselves, in a safe, supportive environment.

A group of people who often exhibit many of these behaviours and who are experts at working alone, but also collaborating to get things done, when they need to, are artists.

Artists have an attitude of curiosity, passion, confidence, and resilience, which they refine and hone through their artistic practice: perceiving, reflecting, playing, and performing.

KM Programs should be working with HR and management to help develop these skills and abilities in their staff. Why KM? Because it’s about knowledge creation, it’s about sharing and learning: that’s KM.

Learning these skills and applying them to business problems helps solve problems that may have, at one time, seemed intractable. It helps to develop solutions that are new and innovative.

Other businesses are doing this, have learned this already, isn’t it time your organisation did too, so that you can come out of this crisis ready for whatever is next?

Note: If you want to see/read more about what is possible by adopting an artistic attitude and practice, read, “Creative Company” by Dirk Dobiéy and Thomas Köplin. You can find more info and get a copy, here. 

Posted on

How your KM Program can help you for life after Coronavirus (COVID-19), part 1

The previous post was about KM should be doing now, at the start of this COVID-19 Apocalypse, this post is how they can help the organisation prepare for life after Coronavirus.

How long is this going to last? No one really knows at this point estimates are anywhere from 6 months to 2 years. Some analysts suggest that we will have periods of tighter controls and looser controls, but first we need to “bend the curve” and stop this exponential growth. Even when a vaccine is developed, testing and then manufacture is going to take many months.

How can KM help moving forward?

In part this depends on whether the organisation sees KM as a “keeper of historic records and events”, i.e. more on the document/information management, lessons learned side of things, or whether they are seen as key enablers of collaboration, sharing, learning, creating new knowledge. Hopefully it’s the latter not the former.

What we know is that there is going to be uncertainty for a while, and we’re not sure what things will look like once we’re on the other side of this. How do we prepare for that?

By being adaptable and self-aware.

These things are ultimately up to the individual, not the organisation, and yet, the organisation can help. In particular HR, KM, and managers all have a role to play in encouraging employees to learn these skills and to become/be self-aware.

How?

Give employees the opportunity to learn, to try things out, to reflect, to ask questions. Wait, that sounds like knowledge management! It also sounds like quality management (plan-do-check-act), trial and error, being agile, and several other modes of learning/being.

Mostly it sounds like encouraging creativity. And what group are known for their creativity?

Artists!

So, what can we learn from artists? (Learning from other disciplines, that sounds like KM, too.)

First artists have an artistic attitude, they are curious, passionate, confident, and resilient. And then they refine and hone these skills through their artistic practice: perceiving, reflecting, playing, and performing.

Pausing for a second, we were all once creative, but our creativity was educated out of us:

On psychological tests of creativity:

Only 5 percent of people 18 and older registered in the “creative” range?

Among 17 year-olds, 10 percent scored “creative.”

But among 5 year olds, more than 90 percent demonstrated the creativity to suggest innovative ways of looking at situations and the ability to dream up new ideas.

Source:
https://ideapod.com/born-creative-geniuses-education-system-dumbs-us-according-nasa-scientists/

So, we were all artists/creative at one time and we’ve unlearned it. What do we do about it?

We develop an art/creativity practice. Except, we are doing it for another reason, we are doing it to re-learn something we lost. We are re-learning so that we become whole again, so that we can apply it in other areas of our life, because it’s been missing. We are doing it to help us be more successful in our careers, to bring us more balance and satisfaction. We are doing it to be more sustainable.

Back to the original question: How can the KM program help?

One of the motivations for doing KM has been about knowledge creation, some organisations have focused on that as a primary reason for their KM or a secondary reason for KM.

Knowledge creation takes space, it takes questioning, it takes trial and error, as well as collaboration and all those other Artistic Attitudes and Practices that were mentioned above.

To give people a sense of that, of what it feels like, what works and what doesn’t in a safe, supported atmosphere is key. So, in this case, we do, in fact, use art/creativity as a metaphor, as a means to an end.

How does it feel to experiment with different art supplies, or different creative modalities, e.g. poetry, music, to name two, although there are lots more? When people have these kinds of experiences, in a safe supportive atmosphere, it gives them confidence and resilience that transfers to other areas of their lives.

KM Programs should be working with HR to facilitate this experience and the building of these skills and abilities. There are benefits to the organisation as well as the individual–it’s a Win-Win.

But, it’s not a straight-line, the accountants will hate it, however, it is necessary if we are going to come out the other side of this and be able to move forward with whatever the future holds for us as organisations and individuals.

Note: If you want to see/read more about what is possible by adopting an artistic attitude and practice, read, “Creative Company” by Dirk Dobiéy and Thomas Köplin. You can find more info and get a copy, here. 

Posted on

How is your KM Program Helping you Through the Chaos of Coronavirus (COVID-19)?

Do you see your KM program as a key partner in your strategy to deal with the chaos of Coronavirus or just an extra, a nice to have, a luxury, and not a serious component of your business and emergency preparedness strategies?

If you see them as a key partner, are they helping you with disaster planning/emergency preparedness? Are they making sure everyone has access to the same knowledge and information when they are working from home as when they are in the office?

Are they making sure people know how to use the tools at their disposal for collaboration, knowledge creation, and sharing?

Are they helping you map key knowledge resources within your organisation?

Are they making sure the knowledge that can be documented is? How about retention, are they helping you make sure that knowledge is retained and protected?

Are they helping you prepare for the time in the future, when all of this is a distant memory in a couple of years. The future of work is here, KM can take a lead and help facilitate the change.

Now is the time to be engaging KM in these activities, not later, not “when things calm down”, now. There is no good time, start now, take the first step now.

Posted on

Brick Wall Chats

I have decided to start a new video series.

I’ve had nice/good/supportive feedback from the videos I’ve been doing with John Girard (the KM and Creativity series) and Paulina Larocca (the Creativity Chats series) but scheduling time to record them with John and Paulina has been come increasingly challenging because of our schedules and the timezone differences, so, I’m going it alone.

I’ve decided, at least for now, to call the new series: Brick Wall Chats because of the background I’m using in the videos. People seem to like the background because it’s colourful and different and interesting, which is why I liked it too.

Right now (June 3, 2019), I have recorded 15 videos and will release one per week. The topics range from the business to the personal: metrics and digital transformation to how I have come to be doing the work that I am doing.

If you have a topic suggestion, feel free to get in touch, the same goes if you have comments or feedback about any of the videos. You can subscribe to my channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCQHNT4UDtM4o-Dcqd9cLGw?view_as=subscriber.

Looking forward to sharing my thoughts and experiences with you.

Posted on

Taking Your KM Program to the Next Level

What is KM about?

It depends on who you ask and what their experience is with it. Some people/organisations focus on technology, some on people, some on process, a very few recognise that it needs to be a balance among the three, and for good measure also create a strategy to support their plans and ideas and to ensure alignment with the organisation.

But beyond that, what is knowledge management about? Why do we/our organisations do it? 

For many organisations and people the answer, has to do with learning, and being able to do their jobs efficiently and effectively. I always liked to say it’s about giving people the knowledge they need to do their jobs, whatever form that knowledge took. But, what if it’s not quite that easy, especially as jobs, like life, are becoming ever more complex?

It’s really not enough to give people a database or app or platform to share knowledge. It’s not enough to implement a lessons learned process, or communities of practice. All good and noble pursuits, but what if that’s not enough to deal with the complexity?

The World Economic Forum’s most recent Future of Jobs Report, a summary of which you can read here, says we need to be life long learners. It also lists the top 3 skills that are growing in need/importance:

  1. Analytical thinking, and innovation
  2. Active learning, and learning strategies
  3. Creativity, originality, and initiative

What struck me most about the #1 item on that list, is that is is both analytical and creative, it requires “both sides of your brain” (yes, I know that we have found that that’s not physically how the brain actually works, but I like the metaphor of it, so I’m using it anyway). But so for so many people their creativity was educated and socialised right out of them. They needed to get good marks in school, do well at their jobs, etc. and so in order to fit in they learned to regurgitate facts and think like everyone else.

However, in today’s world, and in the world that is quickly coming at us, regurgitating facts and doing what we’re told, isn’t enough, doing the “same old, same old” isn’t enough. It’s time to look at things differently, to learn new ways of doing things, to re-learn our lost creativity. KM programs should be supporting that, after-all they are about organisational learning, creating new knowledge (which is innovation, by the way).

And, one of the best things about focusing on creativity and innovation is, people understand what those terms mean, no one understands what knowledge management is. Another great thing about creativity and innovation, is that there is lots of research that supports its importance to people and the workplace, something that can’t be said about KM (mostly because KM can’t decide what it is, not that it’s not useful).

So, for all you KM people out there, don’t you want to take your KM activities to the next level of organisational learning? Help make your organisations innovative and creative? Help them meet the challenges of the age we live in?

Let’s talk about helping people re-learn their creativity!