Preface for the Third Edition - Read

17. Scenarios 609
TABLE D-3. Characterizing scenario 3: decentralized “network and community”
attribute characterization
process focus knowledge processes, e.g., community management process, knowledge
asset creation process involving communities; knowledgeintensive
business processes
organizational
culture
KMS
family-culture model and (preferred) network/discourse model of
exchange of ideas
ICT infrastructure sophisticated KMS infrastructure with an emphasis on communication
and collaboration as well as visualization of networks, community
building and support
KMS functions communication, collaboration, knowledge search, presentation, organization,
acquisition and publication
economics
funding support for communities (e.g., travelling, community home spaces,
time) initially via budgets from the organizational units which the
community members work for; communities might also take on tasks
or suggest ideas and get credit for these
measuring success quality of communication in networks and communities; use and
user satisfaction with community-oriented KMS and knowledge-specific
services offered decentrally (e.g., moderation, community
homespaces)
aspects of implementation
getting started sometimes with a core group, e.g., a group of people enthusiastic
with KM as the starting unit; develop communities/networks
enabler intrinsically motivated networks or communities sparking the KM
initiative
critical tasks sponsoring/support of communities and knowledge networks; community-oriented
design of knowledge and business process; support
of decentral approach/politics of network support
Key enablers of this scenario are self-motivated networks or communities that
can spark the KM initiative. This is especially the case if the formal structural organizational
design relies all too much on the hierarchy and these networks have been
in place for some time to account for communication links circumventing the rigid
bureaucratic structures. Goals in this scenario are to promote networking in the
organization and to build trust between different organizational units. This leads to
the establishment of an informal secondary or, in the terms of the hypertext organization
12 , an informal tertiary organization of networks and communities apart
12. See Nonaka 1994, 32ff, see also section 6.1 - “Structural organization” on page 158.