Manage Knowledge - Blog

Business assets wear down, depreciate and become obsolete. And our accounting work has to keep up with this in the form of counting inventory, depreciating assets or selling used goods.

 Knowledge assets, on the other hand, don’t wear out but actually grow through usage.

 So why do we consider the manufacturing shop, copy machine, or office supplies in the cabinet more important than the ideas in people’s heads that fuel innovation, improve processes and enhance customer services.

In fact, knowledge workers show up as liabilities on the balance sheet while rusting equipment shows up on the asset side of the ledger.

It’s precisely that view of thing and people that distorts seeing - and achieving - the full potential of our workers.

A pat on the back, “thank you” or simple question, “What did you learn today” can do more to drive value in our businesses than dotting every “i” or crossing every ”t” when we do an inventory check.

How? People who are appreciated, respective, and given a voice can give even more back to the company than refilling the stapler which has fixed output potential. 

In the “Eighth Habit” by Stephen Covey, the author recognizes the potential each of us has and describes how knowledge workers want to be treated kindly, paid fairly, utilized creatively and allowed to contribute in meaningful ways.

And he denounces outdated accounting methods that treat people as a liability, and the managers who silence that voice that could grow grow our companies.

Barack Obama’s Web site quotes the President elect as saying, “I’m asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington…I’m asking you to believe in yours.”

In the eve of his inauguration as our next President, I have to acknowledge as a conservative that Obama spoke more to the inspirations, hopes and dreams of the American people better than any other candidate.

In fact, those words resonate strongly with me.

The problem is that his rhetoric doesn’t match his proposals - at least on the economic front.

 Specifically, he plans on spending billions of dollars we don’t have to create jobs that the market isn’t necessarily asking for.

That is not asking us to believe in ourselves. It’s asking us to believe in government.

If we realy believe in ourselves, then we believe our ideas, proposals or initiatives as citizens, entrepenuers or businesses should stand up to the scrutiny of the market place.

Under Obama’s own projections, each pseudo job he plans on creating will cost from $217,000 to $275,000!

If that is the case, then why not just transfer that money to the unemployed directly? In fact, you can probably sustain 3-4 full-time workers - not just one - on a quarter of a million dollars a year.

Instead, we pay the extra adminstration fees in setting up yet another beaurocracy to essentially make those transfer payments.

How is this any different than another subsidized welfare program, that will lead to higher taxes, more government spending and less freedom?

America was build on the backs of freedom-loving people who often risked everything they had because they dreamed that their idea, product or service could become a reality if they worked hard enough.

Today we have been sold a dream that is not founded the American ideals of hard work, sacrifice and courage.

Instead, we are about to give more control to an already gigantic government which cannot offer the promise of economic growth, sustained job creation, or more opportunity for hard working Americans.

Clearly, Obama is bright, articulate and visionary. He may be one of a few individuals in the country who can rally our country to make the necessary sacrifices required of each of us.

And I give him credit for saying today that American’s must sacrifice.

But his economic plan which he admits will lead to sustained trillion dollar deficits is not the answer. And I for one reject his economic proposal soundly. It’s un-American, and it will not work.

I’m reading “Web 2.0: A Strategy Guide - Business thinking and strategies behind successful Web 2.0 implementations” from O’Reilly.

In other words, Web 2.0 is more than a teen writing on his friends “Wall”, uploading photos to Flickr, or tell the world what you are doing “right now” on Twitter.

Instead, it has enormous implcations for all types of organizations.

Wikipedia defines Web 2.0 as “ the changing trends in the use of World Wide Web technology and web design that aim to enhance creativity, communications, secure information sharing, collaboration and functionality of the web. ”

The fact that we are now referencing Wikipedia instead of a traditional encyclopedia is evidence of what I am talking about. Wikipedia is the 6th most popular Web site on earth, and it’s value comes from average, ordinary people disrupting the publishing industry by writing terms and defining definitions.

I think the power of Web 2.0 comes not from the invitation for all of us to participate, but is enabled because Web sites are moving from static to dynamic. Businesses can now talk with their customers instead of at them.

As William Sahlman of the Harvard Business School said,

“The transiation from the old static Web to the new dynamic Web creates challenges for all businesses. Managers must decide how to use the Web to form richer, more enduring connections to customers. They must embrace the power of stickiness of social networks. If they don’t, a competitor will - with disastrous consequences..”

That should sound an alarm loud enough to knock us all out of our seats!

“Internet depression” does not refer to reading about the downturn in the economy online, or not being able to pull yourself away from playing viedo games into the early hours of the morning.

 According to Michael Webb, an executive recruiter, Internet depression is when you “spend more than an hour or two online…applying to jobs online with your resume”.

And that is too much time, he says.

Why? On the other end of that “submit” button you click is a lot of “noise” to the recruiter’s ears. For they are getting hundreds of resumes each day!

For the job seeker, depression sinks in because when you never hear back, you think you’re the problem. Afterall, no one is picking up the phone calling calling you for an interview.

But when 500 resumes hit the recruiters desk in 24 hours, can you really feel good about your 1/500 odds that they will call back!

Instead, Michael says that job search #1 is that people get job - resumes don’t. To be clear, resumes may help seal the deal, but they rarely get you in the door.

The old adage is true - you really do sell yourself!

To be clear, Michael doesn’t discourage use of the Internet in job seaching. In fact, he says just the opposite - provided you do it the right way. And that includes not falling into the Internet depression trap. 

So is there any “secret sauce” in finding a job? Probably not. But his interview July 2008 interview with Market Watch comes close. See ”Unlocking LinkedIn’s hidden back Door” comes close located at http://utahsvoice.org/Career

So how does this have anything to do with knowledge management? 

A lot. Note, how the link you clicked on was posted on my site, ”Utah’s Voice”. Michael shared some of his job search techniques learned from years of experience.

That knowledge is incredibly valuable to the job hunter. Once it’s posted, countless others like myself can read it. With Web 2.0 features such as “Share this” or “Email that” on news articles, it’s easier than ever to share what we are learning.

I posted it on my own site - the Career section of “Utah’s Voice” - in hopes others can use it.

Now think of the economics - not to mention the personal benefits - of that simple, knowledge sharing example.

Michael says an average worker who is out of work for 12-weeks, and who previously made $45,000 a year will lose $10,384.61 during that time.

If that happesnt to 10 people, that’s over $100,000. In today’s economy, hundreds of thousands of employees are getting pink slips each month. The calculated revenue lost is now into the $100s of thousands or potentially millions! 

And that doesn’t even begin to explain the ripple effects felt by consumers spending less because they are now concerned about their own job, less money into the government tax coffers from decreased tax revenues, etc. 

Now suppose the reason for that opportunity cost of NOT working is a direct result of not going about your search the right way, and instead hit resumes on all the job boards hoping to hit the jackpot.

Let’s take Michael at his word and suggest that most workers following his tips would find at least one job in six weeks (half of the twelve we just cited).

What are the net gains when the job offer does come in six weeks or less? (to net productivity? tax revenues? a relieved spouse? and a happy family?)

There are at least cost savings in the 100s of thousands of dollars because that was the cost we calculated when people are left in the dark. 

How’s that for a value proposiation for business?!

The power of social networking technologies, like “Utah’s Voice” is in enabling all of us knowledge workers to share the things we learn each day.

This is a paradigm shift for many of us who consume information, but don’t share as much as we could.

We become freeloaders of knowlede when we should be philanthropists!

So the next time you watch a podcast online, attending a seminar, or browsing the Internet reading the latest news stories, you are likely learning something of value to your friends, neighbors, family members or work colleagues. 

Why not find a way to easily share it, especially at at time when we all need each other’s help. 

It took me less than 2 minutes to point to the post the link to Michael’s article from the “Utah’s Voice” site.

Sure, ”Utah’s Voice” may not be the place a job seeker in Texas may look for that posting. But it does demonstrate the value of user-generated content.

We are developing online communities for many subject matters (e.g. Career, Education, Politics, Sports, Business, etc.) across any geography (e.g. Your State, City or Hometown) using this powerful technology.

Sorry, I had to give some buzz to my business since that is partly what blogging is all about!

After all, its not really what  you know, but what you share  - that counts!

If it takes a village to raise a child, then it takes a community to raise a business. By “community” I mean parters, customers and employees working together to define the right  strategy, build the right  products,  or provide the right  services.

Right?

So how do you get to “right” anyway, especially when the stakes are so high?

I believe the only way to get to right is by leveraging the “wisdom of crowds” - or the customers, partners and employees we referred to. 

In James Surowiecki’s book, “The Wisdom of Crowds”, the author cites the once popular game show, “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire”, as evidence of the wisdom in crowds.

On the game show, the contestant was asked a question from the host. If he or she didn’t know the answer, the person could ask a lifeline or “poll” the studio audience.

Studies from the game show indicated that the lifeline gave the right answer 68% of the time. But when the contestant polled the audience, the crowd got it right 92% of the time! 

 I discussed this phenomena in depth in a previous post called, The “”Wisdom of Crowds” could change Politics.

Given that this articles has a similar title, you may be wondering if I can come up with anything creative.

But I’m not at a loss for words - far from it! I just know that the “wisdom of crowds” has impilications for any business or organization.

The key is to see how  it can apply.

 So let’s consider business for a minute.

I worked as a product manager whose task was to identify the right  market opportunities, to build the right  products which could provide the right  services for business.

 Marketing 101 taught me to do a competitive analysis, research what industry experts had to say and then define and prioritize the right  enhancements for the programmers.

Unfortunately, there were over 100 enhancement requests in the queue! And someone I had to prioritize these requests so that the right  product would be built!

I was like the contestant on the game show who was asked a question and had to give the right answer. 

What options did I have? 

First, I could try to answer this on my own. You know the routine. Talk to a co-worker or two. Get feedback from a supervisor. Call a few customers and get their input.

These activities might be similar to the contestant asking a “lifeline” or two which gave the right answer 68% of the time on the game show.

In other words, if I followed this approach, I would likely prioritize this list about 68% correctly. But that is about a C- in school!

Having worked in Corporate America for nearly 20 years, I can attest that this is how most decisions are made.

But with increased competition, global markets and fewer customers I would contend that business can’t afford to be operating at a C- level.

Rather, business needs to get it right almost all of the time - just like the crowd did on “Who Wants to be a Millionaire”.

So how do you get your crowd of customers, partners and employees to work together in real time to make the right decisions for your business.

I think the answer to that question really is the holy grail for business, and would like to share my thoughts how  to do just that in a future post.

Stay tuned!

While calls intensify for the sitting Governor of Illinois to resign after being charged with attempting to sell President-elect Barack Obama’s Senate seat, we are yet reminded how backroom style politics can threaten our Democracy.

Fortunately, Internet technology trends and best practices give us glimpes into ways government can be more open, accessible and accountable to “We the People”.

I want to take one step further and suggest that government shouldn’t just be accountable to “We the People”. Rather, “We the People” should enable good public policy and government.

The Wisdom of Crowds  

By “crowd” I mean average, ordinary citizens in a Democracy are are authorized by our Constitution to ensure that government remains “For the People, of the People, and by the People”.

 And there’s abundant proof that “we” generally get it right.

In James Surowiecki’s book, “The Wisdom of Crowds”, the author cites the once popular game show, “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire”, as evidence of the wisdom in crowds.

On the game show, the contestant was asked a question from the host. If he or she didn’t know the answer, the person could ask a lifeline.

Studies from the game show indicated that the lifeline gave the right answer 68% of the time. But when the contestant “polled” the studio audience, the crowd got it right 92% of the time! 

The Crowd gets it Right 

Wikipedia is the sixth most popular Web site on the planet. Here, average, ordinary people can participate and create terms and definitions.

Forget the expert’s definitions on Encylopedia Brittanica, users seem to prefer the collective judgments of millions of people who contribute to Wikipedia.

And if you are not sure, look up Carlifornia’s Proposition 8 on Wikipedia.

You’ll probably be suprised how such a contentious issue could be handled in a fair, balanced and objective way - by the crowd.

Our Founders who loved “checks and balances” - as much as our Democracy - would probably have loved Wikipedia!

Wikipedia is Adam Smith’s ”invisible hand” applied to content creation!

The Crowd makes it Work

Google is the most popular search engine on the planet. Why? 

Robert Hof in Business Week’s famous article, “The Power of Us” says that “….this ace search engine essentially polls the collective judgments of millions of Web page creators to determine the most relevant search results.”

Hof cites countless examples of big businesses lke Dow Chemical, Procter and Gamble, Amazon, and Sony are leveraging the wisdom of it’s crowds of customers, partners and employees.

His advice? “All of us will have to take on more responsibility. And to get the most out of the new cooperative tools and services, we’ll have to contribute our time and talent in new ways — such as rating a seller on eBay or penning a short essay in Wikipedia. But the rewards will be more personalized products and services that we don’t merely consume, but help create.”

The Crowd shapes the News

Forrester, a respected IT research organization, recently released “Groundswell - Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies“.

They argue that organizations “can’t control users looking to utilize Web 2.0 technologies such as blogs, wikis and social networks”. Instead, “…CIOs and other business leaders must embrace these technologies in the enterprise, and enable their employees to share and work collectively with each other to foster new innovations.”

They cite Digg.com as proof that organizations are no longer in charge of their message - people are.

On Digg, users submit news stories, “Digg” the ones they like, and the most popular news stories then “bubble up” to the top.

Granted, Digg news article are a little too liberal for some people. But that’s not the point because you can have - and do have - online community for liberals, conservatives or independent-minded people. (e.g. Salon, Townhall, Drudge, etc.)

The point is that Digg raises a more fundamental question,

“Who should create, shape and influence the news of the day? Media outlets - or the crowd?”

Stephen Baker and Heather Green in “Blogs will change your Business” argue for media outlets to give up controlling the message. Why?

 ”…we mainstream types control an ever-smaller chunk of human knowledge. Some of us will work to draw in more of what the bloggers know, vetting it, editing it, and packaging it into our closed productions. But here’s betting that we also forge ahead in the open world. The measure of success in that world is not a finished product. The winners will be those who host the very best conversations (italics added).

The Crowd will Engage

“Dellideastorm.com” provides one of the most practical methods ways businesses can “host” a conversation, and proves that the crowd will engage.

Here any user can register, login and submit an idea. The crowd reviews your idea and then either promotes or demotes it.

Unlike command-and-control organizations typifying corporate America, your ability to contribute online isn’t dictated by your title, position or even the mood of your boss!

How liberating is that!

Dellideastorm began when Dell realized that they couldn’t really anticipate everything their customers wanted. And so they decided to do the obvious  - they asked them.

To date, this community has submitted nearly 11,000 ideas, promoted over 620,000 of them, and posted over 83,000 comments!

The Crowd wants Convenience

The question is if this same consumer-driven enthusiasm can carry over into citizen-driven politics.

I believe it’s not a matter of “if” but “when”.

Some elected officials may counter that citizens don’t attend city council meetings, and then get an earful when a referendum that raises taxes passes after those same citizen’s voted for it!

But that is not entirely the fault of the voter. In many cities, citizens still have to drive down to the city just to see what is on the agenda is for the upcoming city council meeting. Why?

The best Web 2.0 sites already use opt-in e-mail alerts, RSS feeds or subscription based newsletters to let their users know instantly of new or updated news and information. 

Citizens should expect similar easy and convenient tools to know what is on the agenda at their city council meeting, or what is being discussed in committees at the Capitol. 

In other words, what some may perceive as citizen apathy may be due to lack of convenience rather than lack of interest.

I can easily access up-to-date, rich and engaging content on Wikipedia, Dellideastorm or Google from my home. And typically the information is in plain English.

To the contrary, some citizens feel like they need a lawyer to understand a bond proposal or ballot initiative.

The Crowd is Smart

The ability for the crowd to get it right is even more remarkable when you consider that the average citizen still fails a basic civics and history test (Of course, if you notice, the self described elected officials actually did worse in this national study).

But you can’t explain away the wisdom of crowds phenomena because the “man on the street” doesn’t get it.

The point is that we collectively we tend to get it right even if we individually have a lot to learn.  That’s the message from Wikipedia, Dellideastorm, Digg and many other social networking sites.

In other words, when it comes to getting it right, the sum intelligence of the crowd is greater than it’s individual parts.

Surowiecki’s concludes that, “….crowds can go mad, of course, but by and large, it turns out, they’re smarter at solving many problems than even the brightest individuals.”

If you Build it, the Crowd will Come 

To be clear, the crowd does not exclude elected official. In fact, the crowd includes them, as well as the citizens.  

And despite my fascination of collective intelligence, in my heart I am still a believer in a Representative Republic.

The points is not  to strip our elected officials of their ability to raise ideas themselves, research issues, or even be the only ones to vote on the actual legislation.

I am merely arguing for much greater input from citizens, and the opportunity to engage much more effectively with their elected officials and government.

A Better Way to make a Sausage 

Before the bill can have a chance to become a law, it has to make it on the legislative agenda, be taken up by a committee or two, and then comes to a vote.

Some have compared it to “making a sausage” because the process may be tainted by special interest influence, back room deal making, and too little public scrutiny.

But what if the public set the agenda? Imagine if citizens had a “one stop shop” where they could submit ideas, rate them and see which ones would likewise “bubble up” to the top.

That is the vision of http://www.utahvoters.org

It would not only provide aggregated news content about Utah anything. But it will also enable user generated content news by giving citizens the ability to submit Internet stories they see as newsworthy.

In the “Power of  Us”, the author cits C.K Prahalad, a University of Michigan School of Business professor, and co-author of the 2004 book The Future of Competition: Co-Creating Unique Value with Customers. He says,

“We are seeing the emergence of an economy of the people, by the people, for the people.”

If that is the case, then why shouldn’t those trends carry over into how public policy is shaped, influenced and decided?

We are Who We’ve Been Waiting For

Whether you agree with his politics or not, I believe that Obama’s rise to prominance can largely be explained that he tapped into the heart and mind of much of the crowd.

How? By inviting them into the process. 

On his campaign stumps, he repeated the phrase, “We are who we’ve been waiting for”.

He wasn’t creating a campaign. He created a movement that may likely outlast his presidency. Clearly, it serves as a prototype to tap into the passions of ordinary Americans.

Think of it. Giving people convenient access to online tools which gives them a voice could fundamentally change how government is run.

· Entrepenuers experienced in job creation would have a greater say in our current econoic crisis and likely advocate free market principles instead of government bailouts.

Wouldn’t they know more about job creation than a legislator in Washington who may never had a job in the private sector?

· Successful business owners engaged and collaborating online might suggest the idea of using open source technology to save government agencies money.

Do we expect government beaurocracies to be completely objective in coming up with the best ideas when doing so might impose necessary spending limits on themselves or their departments?

· Ordinary school teachers -Democrats and Republicans - having worked in the classroom undoubtedly have seen the pros and cons of the current “No Child Left Behind” law.

Why aren’t they the best ones to offer a revised bill that really help lawmakers craft laws that ensure that no  children will ever be left behind.

In addition, it’s likely that the right right laws would be passed without  the devil being in the details.

Utahvoters.org

Web 2.0 is disrupting organizations everywhere because it’s tapping into all of our collective creativity, innovation and genious.

Eventually, I envision Utah citizens will be able to share news stories or , like Digg.com, submit news stories themselves.

These stories could really take the form of a policy, bills or legislation which could then bubble up to the top as citizens and elected officials commented, voted and collaborated together.

While it’s still in development even though it’s accessible online, http://www.utahvoters.org could be the means to unleash the power of us.  And why not?

In another Business Week article called “It’s a Whole New Web”, Hof, the author, calls Web 2.0 technologies “the second coming of the Web”.

Why? “It’s no longer all about idly surfing and passively reading, listening, or watching. It’s about doing: sharing, socializing, collaborating, and, most of all, creating.”, he says.

Social software like UtahVoters.org can break down the cultural or political barriers which have kept citizens and their elected officials at arm’s length.

But now it’s time we work hand-in-hand. 

That’s Democracy in action.

And it makes sense because we are really smarter than me!

In Pragmatic Marketing’s “Tuned In” book, the authors discuss how to businesses can create ”Resonator”. What is that? Solutions which ”…people buy because they solve the problems they have and make their lives better”. They cite resonator product and service sensations like the iPOD, Starbucks and FedEx which became such because these business did NOT guess what people. Rather they built real and deep connections to what they buyers value most?

 So how do you find what buyers value? What solutions can  you develop to meet their most pressing needs?

 The authors state that their own surveying of customer indicate it was not because your business had a booth at a trade show, or that the customer answering a direct-mail solicitation. Nor will they likely use a newspaper, magazine, radio or TV to research their problem.

 Instead, they DO search Google or email a friend, family member or colleague.

Tuned in says that “buyers search Google, read online portals, and news sites, consider blogger’s advice and opinions, pay attention to the links that peers, firends and colleagues send them, and visit company Web sites.”

Google Insights can help your business know what people are searching for. They suggest searching by category, seasonality and geography. Marketers pay close attention to which ”key words” customers use to search, and then they try to optimize the search results so that same customers can locate their business on the Web.

The idea is when customers type in the key word(s), they find your business. Plain and simple.

This strategy of making it easy for customers to easily locate your business to solve their business problem is called search engine optimization. But that is only a means to an end. If you don’t have products that really meet those needs, you won’t survive long. The key is to be “tuned into” developing solutions that really meet the customer’s needs.

For example, suppose that as a president of a company I am concerned about employee retention because I discover that many of my employees are leaving the business. Let’s say that I am an IT shop and the lead software developer decides to go elsewhere. Obviously, that could cripple my business overnight. Why? I have not only lost a he has now taken my marketing strategy, product roadmap and possibly even customers with him or her. Non-compete agreements - notwishstanding.

In short, I now realize how critical it is to attract and keep key personnel. That is my problem. Now, I want to solve that problem. I talk to another business executive I went to school with about how to retain quality employees. I read online news sites like CIO.com or Fortune magazine to disover best practices in retention. Perhaps my research educates me on industry terms such as “engagement”, “loyalty” and “employee satisfaction”.

I then search Google and wala…I locate a company like Allegiance, Vovici, or ComfirmIt who are in the business of “customer and employee engagment”. I may even search Wikipedia to read up on the “Enterprise Feedback Management” space.

Back to the business.

Let’s say I am in charge of Corporate Marketing. What is my approach to attracing new customers to my products and services? I could do a lot of things. Setup booths as trade show, flood media channels with information about new product features, or try to educate customers why they need my products and services.

That becomes a solution in search of a problem

 Or, I can create a solution that solves my customer’s problem.

And according to Pragmatic Markerting, these are wildly different approaches. And they result in wildly different outcomes.

Guess which one wins out…

Google insights show trends by determining what the collective intelligence is searching for to solve their collective problems.

And that is one more way how knowledge management practices can drive your Marketing strategy.

Google, Digg, Dellideastorm…they have tickled our fancy, become part of our vocabulary (”Just ‘Google’ it?”), and even changed our lifestyles

It’s about time we asked, “Just what is the secret of their success?

These Web sites are incredible simple, powerful and engaging. But even that doesn’t tell the whole story.

In short, they manage what they know.

Take Google - the best search engine on the planet. Why?

Business Week says it “…essentially polls the collective judgments of millions of Web page creators to determine the most relevant search results.”

And Digg.com has already surpassed the online New York Times in hits. Why because the community - not the mainstream media - gets to decide what is newsworthy. (Not bad for a three year business competing against an industry icon).

And that’s not an isolated example of David vs. Goliath.

• Linux open source developers are brash enough to take on Microsoft Windows.
• Wikipedia is pushing around Websters Dictionary and Encyclopedia Brittanica in defining our terms and defintions.
• And YouTube even thinks it can rival Hollywood.

And guess what? They are right. In short, mass collaboration is shaking up industries everywhere!

Your business is next. You will either be the mover and shaker, or beaten and shaken. Why? Because in the Information Age, you will either manage that knowledge - or perish!

So let’s start talking and get to work!

It really wasn’t the economy after all. Not then. Not now. Not tomorrow (even with $4 gallon gasoline, sub-prime mortgage failures, and run-away inflation).

No…it’s not the economy…

It’s “knowledge” stupid!

(Sorry, but I couldn’t resist the analogy during an election year. In case you missed it, in 1992 James Carville coined the phrase - “It’s the Economy Stupid”- and thereby propelled Bill Clinton as a presidential front-runner…

Now back to my adapted “KM in 30 seconds”)

In a global economy, with shrinking profit margins, and much lower barriers to entry, knowledge is not only your most your critical asset…

It may be your last competitive advantage.

Make no mistake about it…How well you capture, structure and reuse the collective knowledge, skill and experience of your customers, partners and employees will determine your success - or failure.

“Stop!”, you say,” I’ve heard all this before. Six Sigma, TQM, Knowledge Management …yada, yada, yada…KM was just another corporate buzzword of the 90’s. And like all other overblown, overhyped “corporate initiatives of the month”, IT too fell on its face!”

(Go ahead and finish your rebuttal…I’m listening)

“And now some predatory business guy wants to shrink wrap and package knowledge management with the the latest buzz word- – social networking – in order to now ride that gravy train!

Right???!”

To be continued…

We read from the Encyclopedia Britannica, and they create definitions on Wikipedia.

We preferred watching the show, and they want to star in it (over 50,000 videos are being made on You Tube each day.

We listened as the news anchor, politician, and teacher spoke to us. They comment on the news, blog about political candidates and parties, and have a voice that wants to be heard.

We grew up trying to find our place in the world, and now they want to shape and define it.

We are their parents, teachers and supervisors and they  are our children, students and employees.

We lecture them, but find they only wanted to be mentored. 

At times we resort to controlling them, while they fight back only wanting to be enabled.

We believed that your participation in society meant getting the right title, degree, or promotion. That’s how you got the job. You then became a specialist or expert with the necessary clout to treat patients, open your business doors, or be the PR person for a company.

Experience mattered.

They believe in the “wisdom of the crowd” where anyone can participate, especially online. (That is where all business is going anyway!)  You created your opportunities. Your reputation comes from an eBay seller rating, Amazon book review, or idea you gave Dell on dellideastorm.com.

Contribution matters. 

In 2004, a 23-year old Harvard student created Facebook. Today it has 41 million users, mostly college kids who prefer to hang out there than crack the books. Experts estimate Facebook may now be worth $7-$8 billion. No wonder it has caught the attention of Microsoft, Yahoo, and other powerhouses who want to niche market to these users. And for the student? Forget email. It’s much more fun to “poke” a friend or write on their “wall” on Facebook!

In 1999, a 19 year old shook up the music industry when he created Napster and allowed people to share music over the Internet without having to purchase their own CD. The power shifted to the consumer who now experiences more convenience and choice (you don’t have to drive down to the store, and purchase nine other songs you didn’t want on the CD).

Our generation was cautious and not so presumptuous in leading our lives. The younger generation is unapologetic about shaping their lives - and our’s as well.

Napster changed the music industry, and experts believe Facebook and other collaborative, social networking sites will change our work cultures. We live in the Knowledge Age. Knowledge is created as a by-product of interaction. And Business Week says the winners in business will be those who host the best conversations.

We thought the rule was to “stop talking and get back to work”, your studies, etc. And they believe “start talking and get to work”. Blogs, wikis, YouTube, Facebook, Napster…These are disruptive technologies. And our kids - and their generation - are the disruptive technologists.

Suddenly Potential is challenging Experience. And Talent is standing tall compared to Position.

No wonder we’re revisiting questions about social proprieties, views about authority, and how best to get work done.

Experts say we are immigrants to this strange world, who don’t really understand the technology, and are wary of its future. And they are natives who speak the language, know the technology, and embrace its future.

We saw the world as hierarchical, but a book author is saying it’s flat. And when we thought we could trust the expert, other experts are teaching us about the “power of us”. (After all, last year, you and me were named as Time Magazine’s “Person of the Year”)

We have experienced both worlds, and have our past to help us see the difference. They kids have no recollection of things past, and only know the present.

Their college experience teaches them that knowledge is power, but are prone to enter into paths of powerful - even destructive - forces. Our life’s experiences have wisely taught us that not all knowledge is of equal worth, and that we must look to a higher power.

We need their enthusiasm, drive and brave entrance into this digital age. And they need our counsel, wisdom and experience to navigate it carefully.

Certainly, our distinct roles are shifting, but they both still do matter. For now more than ever before, we need each other.