Re: Knowledge Management (KM) and Social Computing – are they the same?

I had a nice reply to this written yesterday and my browser died on me. Sigh, let me try again.

Quite simply, the basics of why "hierarchical and work flow-driven systems" don't work and "social software" systems do is the degree to which they meet direct, compelling needs of individual users. The problem with KM systems is that they are designed by and for certain parts of the organization (namely management) and have very little direct utility for those who need to populate the system. The same holds for many other kinds of repositories. They work to accumulate information (or knowledge) exactly when there is a compelling reason for each individual to add his/her information to the system.

My general recipe for solving this dilemma (how to make a knowledge repository that serves a community need) is to design a system that serves the individual needs of members of the community. Opntag is one such system (I hope). 

So, how is it that social software systems succeed in this respect (and traditional KM, content-management and repository systems don't). Let's look at a few examples:

• del.icio.us: Allows one to manage and discover bookmarks across browsers and systems. Tagging is a better organizational model for personal information than a fixed hierarchy.
• Flickr: Allows one to (again) manage and share your photographs portably and efficiently. Tagging allows one to index and organize the unindexable. Selective sharing (in groups and based on friends and family) matches most people's expectations of how they want to share.
• Youtube: Allows one to do the same with videos and tagging serves the same role. Lots of feedback on who likes your stuff.
• Facebook.com: Allows one to interact with your "real" friends within a school community. Notably, provides a great "activity" tracker that allows you to have a sense of what it is that your friends are up to and an encouragment to let interested parties know what you are up to.