2 Responses

  1. avatar
    Arthur Shelley at |

    Hi Bruce,
    I completely agre the process should be fully open and drafts available to everyone, the truth is that many people do have the opportunity to get involved through the country level subcommittees, but choose not to because they have higher priorities. I understand this, everyone is busy and needs to priorities. However, if professionals choose to leave it up to others to do the work and then criticise it because it is not to their liking, I challenge the intent. Personally, I believe the knowledge profession as a whole will be more heard and influential with the existancd of a KM standard and as more of us learn to practice what we preach )truly collaborate for a greater good), the world will be a better place. This is not about being saviours or leaders – just doing what is best for many. ISO members volunteer their time and most often cover their own expenses.

  2. avatar
    boris jaeger at |

    “Saviours”! Nice wording, Arthur. Exactly with your statement you just tell the world who are the good, the bad, and the ugly in KM by leaving out some critical facts you already know or should know. As for David Griffith e.g. you should know that he is involved in the AIIM KM standards development process… (I’m leaving out some facts here to criticize this because it seems to be common practice in the KM business) If you guys believe in this culture issue, tell the world that the process is not open, but on the other hand you engage in it, I must doubt if you get that issue right or want to get it right, which means that you just don’t practice what you preach.

    What “is the best for many” no one knows, except go(o)d, if you believe in one of the many.


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.