KM Triversary Forum Workshop Outputs – Workshop Overall

This workshop was one of three solutions and resolutions workshops facilitated at the end of the KM Triversary Forum. For further information on the role of the workshops in the Forum Program, please see KM Triversary Forum Workshops – Overview.

Overview

Situated at the end of the two day/two hemisphere KM Triversary Forum 2025, the final workshop sought to draw all the learnings together under the frame of the original problem statement¹ and the seeming disconnect between the research and practice sides of knowledge management (KM):

At this stage, it is obvious that [in KM] the direct knowledge dissemination channel – which assumes that practitioners directly access, read and benefit from academic publications – does not function.

Alexander Serenko, 2021.

Methodology

Using Barry Johnson’s Polarity Thinking method², the workshop aimed to use the expertise developed over the two days and the outputs from the two hemisphere workshops Workshop W and Workshop E to discuss the underlying facets of the research/practice polarity, making the assumption that both are required for the other to thrive. More can be learnt about the Polarity Thinking process in a YouTube video.

Process

1. The workshop started by quickly summarising the excellent conversations that had taken place over the previous two days and bringing some of the main points to mind.
2. The Polarity Thinking process was introduced and described with a simple example.
3. Next, Practice/Research polarity was introduced and the group discussed if this really was the correct polarity.
4. Next we discussed the Greater Purpose (when the polarity is fully complimentary) and the Deeper Fear (when both polarities are dysfunctional).
5. With this in mind we considered the values for each pole and the fears for each pole.
6. A quick audit of each quadrant was done, assessing “Almost always” down to “Occasional” or “Never” for each.
7. The next steps were to consider the Actions to create positive performance for each pole then Early Warnings for each pole becoming dysfunctional.  Due to limited time we finished with the warnings only given the results of the audit.

Results

Defining the Greater Purpose and Deeper Fear

This section led to an interesting discussion with participants coming from varied viewpoints. Some saw the Greater Purpose as a sort of vision statement, while others thought about either outputs or outcomes of a healthy Practice/Research polarity. In terms of greater purpose, terms like Trust, Value and resulting Funding were discussed but eventually they agreed that the major purpose was the “Bridging” itself, as all the other benefits arise from this relationship both theoretically and individually. The Deeper Fear discussion took a similar route with an initial focus being on the worst case fraud or criminal activity but conversation turned to all of the impacts then looking for the commonality between them which they mostly decided was “Irrelevance”.

Knowing there would be time constraints, getting the group to agree on definitions for these was not going to happen in time, so instead I used a ChatGPT discussion that I had pre-primed with the Polarity Thinking Method and some of the KM Research vs Practice content to draft a definition for each then we discussed and improved them.  The final results were:

Not entirely convinced, Brett Patron stepped outside the polarity design suggesting there were actually two separate Deeper Fears with entirely unique causal pathways. This led to the following experimental model where Practice is split into both outputs and outcomes (impact), with the Deeper Fear around Impact being Incompetence. Given knowledge management’s strong focus on both information AND expertise, this seems an important distinction that deserves further thought.

Mapping Values and Fears

As you can see above, we then mapped values and fears into each quadrant. This was a flowing conversation with the participants starting to sync-up their viewpoints.

As you can see it was agreed that by each side being better at what they do, but closer linked to each other, the benefits become reciprocal. More bridging and praxis leads to more practical research that fills real world gaps in understanding of institutional change and technological traps and opportunities which in turn is eagerly consumed as part of the praxis approach without losing site of tangible business outcomes and the need for KM activities being seen as beneficial to stakeholders (both executive and operational). Ruwaida’s Western Hemisphere Workshop W using appreciative inquiry helped participants quickly identify key connections.

On the negative side, fears came very quickly, being discussed throughout the conference, both by the speakers and in the feedback spreadsheets as well as through the Eastern Hemisphere Workshop E analysis. A lot of “Us versus Them” thinking came out and due to the safe space created by the forum as a whole, all participants were able to discuss these easily and without becoming defensive.

A Quick and Honest Audit

Running short on time the group was encouraged to see if they could agree on roughly where we sit in the KM Industry.

As you can see in the results below, the practitioner world was seen as being quite varied around the world with Sometimes for both. On the other side, researchers were seen to be quite trustworthy, Almost Always creating value, however also Often displaying some of the negative tendencies that undermine bridging of that value into the practice world.
This discussion happened rather quickly and seemed to align with a lot of the discussion throughout the forum’s four sessions.

Actions and Warning Signs

With time running out I led the group in describing some of the warning signs that we should publically be aware of and use to self correct in the future.

Initially the participants tended to see the natural diagonal impacts (this is actually part of the Polarity Thinking process: when one side is dysfunctional you tend to see the benefits of the opposite pole start to be eroded in short order as the dependance kicks in). After one or two they managed to use this to their advantage and quickly laid out some excellent early warnings for each side.

As you can see in the resulting panes below, there was a strong Outcomes focus here with things like increased breaches and decline in capability and trust shining through. The impact on related disciplines was novel and I think important as sometimes you can see dysfunction in others than your own practice so for practitioners especially there was some gold in this discussion.

The Research side was more output focused with a decline in the things that make up solid research such as diversity and ethics and also being science led instead of practice-led leading to a decline in knowledge translation, causing a downward spiral with follow up research being hard to do as there is nobody implementing previous findings to study. The participants felt this was an important dynamic and that research funding models play a large part in its inception.

Final thoughts and feedback

The facilitator would like to thank the workshop participants for not just staying back for the workshop but doing so after a very heaving two days with some of them attending both European and American time zones. The discussion was strong at times, but always courteous and inquisitive. Without the kindness, respect and discipline to “play the ball”, workshops like this can be difficult to run let alone have two distinct groups walk away having learned something about themselves and each other.

The big takeaway for me as facilitator was the realisation that a lot of the problems leading to KM not being evidence based enough are actually arising from systems, practices and access, rather than people individually disrespecting the value of the opposite pole.

The Polarity Thinking approach generated good discussion, however I think the 45 minutes was probably a little two short to do it justice and if participants wish to use it I would suggest a minimum two hours to allow drilling down on areas of disagreement which gives time for people to absorb each other’s points of view. It was wonderful to see the group align with each other but I was worried we were experiencing a little groupthink by the end as people were aware of the clock ticking down.

Finally, it was noticed and discussed that despite many of speakers at the forum being researchers and academics, the final solution workshop was left with a very high practitioner representation. There was discussion about this including if this might actually be one of the Research side trigger warnings.

My thanks must go out to Bruce Boyes and the organisers of this excellent event. When trying to bridge two hemispheres, both globally, philosophically and practically, it can be quite easy to either devolve into a slinging match, or stay at a very artificial level so as not to offend anyone. The leadership team managed to avoid both of these with a real collegiate and exploratory attitude pervading the two days and it was definitely felt by me as a workshop facilitator. Congratulations. I look forward to seeing how we can use the outcomes to further the use of evidence and research in KM practice and more practice focused research around the world.

Biography:

With a broad background in the oil, water, healthcare and government, sectors, Stuart French is a Melbourne based knowledge strategy consultant and author of the www.DeltaKnowledge.net blog. He combines 23 years of knowledge management (KM) experience with a Master of Knowledge Management (KM) to help companies with expertise identification and management, collaboration, teamwork and knowledge systems to improve their performance and resilience to change. Research on wikis and knowledge cultures led to a fascination with complexity theory, mentoring, and using AI to create experts rather than replace them. He helps facilitate the KM Leaders Forum in Melbourne, which has been meeting monthly since 1998 and speaks at conferences and training events around the world on knowledge, expertise and innovation.

Header image source: Created by Bruce Boyes with Microsoft Designer Image Creator.

References: