112 Bartczak and England
Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written
Lack of Understanding about KM
Adkins constantly encountered a lack of knowledge about KM. Few individuals,
at any level across AFMC, had much idea of what KM was all about. Adding to the
confusion was the fact that there seemed to be no accepted standard definition for KM.
While it was easy to communicate the importance of individual KM applications, such
as lessons learned databases, document repositories, and electronic yellow pages for
experts, it was much more difficult to explain the more comprehensive KM concepts. This
made it hard to get people interested in the purpose and goals of the AFKM program.
Adkins realized that “learning about KM” took time, but also understood that ignorance
by those whom he relied on for support could threaten the AFKM program’s survival
before it really had a chance to prove itself on a large scale. Again, any strategy for the
future of AFKM had to address an education element.
Technological Challenges
The AFKM System Development Team was facing technological challenges even
though it was very skilled in responding to the fast-paced changes in technology. In the
past, it had Web enabled all of its products, making extensive use of technologies such
as HTML, java script, active server pages, and so forth. After the Deskbook, Lessons
Learned, and Help Center products achieved stability, the Team continued development
efforts and had found a niche in developing CoP workspaces for customers. The Team
became so efficient in developing workspaces that it could hand over a “CoP in a box”
with a few minor customer-specific tweaks in only a few days’ time. Instead of providing
content, as it had done with Deskbook and Lessons Learned systems, the Team now
simply provided the software framework and the customer became responsible for adding
the information and knowledge. Actually, the CoP workspace component had been an
important addition to the AFKM system as it had resulted in immediate benefits to
various customers and helped to spread the word about the AFMC KM efforts. Adkins
believed that continued development of CoPs might, in time, provide a central focus for
the AFKM System Development Team’s development efforts.
Along with this development, however, another technological challenge had arisen
with the development of the AF portal. The new AF portal was to be, by decree, the de
facto “single access point” for all AF information and knowledge. This raised a key
question of how to design future AFKM system applications. Adkins acknowledged that
his team was still heavily involved in the “technology piece” of building CoPs, but saw
that the capabilities of the AF portal might eventually change that. Because the AF portal
offered some “community” features, he saw the technical nature of the AFKM Team’s
work on CoPs possibly changing. As such, he now had to consider yet another host of
issues such as how should AFKM products tie in to the AF portal? How could the AFKM
Team take advantage of AF portal capabilities? Would the AFMC-centered KM system
lose its identity and mission with the establishment of the AF portal? Would the AF Portal
provide new collaboration tools that would conflict or supersede those developed by the
team at AFMC? These questions, again, made a clear future strategy very difficult for
Adkins to envision.