A a post from Michael Casey and and Meredith Farkas hone in on the loss of knowledge in libraries.
Libraries have a real value in mainataining a reference knowledge base as librarians are asked questions all the time, there is no need to re-invent th…

http://kmlis.blogspot.com

It’s true that you need buy-in from the top, but is there any way to identify potentially-interested people from the individual programs and get them to evangelize within their organizations?

I’ve found you really need a combination of top-down and bottom-up.

Honestly, I think only when the administrators of the graduate program can get the individual programs to work together and see themselves single unit (where each can benefit from the knowledge and experiences of the others), there won’t be any way to improve communications.

There are interesting things going on in the Community Development world that I think apply to this situation, and it involves F2F interaction at a grass roots level. For instance, there was this group here in Halifax that developed a project called “Cook.” The idea was that if you structure meetings around the preparation of food, it breaks down traditional hierarchical structures, and establishes new hierarchies. A fairly innovative business tried it out and it was very interesting how things worked out — the CEO was structurally not the boss, because he was not an expert at preparing food. This gave others the opportunity to speak up at the meeting and play a leadership role. This helped them understand how they were an integral part of the solution to the company’s problems.

There are other techniques as well, but the important thing is that, somehow, you have to get people to understand their situation without even mentioning technology. Then, as people talk about their big work annoyances (like poor communication, or messes of papers hanging around, or scheduling meetings for 10 folks, or whatnot), they begin to discover the role that technology can play in helping to solve those problems. They also discover that technology is only _part_ of the answer, since having a blog is useless if you have difficulty expressing yourself in writing.

The other part of the game that I am learning quite quickly is that Change also starts with a period of confusion and fear. No matter what, people are going to be scared and confused at what you are suggesting because, unlike you, they probably do not have a vision of what Library 2.0 is.

Jack has an idea that might be less threatening by requesting the information in a format familiar to the staff and faculty. However, setting any requirement or standard still requires effort and change on their part.

I too have encountered change resistance. I have encountered those who will insist upon doing things in an unbeliably awkward and inefficient manner. In my experience, I have found there is usually a reason (often political, social, psychological or all three).

I agree with both working with “grassroots” and working with upper management. Working with the grassroots w/o managerial support can be futile if you are in a strong top down organization (which I suspect the university is!). However, working only with management can lead to implementations that users use as long as required and abandon for more comfortable means.

BTW, I’m a librarian who tripped into the world of KM/CM 5 years ago

The best reading in KM I’ve gotten from reading blogs, articles, conferences and other current info.
That being said:

Peter Senge is one of the primary movers behind KM:
He has written a number of items, but I’ve found his 5th Discipline to be a good insight guide.

Another oft quoted figure KM thought is Karl Popper. (You will find KM practioners referring to philosophy, as well as sociology, linguistics, and other scattered fields).
A good general Popper book is:
Popper Selections by Karl Raimund Popper, David W. Miller (Editor)

A more current book I find useful:
Knowledge Networks: Innovation Through Communities of Practice by Paul M. Hildreth
(much of what you are talking about could come about via CoP activities which opens the communication channels)

An old one that was one of the first I read 5 years ago, but still a good intro:
If Only We Knew What We Know : The Transfer of Internal Knowledge and Best Practice. Carla O’Dell

A different path might be to get everyone to agree that communications are important, with F2F being the preference of many in your organization. But with the size, it’s getting to the point that something else is needed. What would they like to see? How would they like to be informed of what’s happening in other departments? How would they like to hear about those bigger announcements (other than those that are printed and dropped into mailboxes)?

For example, rather than asking people to fill out a spreadsheet when requesting reading materials, why not ask them to send you the reference in APA format, since that is a standard across the school. Then you can enter the job in whatever tracking system you have and let them know status.

One thing I would try is to enlist top management to create real, high-priority projects or activities that are by definition cross-departmental and cannot be solved or addressed without cooperation and knowledge sharing among people who don’t normally communicate. Then provide the teams with the resources (people and technology) to help communication and sharing of information. DO this cyclically to (a) create real solutions to real problems and (b) demonstrate the value of appropriate technologies and suppport.