<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Above and Beyond KM - Latest Comments in KM&amp;#8217;s Worst Enemy</title><link>http://aboveandbeyondkm.disqus.com/</link><description></description><atom:link href="https://aboveandbeyondkm.disqus.com/km8217s_worst_enemy/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:34:45 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: KM&amp;#8217;s Worst Enemy</title><link>http://aboveandbeyondkm.com/2009/10/kms-worst-enemy.html#comment-21062376</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Swan -&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Given the "soft benefits" of KM, it may be hard to actually quantify the&lt;br&gt;full cost of ownership.  Nonetheless, knowlege mangers are not off the&lt;br&gt;hook.  We just have to work harder to be sure we have a defensible way of&lt;br&gt;explaining and substantiating the costs and benefits of KM. But even if we&lt;br&gt;can't nail down every last item, I suspect that simply making the effort&lt;br&gt;will prove beneficial.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;- Mary&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">VMaryAbraham</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:34:45 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: KM&amp;#8217;s Worst Enemy</title><link>http://aboveandbeyondkm.com/2009/10/kms-worst-enemy.html#comment-21062030</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Agree with you completely that the full cost of ownership should be evaluated on any investment, KM or otherwise.  Benefits are great, but there is rarely a free lunch.  Usually there is cost involved.  If that cost outweighs the benefit, it's a non-starter.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;This sounds simple, but especially with KM, there are often a lot of soft benefits that are hard to quantify.  Though we try, there are many assumptions compiled that rarely  are accurate.  Many initiatives in a large organization will claim that they will cause or caused the same benefits.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Nonetheless, we should always strive to quantify costs and benefits the best we can.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Swan</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:25:57 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: KM&amp;#8217;s Worst Enemy</title><link>http://aboveandbeyondkm.com/2009/10/kms-worst-enemy.html#comment-21054219</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Doug -&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;You're right that a fixed fee billing structure makes the benefits of model&lt;br&gt;documents more intuitively obvious.  Nonetheless, my point about checking&lt;br&gt;premises remains.  We won't know for sure that a model has been helpful&lt;br&gt;unless we can actually identify and measure the impact of that model.&lt;br&gt;Alternatively, we'll need solid and consistent anecdotal evidence that a&lt;br&gt;particular model was helpful.  Are firms ready to do that kind of due&lt;br&gt;diligence review?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;- Mary&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">VMaryAbraham</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:21:45 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: KM&amp;#8217;s Worst Enemy</title><link>http://aboveandbeyondkm.com/2009/10/kms-worst-enemy.html#comment-21034790</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Mary -&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;True. Model documents are expensive. Even worse, they have a negative ROI when you are billing by the hour. If the model saves you a hour (or more) of drafting that is time that will not appear on the bill. (I will ignore collect-ability and quality since they are not meaningfully measurable.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Switch to fixed billing and flat fees, then the investment in form documents is truly an investment that can yield a measurable financial return. That hour (or more) of drafting time saved makes the engagement that much more profitable for the firm. &lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Doug Cornelius</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:25:59 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>