@danabroms Blog

Everybody is online, all the time. Rapid and increasing developments of the Internet, artificial intelligence, and technology has resulted in workers becoming more connected, but is also presenting both challenges and opportunities associated with networked workers. Although the primary concern of technological advancements is that automation will continue to replace standardized and routine work, it also facilitates the growth of new work and provide an opportunity to bolster human capabilities when adapting to these changes (Anderson & Smith, 2014). Networked workers increase business value because faster access to knowledge is forcing employees to engage in more critical thinking when addressing complex problems, to become more transparent and creative with solutions, and to do so without the need for managerial oversight (Jarche, 2013). Jarche (2017) suggests employees need to learn and develop human capabilities while simultaneously engaging in work, and Davies, Fidler, &a

There are endless possibilities for what the future of technology and the internet can be used for and how it can impact the nature of today’s workplace. According to Weinberger (2014), the problem with our current method for addressing the future is that we are typically inaccurate with anticipating what information will one day be useful for society, and these possibilities continue to narrow the closer we move toward it. However, whereas ‘old data’ (e.g., books and encyclopedias) limited the amount of information that could be included, improvements in technology and the internet has now enabled the rise of ‘big data’ and the inclusiveness of all information to be published and filtered through without having to remove any of it (Weinberger, 2014). In other words, big data avoids the inherent problems that old data presented in having to anticipate and narrow what information  might be valuable  in the future because big data’s “when in doubt, include everything” disposition helps

The Evolution of KM This week, the topic of knowledge management (KM) was highlighted, in which several scholars have noted its evolution since its conception (Davenport, 2015; Dixon, May, 2009; Dixon, March, 2009; Jarche, 2010; Jarche, 2016). KM was first considered important for organizations to identify and store explicit knowledge and to connect people to content, then shifted for the purpose of formulating social networks and communities of practice and to connect people to people, and then transitioned to a third generation in which KM was considered essential for leveraging collective knowledge and generating conversations (both in-person and via virtual spaces) and to connect people with decision makers (Dixon, May, 2009). This third stage of KM stemmed due to the erosion of cognitive authority that existed within traditional centralized and hierarchical organizational structures, failing to include strategy at the level of top and middle management, and recognizing the v