Comments on: Should Your Principles Be on a Wiki? http://blogs.gartner.com/french_caldwell/2009/08/20/should-your-principles-be-on-a-wiki/ A member of the Gartner Blog Network Thu, 24 Nov 2011 00:26:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: Principles, Operational Procedures, & Permissions on a Wiki | Future Changes http://blogs.gartner.com/french_caldwell/2009/08/20/should-your-principles-be-on-a-wiki/comment-page-1/#comment-433 Principles, Operational Procedures, & Permissions on a Wiki | Future Changes Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:24:37 +0000 http://blogs.gartner.com/french_caldwell/?p=177#comment-433 [...] French Caldwell of Gartner offers his take on the Army’s pilot project to gather experience and revise field manuals using a wiki: The Army saw the failures of doctrine in Iraq, and how the gaps were filled by social networking. To the Army’s great credit, they learned the lesson and then brought the social networking in-house and have supported it. [...] [...] French Caldwell of Gartner offers his take on the Army’s pilot project to gather experience and revise field manuals using a wiki: The Army saw the failures of doctrine in Iraq, and how the gaps were filled by social networking. To the Army’s great credit, they learned the lesson and then brought the social networking in-house and have supported it. [...]

]]> By: Stewart Mader http://blogs.gartner.com/french_caldwell/2009/08/20/should-your-principles-be-on-a-wiki/comment-page-1/#comment-432 Stewart Mader Sat, 22 Aug 2009 00:59:19 +0000 http://blogs.gartner.com/french_caldwell/?p=177#comment-432 Yes, the split between doctrine and operational procedures is the core issue here. Instead of spending tremendous resources to write the operational procedures based on knowledge from the last conflict, it's much better to capture it from the field of the current one. That gives the Army staff responsible for maintaining the field manuals a much more up-to-date, relevant set of information that fits in the "reality" category that Rotkapchen mentions. Yes, the split between doctrine and operational procedures is the core issue here. Instead of spending tremendous resources to write the operational procedures based on knowledge from the last conflict, it’s much better to capture it from the field of the current one. That gives the Army staff responsible for maintaining the field manuals a much more up-to-date, relevant set of information that fits in the “reality” category that Rotkapchen mentions.

]]> By: Rotkapchen http://blogs.gartner.com/french_caldwell/2009/08/20/should-your-principles-be-on-a-wiki/comment-page-1/#comment-430 Rotkapchen Fri, 21 Aug 2009 15:55:16 +0000 http://blogs.gartner.com/french_caldwell/?p=177#comment-430 You've highlighted a critical distinction, one that is largely unaccounted for by most initiatives: the difference between the 'formal policy', 'common lore' and 'reality'. The gap between the last two are often the biggest issue. I find that there are a lot of 'assumptions' that feed common lore that are not valid (or may have been at one time, but changed). In most cases, businesses succeed in spite of themselves -- but waste tremendous resources doing so. You’ve highlighted a critical distinction, one that is largely unaccounted for by most initiatives: the difference between the ‘formal policy’, ‘common lore’ and ‘reality’. The gap between the last two are often the biggest issue. I find that there are a lot of ‘assumptions’ that feed common lore that are not valid (or may have been at one time, but changed).

In most cases, businesses succeed in spite of themselves — but waste tremendous resources doing so.

]]>