4 ms·
I have yet to work in an organization with a healthy KB, but based on my best experiences: I think that which technology to use (wiki, shared drive, etc) is no
by probably_wrong 6y ago
I have yet to work in an organization with a healthy KB, but based on my best experiences:
I think that which technology to use (wiki, shared drive, etc) is not as important as the fact that there should be one AND ONLY ONE place where documentation lives. This is one of the reasons why I hate MS Teams: because every channel has its own Wiki plus its own Files, meaning that I have to hunt through every even-remotely-relevant channel and through several tabs before I find something I know exists. The same goes for chat - once half your team uses Slack and the other half prefers Skype, notifications will get lost.
Second, I think it's a good idea to have someone whose official job includes nagging other people about updating documentation rather than waiting for everyone to do it by themselves. I was in charge of keeping a log of weekly research meetings, and the simple act of writing
March 25: Presentation by Rudolf (Paper: ?? - Slides: ??)
on the designated wiki was a great mechanism for getting Rudolf to upload their slides.
- mindcrime 6y agoI think that which technology to use (wiki, shared drive, etc) is not as important as the fact that there should be one AND ONLY ONE place where documentation lives. Yeah, having to jump around across many repositories is one of the big (technological) impediments to knowledge management working well. But in most companies you'll never manage to get down to just one repository. I believe the key is to have a really good search engine that indexes across all those disparate repositories and allows one to find relevant content regardless of where it's stored. That, of course, is not an easy problem to solve.