A Social Approach to Knowledge Management in Projects – A White Paper

I recently submitted a paper to be considered for an academic conference on the topic of IT Project Management.

The conference uses a double-blind review process to review papers and provide feedback.  In this double blind-review, reviewer’s aren’t provided with author(s) information and author’s aren’t provided information about the reviewers.

Good and fair process….and one that I’m about to completely tear apart today. 🙂

My submission, titled A Social Approach to Knowledge Management in Projects, was conditionally accepted for inclusion if I were to address a major concern on the part of the reviewer.

The main concern was a claim of plagiarism.

The reviewer believed that the author (me) had plagiarized a good part of the paper.  They pointed to a website that they claimed proved that the author had used content from and note cited.  That website was mine – https://ericbrown.com.

Plagiarism is defined as:

the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work.

I can see where the reviewer might have thought plagiarism existed as some of the work in the paper has been previously published here on my blog.  I’m actually quite excited that someone out there found my site interesting enough to cite as the original source of something that might have then been used in a plagiarism matter.

While this could be considered a case of self-plagiarism (if you believe in such an oxymoron), it’s not plagiarism.  The conference organizer requested that I cite my own work published on this blog within my article and also rework the article to ensure that the majority of the paper was significantly different than any other paper / article I’ve written.

Because I don’t believe in ‘self-plagiarism’, and because I’m feeling a bit rebellious this morning, I’ve decided to withdraw the paper from the conference and publish it, in its entirety, as a PDF here.  You can download the full paper using the link at the bottom of this post.

In the paper, I try to look at ways to answer this question:

Can a project team use Web 2.0 / Enterprise 2.0 platforms to communicate and share knowledge during a project? Can this communication be indexed and mined to capture relevant knowledge about the project, project team members and project technologies without adding additional burden to the project team members?

Download a PDF copy of A Social Approach to Knowledge Management in Projects today

Enjoy.

21
Leave a Reply

avatar
16 Comment threads
5 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
Mark GibaudBlended VenturesEric D. BrownSamJamie Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Sam
Guest

They say Imitation or in your case Plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery although when it’s yourself copying yourself I don’t know if it’s the same 🙂

I’m going to download your paper and take a read as the whole social side of project managing is something that really interests me and it’s helping to shape our business as well.

Sam
Guest

Hi Eric, It’s very detailed piece and for me not coming from a trained PM background it’s a bit overwhelming. The one part I did find interesting in the paper was the Analysis Layer section. The idea of being able to analyze past projects and to find and document knowledge that was gained during projects so that info can be used again. Documenting experience is something that I think is quite hard to do. I have been managing all types of projects now for a little under 10 years and it’s from time on the ground that I can now… Read more »

Scot Herrick
Guest

It would be difficult to write a “substantially different” article from anything you have written — it is like asking you to change your viewpoint.

I don’t disagree with your actions; publish the paper here…

I hope the reviewer finds out that the site they show for plagerism is the author’s!!

trackback

Published -A Social Approach to Knowledge Management in Projects – A White Paper – http://bit.ly/aCmley

trackback

A Social Approach to Knowledge Management in Projects – A White Paper http://restwrx.com/cfmUpQ via @EricDBrown

trackback

A Social Approach to Knowledge Management in Projects – A White Paper http://j.mp/akMg4s

trackback

RT @maddiegrant: A Social Approach to Knowledge Management in Projects – A White Paper http://j.mp/akMg4s

trackback

A Social Approach to Knowledge Management in Projects – A White Paper http://t.co/fbPBWEo #pmot

trackback

RT @Samx18: A Social Approach to Knowledge Management in Projects – A White Paper http://t.co/fbPBWEo #pmot

trackback

Shared: A Social Approach to Knowledge Management in Projects – A White Paper http://bit.ly/9zjBz4

trackback

RT @projectshrink: Shared: A Social Approach to Knowledge Management in Projects – A White Paper http://bit.ly/9zjBz4

trackback

RT @projectshrink: Shared: A Social Approach to Knowledge Management in Projects – A White Paper http://bit.ly/9zjBz4

trackback

RT @projectshrink: Shared: A Social Approach to Knowledge Management in Projects – A White Paper http://bit.ly/9zjBz4

trackback

A Social Approach to Knowledge Management in Projects – A White Paper http://j.mp/bcMlTo < link to a good downloadable paper

Jamie
Guest
Jamie

Firstly, thank you for posting the article for us to access.

Secondly, the article itself is very good, and I especially like the way you have presented the different layers.

Thirdly, there is no such thing as self-plagiarism. That is like asking Picasso to paint like someone else instead of himself. I think your reviewer needs to get a better perspective.

Thanks again for the PDF.

trackback

A Social Approach to Knowledge Management in Projects – a white paper and interesting intro post 🙂 http://ow.ly/2XG4I

Mark Gibaud
Guest
Mark Gibaud

I would say the request to reference the work (even if it’s your own) is fair. I often see authors referencing previous work of their own in later papers as the point they are referencing is better substantiated in the that prior work, while at the same time the author is not wanting to include the same solid (lengthy) substantiation of a particular assertion in the new paper.

Their loss is our gain though! Will read the paper shortly and leave some feedback 🙂

If you'd like to receive updates when new posts are published, signup for my mailing list. I won't sell or share your email.