De-mystifying Knowledge Management

The goal of this article is to help KM practitioners articulate a KM approach in their organization. Much of the time KM is described in programmatic terms. In my experience this makes KM challenging for business leaders and managers to grasp. I have started to describe KM in terms of a management approach and/or philosophy and this seems to be resonating well in the organization. As I was recently told by a senior executive, “You describing KM as an approach and/or philosophy is something I can get my head around in a strategic context.” I realize that this may not resonate well with KM purist, theorists, or technologists. But my job is to find ways for management to move the organization towards a culture of collaboration. This approach seems to be working.

I call KM a concept because it is an intangible. You can’t purchase “KM” or hold it in your hands. KM is a business approach or philosophy. A KM approach is one that incorporates the conscious integration of people, processes, and technology in how business is conducted. It is a business approach based on collaboration, sharing, and knowledge flow. It can also be viewed as a leadership style. In fact an organization’s leadership style will significantly impact the success of a KM approach. Let’s look at three different styles:

Comparing Three Types of Leadership – Harvard Business Review July-August 2011

	Command and Control	Consensus	Collaborative
Organizational Structure	Hierarchy	Matrix of small group	Dispersed, cross-organizational network
Who has the relevant information?	Senior management	Formally designated members or representatives of the relevant geographies and disciplines	Employees at all levels and locations and a variety of external stakeholders
Who has the authority to make final decisions?	The people at the top of the organization have clear authority	All parties have equal authority	The people leading collaborations have clear authority
What is the basis for accountability and control?	Financial results against plan	Many performance indicators, by function or geography	Performance on achieving shared goals
Where does it work best?	Works well within a defined hierarchy; works poorly for complex organizations and when innovation is important	Works in small teams; works poorly when speed is important	Works well for diverse groups and cross-unit and cross-company work, and when innovation and creativity are critical

At its most basic level KM is simply a management tool. It is a management tool that can help solve business challenges by identifying and filling knowledge gaps, by minimizing or eliminating knowledge flow blockages, by capturing key knowledge and transferring it to those who need to know, by cultivating an ethic of contribution, and by developing a collaborative management approach which:

• Ensures staff have joint responsibilities in addition to their individual goals
• Compensates and rewards staff on collective goals and responsibilities
• Bounds staff to both performance and learning goals
• Eliminates power struggles, silos, individual heroic actions, and the like
• Pushes staff to collaborate with others outside their immediate work area

KM consists of principles, competencies, approaches, methods, and practices that can be leveraged as leaders set goals and priorities, managers make decisions, and staff accomplishes their work.

KM as a business approach is grounded by generally accepted KM principles and enabled by KM competencies. The principles include:

People

• Train and educate organizational leaders, managers, and champions
• Recognize and reward knowledge sharing
• Establish policies and promote collaboration
• Use every interaction whether face-to-face or virtual as an opportunity to acquire and share knowledge
• Prevent knowledge loss

 Process

• Protect and secure information and knowledge access
• Embed knowledge assets in standard business processes and provide access to those who need to know
• Use standard business rules and process across the organization

Technology

• Use standard collaborative tool sets
• Use open architecture to permit access and searching across boundaries
• Use a search capability to access contextual knowledge and store content for discovery
• Use portals that permit single sign-on and authentication across the organization and broader enterprise

The competencies include:

KM Competencies

These principles and competencies exist to help meet the KM goal which is to aid knowledge flow and to collect to and to connect to organizational knowledge (aka intellectual capital). If this concept is important to the organization, or leader, or manager then they should employ a KM management approach. So what might that look like? It could simply be that as we find knowledge gaps or expose issues with certain job processes and functions we ensure that we look at potential cures through a people, process, and technology lens. This approach helps us look at challenges holistically enabling us to make more informed decisions.

How do we…	People	Process	Technology
…create a common vision?
…develop expertise?
…share expertise?
…determine who needs what knowledge/information?
…ensure the right people get the right knowledge/information at the right time?
…transfer knowledge within the organization?
…store and organize our knowledge/information?
…ensure updates are shared?
…capture new knowledge/information

How you organize your day and your workspaceKM approaches can be used at every level of the organization. Personal KM is what you do to help you with knowledge flow, collection and connection. This includes activities such as

• The formal and informal networks you associate and participate in
• The tools and technologies you use to communicate, collaborate, and share information and knowledge and the processes associated with their use
• The learning activities you participate in as both a student and teacher
• Your personal culture; are do you operate better in a Personal mode (face-to-face, person-to-person) or in a Codification mode (using e-mail, documents, briefings, databases, etc.?)
• Your bias towards risk as it applies to collaboration and sharing (do you feel comfort and a responsibility to share or do you think it dilutes your power and stature or may have some other potentially negative consequences?)

Departmental or office level KM is obviously focused on a part of the organization. Each entity has its own culture towards collaboration and sharing and may have rules (written or unwritten) on what is acceptable or tabu. Of course each manager has their own management style. It may be collaborative or it may be command and control. This management style will impact the organizations ability to abide by the KM principles. These “norms” will influence your personal KM, office level KM, and enterprise level KM.

Enterprise level KM provides the catalyst for adopting a KM approach throughout the organization. Leaders who demonstrate KM behaviors through their actions show the rest of the staff that collaboration, sharing, collecting, and connecting is important to the success of the organization. Policies that drive and guide collaborative behaviors in the people, process, and technology dimensions reinforce a culture of collaboration and an ethic of contribution.

So what about all those “KM tools” we hear about? There are both hard and soft tools. Hard tools include technology hardware and software that for the most part assists with collaboration, networking, searching, reporting, business intelligence and related items. Samples of these tools include Traction, MS SharePoint, MS Communicator, Google, Skype, blog and wiki software, etc. Soft tools have more to do with KM methods. Samples of these tools include After Action Reviews, Communities of Practice, Knowledge Audits, Peer Assists, Storytelling, Retrospect, etc. Tools, both hard and soft, are just that – tools. They are enablers to collaboration, sharing, collecting, and connecting. A technology alone is never “KM” it is just a technology no matter what the vendor says. It takes people, process, and technology combined to actually implement a KM approach and that approach should be aimed at solving some business challenge or knowledge gap.

What about “KM initiatives?” Those are operational efforts to address knowledge gaps or collaboration related issues. For instance there may be initiatives around better information search and findability, or about bringing disparate groups together to solve a business issue, or to develop a methodology to capture and transfer knowledge from experience staff to junior staff, or to create a subject matter expert directory, or develop a portal for a specific subject, etc. These initiatives may not be described in these terms, but in terms of solving a business issue. They could simply be customer service, or process improvement, or human resources initiatives. These initiatives are the tactical side of KM. When an organization makes the strategic decision to take a KM management approach it is accompanied by tactical initiatives that aim to solve knowledge gaps and enhance collaboration, sharing, collecting, and connecting. These initiatives are usually sponsored and prioritized by a Knowledge Management Steering Committee or similar entity that is comprised of business leaders and/or managers. The committee ensures that management resources are available and accounted for, and that metrics are captured, shared, and analyzed to ensure objectives are being met.

So there you have it. I hope this article has taken some of the mystery out of KM. The number 1 take-away is that KM is a management approach. So when you hear KM; think approach and philosophy not tool and technology.

A KM consultants post to the organization

Someone thought KM was needed at my organization. They made a business case, procured the funding, hired a contractor to find a SME and here I am. I can only think that if I was hired to work here that someone thought that something needed to change and that perhaps KM was the change agent. The notion of KM is simple and many times sounds like common sense. In simpler, less complex times perhaps common sense and the application of that common sense would solve the problems. But times are not simple.

Technology makes our lives easier, but we forget how complex all that technology and the surrounding processes are. It’s like your car. It’s easy to drive, but could you explain how it works or fix it? These days many of us don’t know how to change the oil let alone perform a tune-up. It’s the same at work. We follow the process or use the technology with little regard to what is under the hood. We just expect it to work every time. Plus, not only do we have to perform our core tasks, but we have to do all the administrative tasks that used to be handled by others. Oh, and our world is not limited to our immediate surroundings. Now we have to deal with issues that are potentially world-wide as the world has become a smaller place and “we” are all interconnected in some way. Complexity has nudged out common sense. Knowledge management practices attempt to help us deal with the complexity so we can focus on the important work that we are charged with doing. KM helps us collect knowledge and connect to knowledge so that we can make better decisions that have real world impact. In today’s knowledge intensive world “we” is more powerful than “I” and shared knowledge drives innovation, solutions, and decisions not a single solitary voice. Gone are the days when the boss had all the answers. Complexity has changed all that. And we have to change how we work in order to succeed in today’s environment.

The reasons for KM are compelling

• Consistent, rapid, and transparent knowledge flow both vertically within an office or department, and horizontally across the enterprise will lead to better decision making
• Standardized processes and frameworks will increase efficiencies, decrease cycle times, and shorten learning cycles
• Systematic knowledge transfer practices will capture essential knowledge reducing redundancy, providing best practices and lessons learned, and enhance learning
• Enhanced storage, organization and search practices and capabilities will make it easier to connect and collect to both tacit and explicit knowledge reducing the time to find essential knowledge and information
• Collaborative leadership broadens the diversity of opinions leading to richer thoughts, ideas, solutions, and innovations

The concepts of KM are fairly simple

• Leverage organizational knowledge and intellectual capital; human, structural, customer
• Build a collaborative enterprise
• Develop systematic processes by which organizational knowledge is created, captured, shared and leveraged

The goals are straight forward

• Increase the confidence staff have in the information and knowledge products they use to perform their work
• Help staff find, organize, and share knowledge they already have
• Increase collaboration and facilitate knowledge creation, sharing and transfer

and the expected outcomes are definable

• A strategic and systematic approach to leveraging organizational knowledge will enable better decision making, allow for faster learning, spur innovation, conserve resources, and strengthen relationships and trust across the organization and our constituencies
• Employees are empowered and expected to dialog, share ideas, and make suggestions to enhance our ability to successfully achieve our mission
• Harvesting best practices and lessons learned from across the organization will bring to bear better solutions and spur innovation
• Proactive sharing and collaboration across the organization will contribute to mission accomplishment
• Creating an operating construct that focuses on knowledge production, communities, and an ethic of contribution will boost productivity, efficiency, and agility
• Working in a smarter and knowledge-centric fashion will make for happier and more productive staff

however the execution tends to be problematic

• KM is seen as a technology solution
• KM is discussed in terms of a delivered project or initiative
• KM is seen as theoretical and academic
• KM is looked as something additive

For KM to be effective we need to agree on a few basic assumptions

• How we work can improve
• Knowledge flow bottlenecks and blockages exist and can be eliminated or minimized
• People want to collaborate and share but management structures sometimes prevent that from occurring
• Knowledge shared is more powerful to the organization than knowledge withheld, and the power of many is more beneficial than the power of one
• Working in a knowledge-based organization requires different skills than working in an industrial-based organization and those skills must be learned and practiced
• Given advances in technology, there may be better ways to do our jobs today than the way we did it 20, 10, 5, or even 1 year ago and we need to adopt and use these technologies and skills in order to better accomplish our mission and goals
• We need to change our behaviors and enhance our skills in order to effectively work in a knowledge-based organization

There are two types of KM behaviors – individual and organizational. Here is a sampling of both:

Individual Behaviors                                          Organizational Behaviors
I constantly think about who else needs to know what I know or what I learned and then pass that knowledge along	Encourage knowledge flow and transfer at all organizational levels
When capturing or storing content I consider who and how that content may be discovered in the future and take that into consideration when saving	Standardize work processes to the greatest extent possible
I develop a diverse network that can aid me in different facets of my job	Create and sustain avenues for knowledge transfer both offline and online
I constantly look for opportunities to improve work processes and identify them to my management	Ensure staff understand how to perform their tasks and provide them the tools and instructions needed for success
I speak up when I identify knowledge and information roadblocks and work toward eliminating or minimizing them	Continually identify and assess critical knowledge and information and develop methodologies for retention and transfer
I learn how to best use the tools and systems I use to accomplish my tasks including the technologies that enable me to perform my core tasks	Encourage cross Office and Center collaboration and networking
I treat every interaction as an opportunity to share and collaborate	Incorporate collaboration and sharing activities in IDP’s
I believe it is my job to contribute to the shared purpose of the organization	Reward and value collaboration in addition to individual effort
I am constantly learning and improving my skills and knowledge	Continually educate the organization on knowledge management principles
I feel it is my responsibility to share and I am comfortable doing so	Reduce the “risk” of collaboration for staff at all levels

Please comment back with your own examples of individual and organizational KM behaviors. The more we identify the better.

As for those “few basic assumptions” do you agree with or believe them? You could choose to just continue to do business as-is if you believe the current state of affairs is good enough and meets the mission goals. I certainly will take no offense to that perspective. Work gets done daily. Changing how work is being approached and conducted is scary and risky. But, I leave you with this; if not now, when? Because we certainly don’t do work like we did 30 years ago and we won’t be doing work the same 10 years from now.

KM is tangible. No, it is not a quick fix like installing a new application on your iPhone. But it is something real and something that can be good for you personally, the organization, and our constituents. For it to work you have to want it, and like anything worth having there is a price to be paid for getting it. Is it time for a change?

I Remember When KM Ruled the Office

Did you ever have a secretary? I don’t mean an office admin or receptionist. I mean an old fashioned secretary. My secretary’s name was Jacquie. Jacquie made it possible for me to succeed at my job. She managed my day, she screened my calls, she read my email and only had me respond to the important ones, she filed, she typed, she set-up meetings, she was connected to the other secretary’s and provided me with great business and office politics intelligence, she arranged my travel, filed my expense reports, made sure I was never late to a meeting, got my lunch, took notes at meetings, was able to translate my ideas into documents and presentations, came in before me and mostly left after me. We got to know each other well. So well that she could anticipate my needs and seemingly read me mind. Jacquie was a great filer. She had a system and could find documents and information in short order. She also was able to provide me information in the format I needed when I needed it. Jacquie was my knowledge manager, my confidant, and a trusted colleague.
If you never had a secretary then you don’t know what you missed. Back in the old days (late 1990′s to mid 2000′s) I was fortunate enough to have one. I was a mid-manager, but in those days we were able to have administrative support. Over time, toward the mid 2000′s more and more mid-manager’s lost their support in the name of efficiency and profitability. In my case Jacquie could still help me out, but she also had to support two other managers at a level higher than mine. I slowly started doing more and more of the daily administrative work myself. I was spoiled and it took time for me to get used to culling through all my emails, answering all my calls and messages, preparing my reports and briefings, searching for content and information, making all my travel arrangements, etc. I used to have time to think, time to lead and manage my staff, time to devote solely on my work – the reason they hired me to begin with, but now it seemed like half my day was consumed with administrivia. I certainly didn’t see where the company was more efficient or profitable by having me do my work and the work of an administrative professional.
I miss having a secretary, but those days are in the past. Jacquie won’t be coming back. Not for me, not for anyone who isn’t a senior executive, and in many instances not for them either. The secretary has become extinct for the most part. Replaced by a laptop, a mobile device, software applications, and some on-line technologies. It’s assumed that in addition to doing the work I was hired to do I can also proficiently type, file, search, meeting plan, understand a multitude of technologies, quickly learn a new application without training, negotiate my time, and understand all the organizational processes and procedures just by reading a web page. In many cases we have made a mess of things, a big mess. Jacquie understood the file and record systems. When I started storing my work products I just started to save them. I didn’t have time for putting meta-data on files, or create a file plan or strategy, or a figure out a simple taxonomy. I just saved and moved on. I did this, you did this, we all did this because that’s the best we could do. Now we have big repositories of stuff. Over time technologies got better. I do have better email now, so I can now get more of it. I have better collaborative tools so I can constantly be kept up to date and in the know by anyone who has access to me. I have better communication devices so I can be plugged in 24 hours a day 7 days a week. It’s great! Not so much.
I am an advocate for knowledge management practices. I think organizationally we can do a better job of managing our knowledge/intellectual capital. But that doesn’t mean we can and should only do it by using enabling technologies. Sometimes the answer is more human. Sometimes we need human knowledge managers to manage the knowledge the knowledge workers create. Let’s not forget the goal of KM which is getting the right information to the right people at the right time, and helping people create knowledge and share and act upon information in ways that measurably improve the performance of the organization. Sometimes we need professional help to make that happen. We now call secretaries, administrative professionals. They are professionals at administrative tasks. I am not, and neither are many of you. Let’s consider this as we develop KM strategies and approaches.

If the term “KM” could get a do-over – Paper

In late 2009 a discussion was posted on the LinkedIn Knowledge Management Experts group that asked the question:
If the term “KM” could get a do-over what would you call the discipline?
This sparked a lively discussion with 295 comments submitted by approximately 75 KM professionals. This paper provides a fascinating look at the discussion, the “new” KM terms, useful KM links, and the results of a survey discussing the future of KM. Click here for the paper.
Enjoy!
Art

The Survey Results Are In – KM Do-Over

Click the following link:

If the term “KM” could get a do-over what would you call the discipline? Survey Results

The survey results are in.  Check the KM do-over list and see what terms 36 of your KM colleagues chose as the replacement. Other questions include:

• Will “KM” survive this decade? In other words it is 2020; will we be discussing KM or something else?
• KM should become a formal discipline requiring a formal body of knowledge, testing, certification, and oversight.
• You found this discussion thread and survey valuable and would like to have a copy of the discussion, analysis and survey?

We are working on preparing a copy of the actual discussion including some analysis of the threaded discussion. We hope to have that completed in the next 30 days or so.

Best regards,

Art

If the term “KM” could get a do-over what would you call the discipline? Survey Reopened

The survey has been reopened until February 28th. To date 28 folks have cast their vote for their favorite KM term. After performing some preliminary analysis of the KM Expert group question on the subject we have found that 75 folks have commented on the forum. We want their votes and your votes. If you have not already voted please take a minute to do so. Just click here.

If the term “KM” could get a do-over what would you call the discipline? Survey time.

If the term “KM” could get a do-over what would you call the discipline?
You are now the King of KM and you have the power to call the discipline that promotes an integrated approach to identifying, retrieving, evaluating, and sharing an enterprise’s tacit and explicit knowledge assets to meet mission objectives (or insert one of hundreds of “KM” definitions here) something new. Would you keep the name “knowledge management” or would you change it to something better?

The Discussion on LinkedIn – KM Experts Group has been fantastic. Now we have 41 potential terms for “KM”. Please go to the survey and vote for your favorite.  Survey closes Feb 8th at 12:00am EST.

KM is about…

KM is about an organization doing things right and doing the right things in order to meet their business objectives and goals. It is the KM leader’s job to constantly assess the organizational landscape to expose knowledge gaps and loss, find opportunities for efficiency gains and processes to increase effectiveness, and to create the means for faster innovation. KM needs to be approached at both the strategic and tactical levels. On one hand the KM leader must develop a KM strategy that maps to the business strategy to ensure alignment of goals and measures. This enterprise strategy can include creating that KM culture that overtime will show measureable results. On the other hand, the KM leader must work with the departments, units and teams to deploy KM approaches, methodologies, tools, and techniques that solve real knowledge related issues and drive the adoption and use of those mechanisms to quickly resolve those issues. When done correctly, these two approaches result in a KM program that can drive quick results and enduring sustainment.

KM professionals are passionate about the subject

We can discuss, debate, persuade, explain, evangelize, and dare I say bloviate about KM for hours on end.

But are we just preaching to the choir? The lively discussions in our own forums are wonderful, but how do we reach those that do not know of or understand the benefits of KM? How do you capture the hearts and minds of those in leadership positions who can provide the resources to make KM a reality in their organizations? Is discussing what KM can do in their context enough to change a culture? Is demonstrating knowledge ROI powerful enough for systemic organizational change? Besides our own KM groups and forums, where should we be injecting our KM message of increased efficiency, innovation, collaboration, knowledge retention, etc., that leads to decreased costs, higher profits, new product lines, beating the competition, low turn-over, increased productivity, etc.? Should we infiltrate other groups such as HR, finance, operations, strategy, COO, and CEO and weave our KM stories into their conversations in their context?
We all know the benefits and challenges of KM, how do we reach those that do not?

What say you?

In your opinion what is the best approach to learning about and practicing KM?

Interested in seeing the results of a recent poll which asked KM Professionals this question? Click here…