My New Title: Chief Knowledge Integrator

Hello. My name is Art and I am the Chief Knowledge Integrator for my organization.  I used to be the Chief  Knowledge Manager, but times are changing and so is my role in the organization. I still am responsible for overseeing knowledge based activities such as tacit to explicit transfer as a means to reduce organizational knowledge loss, facilitation of collaborative communities to increase efficiencies and drive innovation, and working throughout the organization to infuse the processes, procedures, and policies that support an enterprise culture of collaboration that enables us to make better decisions faster and with better results, but now my organization needs more. The lines between Information Technology and Business Operations are dissolving. The CIO is now focused more on enabling the business then on managing IT resources, while the Operations Directors are now focused on delivering results faster and with more impact through the use of enabling technologies. My job as CKI is to develop the strategies, tactics, and techniques that connect the right information and knowledge to the right people at the right time in the context they need, and ensure they have to know-how to adopt and use the resources. My role is unique in the sense that I need to play a part in all aspects of the organization from strategy development, to operations, to education and training, to sales, to human resources, to finance and metrics and assessment. My goal is to focus the organization on maximizing our corporate knowledge and intellectual capital while minimizing knowledge gaps, and empowering the workers to leverage all the information, knowledge, and resources at their disposal.

I have also found that my new title resonates better with my organization then CKM did. For some reason people understand the notion of knowledge integration better than knowledge management. They can see how knowledge integration strategies can foster better decision making, promote business agility, and connect people to information in context more than they could in a knowledge management context. They also seem to understand that integration requires an organizational/cultural, people, and technology approach to be effective. Yes, I know that was the same with KM, but for some reason the notion of integration resonates better.

I am happy to be part of the next generation of knowledge leaders who will hold the CKI title. I expect that in the next 15 years the job will become obsolete as organizations continue to infuse IT and Business operations, and knowledge strategies, tactics, and methodologies are inculcated into the daily routine of operations, but until then I am proud to be a Chief Knowledge Integrator.

Nick Milton asks the right questions

Nick Milton from Knoco recently posted a blog titled Two Questions That Drive KM Culture Change. If you are interested in what motivates staff to adopt and use KM read the article.  http://www.nickmilton.com/2009/10/two-questions-to-drive-km-culture.html

Some additional thoughts – Leaders and managers can create an atmosphere/culture of collaboration, sharing, learning, and seeking by the way they interact with staff. For example in a meeting where courses of actions are being presented, leaders can ask probing questions in the context of understanding where and how data/information was collected. This shows the leader is interested in more than just the final result but in how the result came to be. Perhaps this continues into a conversation of how information and knowledge flows and exposes barriers or good practices.

It takes effort to move beyond just getting to the bottom line, but those leaders and managers who understand the benefits of a “KM Culture” can drive it simply by their behavior and style. It may be a form of “stealth” KM, but it is effective as a methodology to drive behavior change.

DOD finds knowledge management a tricky fit

This FCW article by Amber Corrin, Oct 16, 2009 provides an overview of the DGI DOD KM Conference held in Washington DC.
http://fcw.com/articles/2009/10/16/dod-knowledge-management.aspx

Why Employees Get Frustrated

Rules Every Organization Should Follow to Improve Employee Moral and Foster Loyalty

1. If your company touts non-negotiable traits either live by them or die. Non-negotiable traits must apply to everyone from the CEO on down. If management breaks the code of ethics then the situation must be rectified or the policy must be terminated. Employees rather work for a company that is honest about how situations are handled and how people should act then for one that is hypocritical.
2. If you are in a leadership position then you must lead. If only senior executives know the vision and goals then there is a lack of leadership.
3. Communications is the key to success. Lack of communication is the path to failure. Not wanting to be the bearer of bad news is not a reason to not communicate. Shoot straight with employees (respectfully) and they will respect the organization.
4. Results are important in the end, but how a company gets to the end is more important. Senior management sets the tone. If the senior management of a company cannot work together and help each other in the spirit of mentorship and shared responsibility then there is a leadership issue at hand.
5. Some employees do care about integrity, honor, trustworthiness, and credibility. They know it when they see it and they know it when they don’t. When they don’t see it then moral is impacted. When moral is impacted work suffers or people leave.
6. People thrive when they are in the right job. Leveraging strengths is just smart business, putting people in jobs they do not particularly like is not. Management needs to know their people and care about them enough to know their needs and desires. Most employees want to do a great job, have impact, and feel good about there work. Management’s duty is to make sure their employees are in positions that allow that to happen.

KM and the Organizational Construct

What is knowledge management? A clear and simple definition of KM is; KM is the art of creating, applying, and transferring knowledge to facilitate situational understanding and decision making. As the definition implies, KM consists of methodologies, approaches, and initiatives to assist in knowledge transfer activities. KM is not by itself a means to an end, nor is it an organizational construct. Rather KM methodologies, approaches, and initiatives supports the organization by providing improved ways to collaborate and share which in turn provides better and faster decision making to achieve the organizations goals which leads to organizational success. This is important to understand because a tendency among organizations is to view KM as a strategy or methodology to change an organization’s operational construct. Yes, better knowledge sharing and collaboration can be an organizational goal, but it is usually not the organizations objective (or mission). KM is not designed to determine if an organizational construct is the most beneficial way for an organization to operate. That is a leadership and management function. What KM can do is provide improved methodologies, approaches, and initiatives, which when adopted and used, can increase organizational efficiency, effectiveness, and enhance decision making within that construct.

Where’s the Knowledge?

Last week I attended LandWarNet 2009. Hosted by AFCEA International, LandWarNet (LWN) is “the premier forum to bring Government and Industry together to openly communicate commercial best business practices and government implications.” LWN is the Army Network Enterprise event, consisting of multiple tracks including Knowledge Management.  The event for me was outstanding. The key note sessions had  serious KM themes with talk about KM is how warfighting will be done in the future, the need for faster and better decision making, and moving from a command and control mentality to a command and feedback attitude. But there was one session that stood out to me.  It was a session on Leveraging DOD Services to Enhance Knowledge Creation. I wasn’t sure what to expect in this session and from what I can tell neither did many of the attendees. There was much discussion about “services” that will become part of the Global Network Enterprise Construct (GNEC). There was discussion about collaboration tools, and the generation and  capture of information. Then an audience member asked “Where’s the knowledge?”

That was a great question. The session was about KM yet there was no discussion about leveraging knowledge to impact the enterprise. There are so many efforts (services) dealing with the capture of data and information, and yes “knowledge” depending upon your definition of information vs. knowledge, yet there is an apparent gap when it comes to leveraging and using this captured information to influence decision making or positively impacting outcomes. It made me think about why capture and store all this information if it is not going to be used in a productive way? Perhaps it will be used in the future? I doubt it though, given the state of search capability (findability) across the enterprise. Given the state of numerous local repositories that I have seen where content is stored without metadata, tags, or some other identifier or registration process, it is doubtful that the information will be useful by anyone other than the creator.

So, where is the knowledge? Well, it is in everyone of us. The knowledge is how we use the information be it tacit or explicit. The knowledge gap can be closed when we actively use information to shape ideas, which spur innovation and new thinking which then generates new data and information, which then is analyzed, interpreted, contextualized, and finally turned into knowledge. Sometimes it is a slow process, and sometimes this is all done in a flash of brilliance.

Information at rest is just that. Information in action starts the knowledge creation process. Can “services” enhance the knowledge creation process? Certainly. Those services can provide access to information otherwise unavailable, or enable brainstorming, or synchronous collaboration. But in the end knowledge creation is a human factor. It is the active use of these services and the active use of information contained therein where the knowledge resides.

Social Networking – The Lazy Mans Relationship?

It used to be that you had to work at relationships. Now, thanks to myriad of social networking tools I can point, click and BAM! make another friend. I can have blog friends, wiki friends, tweet friends, hundreds of them, maybe thousands if I work at it. How popular can one man be? Can you feel the sarcasm?

 

Look, I’m not saying that social networking tools do not have purpose and utility. Of course they do, and I use them on a regular basis. What I am saying is that when it comes to relationship building perhaps this is the easy way out. It used to be, back in the old days, that when you wanted to get to know someone you actually had to spend time with them in close proximity. Now you can get to know their “persona” without ever having to meet them. Maybe it doesn’t really matter if this is how you define a friendship.

 

It seems that everyday you hear news reports about people breaking up online, or about some deviant exploit exposed for the world to see. Great. What guts it must take for someone to deliver bad news in a tweet. It used to be that we shunned people who delivered bad news by telephone instead of in person. Heck, at least they actually spoke to the person back then. What ever happened to looking someone in the eye? What happened to being there to hold a hand, or wipe a tear, or take the punishment (dare I say) like a man? I know I’m old (but not that old), but I still think that deals should be sealed by a handshake not an emoticon. I think we as a society are losing something without this human bond.

 

Just as we are getting desensitized to violence and sex through movies, TV, and games, I think we are getting desensitized in our relationships. We email the person in the office next to ours instead of talking to them. Folks go to lunch with their friends, but their friends are on the other side of the text message. Friends are becoming electrons on a screen, not people who would drive 2 hours in a blinding rain to rescue you when your car broke down.

 

Social networks are great for keeping in touch, sharing pictures, and collaborating, but they can’t replace a hug, a kiss, a handshake, or a slap across the face. Think about it my friends.

KM – It’s All About You

The practice of knowledge management is not just an organizational responsibility. It is also a personal responsibility. It simply does not happen without your active participation.  This has always been true; before web 2.0, before the internet, before email, and before technology impacted our life so prevalently. Think about some popular KM techniques:

• On-the-job training
• Mentoring
• Coaching
• Apprenticeship
• Succession planning
• Networking
• Teaching
• Publishing

These all have a common purpose – knowledge transfer, and they all require active participation.

In today’s world we tend to focus on the tools that enable knowledge transfer. In many organizations KM is referred to by tools name; we use SharePoint for KM, or we teach in Blackboard, or I network on LinkedIn, or I publish in blogs like WordPress. Sometimes so much so that organizations begin to believe that the tool is KM or that it provides the collaboration or knowledge transfer. These tools are no more KM today than the Guttenberg printing press was KM when it enabled publishing, or the Pony Express was KM when it began mail service, or the telephone was KM when it enabled voice connections and party lines, or the television when it revolutionized information transfer from one to many. The tools change, and always will, but the goal of knowledge transfer remains the same, and so does human active participation.

No matter the tool it is up to you, the individual, to actively participate in the transfer of information and knowledge. You decide to add knowledge to the repository, or update your SME profile, or attend a community of practice meeting, or mentor a colleague, or attend a company function, or network at a conference. No technology can make you think in terms of collaboration and sharing. This is up to you. You can hoard, or you can share. You can release only the information you deem necessary, or you can have a responsibility to provide. The adoption and use of KM is personal and up to you. Don’t get locked in the tool box. Become an active participant in knowledge transfer.

KM needs to get out of the way of itself

KM is one of those disciplines that people find hard to grasp and use. KM is a lot of things, and there is no single standard definition of what it is, how it can be applied, or why to use it. Some think it is nothing but another management fad, others think it is just common sense stuff, others see it as a theoretical exercise, some see it as a tool, some see it as E-learning, some see it as a culture of collaboration, some see it as web 2.0, some see it as a technology solution, and I can go on and on. My perspective is that it is all of the above and more. So where am I going with this? I am at the point in which I am starting to believe that KM needs to get out of the way of itself. That probably makes little sense to you, so I will try to explain what I mean. KM is a lot of things, but one thing we may all agree on is that KM is an industry. There are KM certification courses, KM college courses and doctoral degree programs, KM books, KM magazines, KM conferences, KM software applications, KM tools and resources, KM consultants, Knowledge Managers, Chief Knowledge Officers, etc. Look at these headlines and see just how potentially big an industry KM is:

• AMR Research Finds Spending on Knowledge Management Will Hit $73B in 2007, Tuesday, September 25, 2007
• Global Enterprise Web 2.0 Market Forecast: 2007 To 2013 Expect $4.6 Billion In Spending By 2013 As Large Companies Embrace Web 2.0, Forester Research – (this report costs US $1999.00 by the way)
• Federal Knowledge Management Spending to Increase 29 Percent by 2009,  Publication: Business Wire

KM is big business. That’s good. Organizations need KM practices, methodologies, tools, and expertise in order to better meet their organizational objectives. But there is also a downside to KM as an industry. The industry also brings confusion, hype, spin, expectations both achievable and unrealistic, failed implementations due to improper planning and preparation, over simplifications, and in some ways a bastardization of what KM is, what it is intended to do, and how and when it should be applied. A lot of money has been spent developing KM solutions, marketing and branding those solutions, and selling those solutions. Of course I’m going to prove to you that my product, service, methodology, or approach is best. I want you to buy my product or service over my competitors. I’m not trying to make the case that the KM industry is not necessary or that competition among KM vendors (and I include all aspects of the KM industry in this group) is a bad thing. I’m just pointing out that KM is a business, and business is about creating a market and need and ultimately about making money.

So what? We all know KM is a business and an industry. Look at IT, without hardware, software, strategy, governance and standards there wouldn’t be much use for technology. The so what to me is that KM isn’t a commodity; I can’t purchase KM. Oh yes you can some would argue. You can purchase a KM platform, application or tool. In my opinion that is only because some marketing guru labeled some technology as a “KM” solution. Now we go back to what is KM? Since there are so many definitions, for the heck of it I’ll just use the Wikipedia definition “Knowledge Management (KM) comprises a range of practices used in an organization to identify, create, represent, distribute and enable adoption of insights and experiences. Such insights and experiences comprise knowledge, either embodied in individuals or embedded in organizational processes or practice.” Back to my point, where do I purchase one of those? And so I go back to KM having to get out of the way of itself.

The result of KM practices is what matters or should matter to the organization. Not the fact that an organization is practicing KM or has a Knowledge Management Office, or a Chief Knowledge Officer, or even some KM champion. As I work with organizations on KM strategies and initiatives I have seen a pattern emerge that is now jumping out at me. As I work with people responsible for KM I find myself on a regular basis having the discussion about KM being the road, not the destination. It seems like I’ve said it a thousand times – “Don’t do KM for KM’s sake, do KM to achieve an organizational goal.” KM is not an end-state; it is a set of attitudes, behaviors, methodologies, approaches, initiatives, and technologies that enable an end-state. What could those end-states be? It may be to capture and retain knowledge to prevent knowledge loss during turnover, or to develop more effective processes to gain efficiencies to save time and money, or to spur new ideas and innovations to stay competitive, or to form communities of practices to help solve complex problems, or to organize information and expertise to make finding information easier, or to capturing lessons to learn from past experiences so mistakes are not repeated, or to capture work products so time is not spent recreating work, or to perform a knowledge assessment so knowledge gaps can be identified and filled in order to for an organization to meet its objectives. Yes, an organization can have a learning, sharing, or collaborative culture, that is a great goal to aspire to, but I think that is not the place KM programs should start. Why, because if we start there we tend to build KM empires, KM bureaucracies, KM departments, KM rules and regulations, and get trapped into doing KM for KM’s sake. I should know I’ve done it myself in the past. You get so caught up and excited in doing KM that you start building a KM department, and staff, and goals, and metrics, and then you realize that you are using KM to justify doing more KM instead of solving the business issue you set out to solve in the first place. I am not in anyway saying that KM does not need to be done both top down and bottom up. KM leadership is essential to KM success, but that leadership needs to come from the organization’s leaders not necessarily a CKO or other position unless that person is part of the leadership team. So now what?

Well, I’m nearing the point where I think KM “experts” need to sit where they will do the most good. Yes, an organization should have an overarching KM strategy and perhaps some leader or leadership committee who oversees all “KM” related activities to ensure congruence, but they should also have sub-strategies or initiatives or agendas that are specific for each management function or department (depending upon how the organization is structured). So, if preventing knowledge loss is important then KM should live in HR, and if more efficiency is important then KM should live in Operations, and if a knowledge repository is needed then it needs to be owned by the content owners and developed in conjunction with IT, so on and so forth. When I say “live in” I don’t mean that each department has its own KM shop. I mean, as an example, that HR professionals should learn KM skills (thus becoming the experts) and apply KM as it best fits there construct. Governance, standards, and the like are very important, that’s why I advocate for a leadership committee to oversee such things. But it doesn’t have to be a KM Steering Committee, it just needs to be a committee who ensures that organizational policies, procedures, and standards are congruent across the enterprise and that resources, investments, and expenditures are properly applied, tracked, measured, and monitored. Many organizations already have these committees in place.

There is no doubt in my mind that the impact of KM on an organization can be huge. Vast amounts of time, money, and resources can be saved. New ideas and innovations can propel an organization faster then ever before. Lives can be saved by sharing critical knowledge to the right group at the right time. We know this, but this can only happen if an organization can see KM for what it really is. If they can see the value of KM, not the hype or the spin, and if KM practices are embedded in their way of doing business, not layered on top of doing business. I am an advocate for getting KM out of the way of itself so that the impact and results it brings can shine through and be self evident. So move out the way KM, and let’s see what you’re really made of.

Will KM Ever Catch a Break and Go Mainstream?

I would have thought that by now knowledge management would have started to go mainstream. At least mainstream enough in the business world that I wouldn’t have to, on a pretty regular basis, have a conversation about whether or not KM is a fad or passe or other such nonsense. Unfortunately it is not the case. These conversations continue in the workplace at meetings, during the interview process, during networking events, and at personal gatherings when the subject of “work” comes up.  I especially like it when they start lumping KM together with One Minute Management, Matrix Management, Peak Performance, TQM, BPR, MBO, and whole list of acronyms that mean someone was trying to use some methodology to improve process effeciency and effectiveness.  Don’t they know that there are KM certifications, and KM master degree courses, and even KM doctoral degrees! KM is mainstream, they just don’t know it yet.

To those that say KM is a fad or passe I say that the effective use of organizational knowledge to increase efficiency and spur innovation is not faddish rather smart business, and that retaining organizational knowledge and expertise rather than seeing it walk out the door when someone quits or retires is a business imparative. KM practices include knowledge acquisition, storage and dissemination; what is faddish about that? Does the label “knowledge management” somehow dimmish the need? If so then curse the label! How did strategic management, risk management, project managment, content management, supply chain managment, operations management, and the like escape this curse? Every organization practices some form of KM whether they know it or not. Call it what you want, but give KM a break.