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 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.
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?
Interested in seeing the results of a recent poll which asked KM Professionals this question? Click here…
If I had to pick one subject area that stirs the most debate within the community I would pick KM education, certification, and training. There are as many diverse opinions on this subject as there are KM professionals and practitioners. So, as I like to “stir the pot” I am looking for comments on the following scenario that is now playing out:
A well known accredited university is interested in partnering with the U.S. military on creating a KM education program. We are in the exploration phase of this process, but we have had a conversation or two on the subject between the interested parties. As you know there are KM programs at many universities. The difference here is that this program will be open to members of the military, will lead to a KM certificate (not certification), and the classes taken could be used to earn an accredited Masters degree. It is being discussed that the curriculum be based on the U.S. Army KM Competency Model as the foundation for the subject matter areas. The core competency areas include:
- KM Principles & Foundations
- KM Culture
- KM Leaders, Managers & Champions
- Communities of Practice & Knowledge Transfer Venues
- Content Management
- Metrics
- Process Improvements
- Technology & Tool
- Information Assurance
Why use a competency model?
- The Army believes that KM is a professional discipline; hence it has developed a competency model
- A KM competency model reflects the strategy, goals, and objectives of the organization; the Army model is broad in scope
- A rigorous vetting process provided consensus on the core competency areas
- This model applies to any modern organization; it is not military centric
- A KM competency model serves as the foundation for functions such as training, education, development, and performance management because it specifies what essential knowledge, skills, and abilities are required for success
It is important to all parties that the curriculum has the requisite academic rigor needed for university accreditation; the students can make their newly found knowledge actionable within their organizations; and that the courses have a reach farther than just “KM”. What I mean by that last point is that the “KM” courses should not just be for and about KM. They may be embedded in other subject areas where KM methods, approaches, and techniques are discussed as an enabler to meet a broader goal such as business strategy development, organizational change, or innovation creation.
Looking long range, if successful I can see this model being expanded to multiple colleges and universities across the country. As this model unfolds, the foundational competency model will continue to develop and mature and can then be used as a basis for KM education by other learning organizations. Over time the accumulated knowledge can grow and morph into the all elusive KM knowledge base we all talk about.
So what are your thoughts? Could this concept work? Would you sign up? Do you see the value? Is it a waste of effort? We want to know. I look forward to your comments.
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 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.
Rules Every Organization Should Follow to Improve Employee Moral and Foster Loyalty
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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.
