Friday, 30 October 2009


After Action review - the 4 questions


The structure of an AAR is very simple. It consists of asking four questions. However the value comes in the quality of the answers, so it's worth getting those questions right if you can.


1. What was supposed to happen? The first question is asked about the objective of the activity, and the target performance. We have often found that the first few times you ask this question, people may turn out to have been confused about the objective or the target, or else no clear objective was set. One of the by-products of AARs is that they promote objective-setting.

2. What actually happened? The second question looks at actual performance. If you are conducting an AAR, you need to establish ‘ground truth’ with this question. You are looking to determine reality, rather than opinion. Metrics are really useful here. In training exercises, or reviewing sports events, use video, or impartial observers to determine what actually happened.

3. Why was there a difference? The third question seeks to understand why a particular result occurred. Perhaps you did better than expected; perhaps you did worse than expected; perhaps you met your target. What were the factors that determined the result? Another way to ask this question, if the first way doesn’t work, is ‘What went well, and what did not go so well?’ Here it is really important to get to root cause, and not to stop at a superficial level. You are seeking, through dialogue within the team, to find the root causes behind performance improvement or performance slip.

4. What have we learned? The fourth question asks about the learning, and should be expressed in terms of what will be done differently the next day (or, in cases of over-performance, what should be repeated the next day). Here you move from analysis of the activity, to ‘what are we going to do about it’, and ask, what action needs to be taken? Once you have decided ‘what are we going to do about it’, then you need to assign the action to ensure it gets done. Much of the time the action lies with the team. If the team cannot fix the action, there needs to be an escalation route.

The answers to these questions can usefully be recorded on a one-page pro forma, or a marked up flip chart, which can be collected for future reference. Note that although we show here the questions in sequence, what typically happens is that question 2 will identify a few areas to be discussed, and then questions 3 and 4 are asked for each of these areas in turn.

Here's an example AAR from a refinery maintenance program, which shows the level of task detail to which AARs may be applied. This example comes from a shift team in Singapore, who were installing trays within a refinery unit (a tray is a particular piece of equipment inside a refinery column, and needs to be fitted by someone working at height).

1. What was supposed to happen? 1) To install trays, with weir heights and downcomers within tolerance. 2) To hold tray assembly in place with appropriate hardware, e.g. bolts and nuts, clamps, washers, slide fasteners, etc.

2. What actually happened? 1) Tray clearances were not within tolerance. 2) There was a shortage of hardware.

3. Why was there a difference? 1) Workers were using measuring tapes to adjust the clearances resulting in a need for repeated re-working. 2) Workers were transporting the hardware up the column in bulk, resulting in hardware being missplaced, dropped, or not following vendor’s instruction on the appropriate type of hardware to be used.

4. What have we learned? 1) Use standard blocks prepared to the required dimensions for adjusting weir height and downcomer clearance. 2) Put all the appropriate hardware in place on the tray sections at ground level before transporting up the column.

Actions that need to be taken 1) Request the workshop to construct a series of standard blocks. 2) Update daily orders for tray installation.


Although the learning here is only about small things – tray tolerances, clamps and washers – an increased ability to avoid small mistakes, based on day-by-day routine learning, can give a massive performance improvement at the end of the project.

Thursday, 29 October 2009


Looking back to look forward


I have spent quite a lot of my recent working life in trying to draw out lessons from the past, and I am increasingly convinced that this is an unnatural act.

Many organisations develop some sort of post-project review, or post-project appraisal, and the enlightened ones bring in an external facilitator to help them. We spend time reviewing what happened in the project, identifying the success factors and the pitfalls, and talking over the stories. However in my view, the only point in reviewing the past is to improve the future, and at some stage we need to discuss what we have learned, what we will do differently in the future in similar circumstances, and how we make this happen. This is when the following conversation often happens

Nick “Folks, we have discussed the issue of the contract, and the effect this had on the contractor behaviour. My question to you now is, if you were doing a project like this in future, but knowing what you know now, how would you address the contracting”?

Team. “Yes, that was a real problem, it was a lousy contract, and (blah blah)”

Nick “But in a similar situation in future, what you do differently”?

Team. “It was a real problem for us – the contractor just didn’t (blah blah)”

Nick “But how would you advise a future project in a similar situation”?

Team. “You can’t generalise something like that”



Well, I am afraid you CAN generalise, and there almost always IS useful knowledge to pass on. But to come up with these, you need to review the past in order to dig out the root causes, and then turn your vision to the future, and express the learning points. The first two answers above really mean “we haven’t finished talking about the past yet”, and the third one means “You expect me to analyse, rather than reflect? But that is hard work!!”

You have to get them to analyse. They are the most appropriate people to analyse, to draw out the learning points, and to generalise or recommend for the future, because they were there – they know the detail – they lived the experience. But this IS hard work, it DOES require more than reflection. It requires analysis and speculation and creativity. It requires looking forward, in a meeting where (up to now) they have been looking backward.

However to drive an organisation, just like driving a car, you need to look both backwards and forwards. The rear view mirror informs your forward strategy. The role of the facilitator is to make sure the backward view is not just reminiscence and reflection, but includes analysis that will lead to change and to action, and that will improve the future performance of the company.

Wednesday, 28 October 2009


Removing the blinkers - beating Not Invented Here




Morgan w/ Blinkers
Originally uploaded by Just chaos

We all know the Not Invented Here syndrome – it’s one of the major cultural blockers in KM. “Not Invented Here” means, effectively, that “I do not trust the knowledge of others”. If I haven’t invented it myself, I won’t accept it. Often I won't even look at it.

In many ways, you can understand what drives this. If you have “invented” the knowledge yourself, you know it works and you know its provenance. It is a proven factor that you can personally vouch for. However the knowledge is yours and yours alone, and it is very unlikely that you will know everything about the topic. There is bound to be a lot more knowledge out there, if you can be induced to accept it. "Not Invented Here" is like wearing blinkers, it really reduces your vision of the available knowledge and the available possibilities.

We can start to address NIH in several ways. Firstly, we start to extend the concept of what “Here” means, so that “Invented Here” comes to mean “invented in my Community of Practice” rather than “invented by me”. This is a great breakthrough; the first step in treating knowledge as communal and not personal (see video).

However another powerful weapon against NIH was applied by a team leader in Aberdeen, Scotland to great effect, as part of a KM system which delivered $85 million savings in a single project. He called it “No Single Source Solutions”.


The way “No Single Source Solutions” works, is that the leader sets the rule that he will not accept a solution invented only by the team. He wants every solution to come from multiple sources. So if there is a problem or challenge, the team look widely, to see what has been done already, and pick the best of the best current solutions. So “Invented Here” will not be accepted. Every solution MUST have a component that has been invented elsewhere.

"No Single Source Solutions" is a simple rule, but if you stick to it as a leader, then you have cut off NIH at the source, and removed one of the most pernicious cultural barriers to KM.

Tuesday, 27 October 2009


Two questions that drive KM culture change - message to managers



Question!
Originally uploaded by Stefan Baudy
Culture change has been a theme throughout this blog (click the Culture label to the right), and I make no apology for this, as effective knowledge management is accompanied with a change in culture. But culture change is easy to say, and far far harder to deliver. Ultimately, you need to look at a governance system to ensure the KM culture is sustained, but way before that the leadership of the company need to be demonstrating a clear expectation for KM behaviours.

And actually, this is surprisingly easy for them to do. It involves two questions.
Who have you learned from?
Who have you shared this with?

If you are a leader, then every time someone comes to you with a proposed solution to a problem, or a proposed course of action, you ask “Who have you learned from”? Through this question, you are implying that they should have learned from others before proposing a solution – that they should have “learned before doing”. Also, every time someone comes to you to report a problem solved or a process improved, or a new pitfall or challenged addressed, you ask “Who have you shared this with”? Through this question, you are implying that they should share any new learnings with others.

The great thing about leaders’ questions, is they drive behaviour. People start to anticipate them, and to do the learning before, and the sharing afterwards. People hate to be asked these two questions, and having to answer “umm, well, nobody actually”. They would much rather say “we have learned from X and Y, and have a Peer Assist planned with Z”, “We have shared with the A community, and are holding a Knowledge Handover next week with B project”. And once your drive the behaviours, the transfer of knowledge will happen, the value will be delivered, and the system will reinforce itself.

But the moment you stop asking the questions, people realise that you, as a leader, are no longer interested in KM, so they will stop bothering.

There’s an old saying – “What interests my manager fascinates me”, so make sure you are interested, and ask the questions.

Friday, 23 October 2009


Targets and motivation in KM




On Target
Originally uploaded by viZZZual.com
Yesterday I was running our ever-popular Bird Island exercise, and as always, the teams made massive leaps in performance as their knowledge base increased.

The real value of this exercise comes in the debrief, when we analyse the success factors and relate them back to KM at work. One of the topics we analysed was Motivation and Target setting. What motivated the teams to set aggressive targets, and what motivated them to use the knowledge from others, to deliver those targets?

The primary motivation factor was "to deliver a great performance". They didn't set the target of beating the world record, they set the target of being at least "up there with the leaders" and delivering a great result. They wanted to be proud of their achievement - that it should stand well in the rankings. Of course, in order to set the target properly, they needed good benchmark data, and data from historical performance. We gave them that data, so they knew what to aim for, and they know what was possible.

And of course, in order to reach the benchmark, they needed the entire knowledge base of how to complete the task, so they could reproduce the successes of previous teams, and ideally could innovate further.

That combination of knowledge of past performance and how to achieve it, allowed them to set targets that were 2 or 3 times greater than the results had achieved so far, and in each case, through reapplication of knowledge, they exceeded those targets and achieved top quartile performance.

A very powerful combination of knowledge and motivation, with self-assigned targets.

Then I asked them how targets are set at work, and how motivating these are. You could hear the groan go round the room. "Targets are set from the centre" "Nobody buys into them" "Targets are a joke" "We set our targets, then define the metrics later so we can beat the target" "Targets are political". Such a contrast from the motivation in the exercise. Knowledge and Performance are so closely linked, that I often say that if you don't manage performance*, you can't manage knowledge. If you can't motivate people to perform, how can you motivate them to learn? So although many of these participants had KM programs, and were introducing the tools and techniques, they were really struggling with motivation issues.

Is it possible to motivate in the same way that we did during the exercise? Yes it is, and you can see that clearly in the Shell Technical Limit process I have blogged about before. Here teams have access to the performance data from the past, have access to all the knowledge they need, and work out for themselves how they are going to innovate beyond the best of what has been achieved to date (it is taken for granted that they can match the best historic performance. After all, that has been proven to be possible- that's "in the bag"). Then of course they are heavily motivated, through performance bonuses, when they beat the benchmark.

So it was a very interesting discussion, contrasting the success in the exercise with the struggles at work, with motivation and target setting coming out as a key factor.

I guess the learning point is that if you are introducing KM, start first where the performance culture is well defined, and where people are motivated to perform. If you choose a part of the business with no performance management, joke targets, and where people play political games with metrics, then you may very well struggle to develop a learning culture.

*Performance is the P in the OPEC acronym for KM culture

Wednesday, 21 October 2009


Knowledge is Power




Gossiping Ducks.
Originally uploaded by foxypar4

Knowledge is power, if you know it about the right person.
- Ethel Mumford


10 ways to maximise value from After Action reviews




After Action Review (AAR) is a popular process within Knowledge Management. Developed (and used extensively) by the military, it has found its way into industrial settings, has been used for well over a decade in the oil sector, and is now being adopted by the public sector as well. It's appeal is its simplicity, and its power is the room and the structure it gives to conversations about knowledge. The four questions* are obvious, it usually takes no more than half an hour, and it is a powerful process for developing a learning team. However despite the simplicity, there are a number of things you need to get right, in order to deliver value from an AAR. Here are 10 of them, presented in reverse order.

10. Hold the AAR as soon after the action as practical. Find somewhere safe to sit and talk, and do it immediately if you can, while memories are freshest.

9. Keep the meeting brief and focused. After Action review is for learning "in the think of it" rather than for leisurely post-project review, where we would instead use the Retrospect process. For an After Action review, aim for 15 to 30 minutes. Hold the meeting standing up if necessary.

8. Deal with the significant issues, not trivia. This is what I mean by "focused". You need to review the main objective of the day. If you are doing an AAR of a meeting, for example, you need to review whether the meeting delivered its primary purpose, not whether the room was too hot or the coffee too cold.

7. Everyone involved in the activity should take part. Nobody sees all the action, so involve everyone. You need all of the pieces of the jigsaw if you are to piece together the knowledge.Cross-hierarchy or cross-cultural AARs will be the most difficult, and we remember an AAR in Japan, with a mix of Japanese and Western participants, where very active facilitation was needed to ensure equal participation.

6. Open inclusive behaviours are key. Respect and Listen to each other. Leave hierarchy at the door. Everyone’s knowledge is of equal value. Managers and workers, foremen and supervisors, officers and troops - all need to be on an equal footing in an AAR. The Army say "leave your stripes at the door". You may need to facilitate this, and it may take 3 or 4 AARs before people really open up.

5. Critical path tasks, repeat tasks and high cost tasks may yield the most benefit from an AAR. There is little value in holding an AAR on a task which is of low value, which will never be done again, or which does not significantly impact the overall delivery of the work.

4. Find the root cause. Don’t rush to solutions. Disagreement can be positive and needs to be explored until you get to the underlying reason for the difference between objectives and results.

4. Focus on your own team’s learning. The AAR is primarily for the team, by the team. Focus on this first, rather than on identifying lessons for others (although this may be a byproduct).

2. Learning, not blame or evaluation, needs to be the focus of the AAR. This is about "what do we need to do differently, what do we need to reinforce", not "who messed up, and who was the hero". If you mix AAR and performance appraisal, you will kill any opportunity to learn.

1. Incorporate the learnings into future activity. This is the most important of all. If you arent going to change anything as a result of the AR, the AAR was pretty much a waste of time. Successful teams regularly stop, talk about what they have learned, then change things as a result.

Follow these 10 rules,and your AARs will deliver maximum value. Call us if you need to know more.

*You all remember the four questions

  • What was the objective?

  • What did we achieve, and how did this differ from the objective?

  • Why was there a difference and what was the root cause?

  • What have we learned and what are we going to do about it?

Tuesday, 20 October 2009


Seeming to know



Graduation Cake Guy
Originally uploaded by CarbonNYC

"The world is governed more by appearances than realities, so that it is fully as necessary to seem to know something as to know it".
- Daniel Webster


In defence of Best Practice




Mr Bean at Goodwood
Originally uploaded by Estel-uk
Much as I like and respect David Gurteen, there are times when I don’t necessarily agree with everything he says, and today is one of those times. I’d like to discuss one of the topics in his latest newsletter, “On best practice and thinking for yourself"

David writes

“Dave Snowden frequently criticises the concept of best practice such as here in this article and in an article in Harvard Business Blog, Susan Cramm questions it too.

Steve Billing in his blog recently added weight to what David has to say. He comments that best practice" ignores the most important factor ? the people who are working with the practice or model". He adds that "best practice and its forebear benchmarking both divert attention from the people and the context, focusing entirely on the disembodied prescription or model, as though it can be implemented anywhere and get the same successful result".

I am often asked for best practices in KM though what I discern is that what people really want is a prescription - a recipe they can blindly follow. But as I am so fond of saying "there is no substitute for thinking for yourself!" - in the complex real world of KM - there are no best practices; there are no simple recipes!

Steve says this "Instead of looking at best practice, focus your attention on the particularities of your situation, trying to understand all the factors at work, not just those prescribed in your model or best practice. Reflect on how your own participation is affecting, and is affected by, the way these factors are playing out in your organisation. That way you can help to make sure your attention is on what really matters so much more than a best practice or model ? how you are others are interacting with each other and influencing each other in the process of getting the work done."

In other words "think for yourself!"

This has been picked up in several blogs, including Mary Abraham’s excellent legal knowledge management blog.

Now I know that “best practice” is a contentious term; that it can be used defensively (“I’m not going to look at your process improvement because I’m already following best practice”); that some people will not accept a better practice if they don’t think it’s “best in the world”, that the term “best” can itself be a barrier, and that "best" is always contextual.

However there are times when following best practice, rather than thinking for yourself, is entirely the right thing to do. These are times when you are dealing with an area of knowledge that is extremely well established, within the context in which you will use it.

Take the example of driving. My stepdaughter is learning to drive at the moment, and the process of teaching somebody to drive is the process of instilling a whole set of best practices, and an entire suite of rules to follow. Drive on the left (in the UK), approach roundabouts in such and such a way, never cross a double white line, come to a complete halt at a stop junction, give way to oncoming traffic when the cars are parked your side of the road, and so on. The rules of the road are very well-defined and represent best practice for driving in the UK. The last thing you want is the new teenage driver thinking for themselves instead of “blindly following the recipe”. Now there are cases where this doesn’t apply. If you are Jenson Button, there may be times when it is valid for you to overtake on the inside. If you are in an emergency, perhaps you need to cross the double white lines, but in 99% of cases, for 99% of drivers, you would really like everyone to blindly follow best practice (including Mr Bean - see picture).

Where else may you see a similar situation? How about safely shutting down a chemical plant? If a good and safe “best practice” has been developed for plant shut down, you don’t want people thinking for themselves instead of following the best practice. How about food safety procedures in a food manufacturing plant? If a good, effective, safe and legislation-compliant “best practice” has been developed for eliminating contamination, you don’t want people thinking for themselves instead of following that best practice. There are many other examples, and we frequently see this in our Bird Island exercise where best practice has been firmly established over the past decade, and teams that follow best practice succeed, while teams that try to innovate, fail. Of course these best practices are only valid within their own context, and you would not take the rules of the road for the UK and apply them while driving in Paris (let alone in Cairo). But within their context, the practice is best and there is no point in everybody trying to be innovative.

I would refer you to my blog post and magazine article about the evolution of knowledge, and the various maturity stages that knowledge goes through. We can think of four main stages in knowledge evolution

One. The knowledge doesn’t exist yet, and the focus needs to be on Knowledge creation and innovation

Two. Knowledge is in its early stages of research and development. The focus is on finding any practice that will work consistently.

Three. The knowledge is in practice, but still evolving. The focus now is on developing a common view of current best practice among the community of practitioners, and always looking to innovate to make this better. The current best practice may be codified into documentation, which will always be open to change and improvement.

Four. The knowledge is well established and mature, with little scope for further evolution. The focus now is on following the best practice wherever it needs to be applied. There will be no changes to this best practice without careful management of change procedures, and the best practice can be codified into procedures, standards, and even into the operating systems of a factory or plant.

It is in this last case where best practices may be more important than people, and maybe more important than “thinking for yourself”. There is a time and a place for innovation, and a time and a place for following the recipe, and we need to recognise when and where these strategies apply.

Now where I do completely agree with David is where he says that in KM itself, there are no absolute best practices. Here knowledge ie evolving, we are in stage 3, and although there are current best practices, they can always be improved superceded. However despite the lack of Best Practices in KM, there may well be Best Principles.

Monday, 19 October 2009


learn what we can, improve the solutions, and pass them on


We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not unreasonable that we grapple with problems. But there are tens of thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we can, learn what we can, improve the solutions, and pass them on.
- Richard Feynman



Grapple with problems, learn what we can, improve the solutions, and pass them on.

An excellent summary of KM, but applied by one of the world's great thinkers, not to any one organisaiton but to the human race.


Cultural chicken, KM egg



Which comes first, KM or culture change?

We all know the two are linked, but do we change the culture first, then bring in KM? Or do we bring in KM, and then change the culture?

I have blogged recently about the nature of the culture change, and about the need to implement KM in a stepwise manner based on the demographics of engagement. But even in the early stages of implementation, you still have this chicken and egg problem -

Which comes first - KM or culture change?

And of course the answer is that, just like chickens and eggs, you can't separate them. They are part of a system.

One of the things that really works in your favour, is that the KM processes themselves (and I stress processes rather than technology - technology can eventually change culture, but it is far slower) are in themselves culture change agents. They promote openness; people will learn that ‘there is no comeback’ and questions will receive answers. They promote reflection, learning and a performance focus, through discussions on "What did we set out to achieve? What actually happened”. They promote a sense of community.

Peer Assists are a prime example. By giving people space and structure to exchange critical knowledge, and by making it legitimate to ask others for help, you not only create, in that meeting, a culture of openness and sharing, you also start to build a sense of community between the project team and the Peer Assisters.

Not just Peer Assist either. We were working several years ago at an industrial plant in the US, experimenting with introducing After Action review. We found that not only did the AARs identify many many opportunities to save time and money, they also started to change the mindset, as these quotes from the workforce demonstrate.

I thought I needed to be the expert and felt threatened at first. After a few AAR’s I felt comfortable that the guys appreciated using their ideas and we became a team (Supervisor)

Before the AAR, they didn’t feel like they were a team; After a few AAR’s they became one. (Boilermaker)

I have been doing this work for 20 years, and no one has ever asked me what I thought before; so it was a change. (Boilermaker)

We are now doing a Before action review in the mornings. (Supervisor)



Here's another quote, from a mine manager in Botswana, where we used AARs to radically improve some of his production processes, and deliver savings in the million-dollar range. However for him, there was something even more important than the money.

"The most important thing is the engagement of the people. The people who were involved in this, they actually feel that they are part of a team now. It's not the project team vs the contractor vs the end users - everybody is part of a single team now. And people are actually coming up with suggestions for implementation, and what makes it quite exciting is that people come up with very good suggestions, we implement it, they see the implementation of that, and they see the benefit afterwards, and so success breeds success".


That engagement, and that "success breeding success," was worth more to this manager than a million dollars, because it is the start of a new engaged performance-driven knowledge-enabled and knowledge-seeking culture that will deliver value for years to come.

Friday, 16 October 2009


Finding the people who know



phone_book
Originally uploaded by How can I recycle this
If you want to find a local tradesman, you use the Yellow Pages. Well, that’s not strictly true – very often you have your own network of tradespeople; a trusted plumber, a good builder, a gardener who knows the difference between a plant and a weed. But if you need someone out of the ordinary - outside your personal network - the Yellow Pages are invaluable.

But what if you are in an organization, and want to find an experienced practitioner to solve your business problem? Where are the corporate Yellow Pages? If you need someone with expertise outside your personal network, very often you have no means of finding them.

I was in Egypt this week, running a Knowledge Management training course for BP. One of the technologies I demonstrated to them as part of the course, was the BP in-house Yellow Pages known as Connect (now marketed by Addept ltd as SigmaConnect). Connect is a fabulous tool. This is a system for finding people with relevant experience, within a vast multinational company. We introduced it in 1998, when I was part of the BP KM team, and it’s been going strong ever since. It currently contains the details of over 43,000 BP employees, and that represents a huge body of knowledge. Connect works on three core principles

Firstly, it is entirely voluntary. Nobody forces you to enter your details – you do so because it improves your connectivity. This avoids some of the issues of data protection, and employee secrecy, as every detail in Connect is volunteered; the only exception being your email address and phone number, which are taken from the company phone book. And despite being voluntary, the majority of the computer-enabled staff have registered.

Secondly, it is a register of experience. It doesn’t look to identify the experts, but allows people to register those topics where they have experience. Knowledge is often very widely dispersed, and not always held by the experts. Connect lets you cast the net wide, when looking for help and advice; beyond the usual corporate suspects who will give you the usual corporate answers.

Thirdly it is a mix of structured and unstructured information. Connect exists in order to help you find people with expertise. So when you register your details, fields like Expertise and Location are selected from a pre-populated list. There is the option to add new topics to the list, but most people will choose those topics which most represent their experience. So if you are looking for someone with legal experience, for example, they will each have selected the “legal” tag. This contrasts with other systems such as MySpace (the personal pages section of SharePoint) where you type in the expertise and location yourself, rather than choosing from a list. So a lawyer in the Basingstoke Head Office might describe their expertise as Layer, Law, Legal, or Counsel, and their location as Head Office, HQ, Main Street, or Basingstoke.

Other fields in Connect are free form. You can also fill in a free text field to describe yourself however you like, which can be searched using a free text search. This is where you put in the more esoteric pieces of experience, that don’t sit on the list. For example I was teaching the same KM course in Trinidad a couple of years ago, demonstrating Connect, and I asked the class “Has anyone got a topic youi want me to search for?” A guy at the back called out “Microwave Towers”. He was putting a series of microwave towers in Trinidad to communicate with a remote base, and wanted to find others with experience in the company. So I did a free text search, and came up with one name, Stanley Patillo. So I said “There you go – someone else with experience” and he said “I AM Stanley Patillo”. Well, at least he knew there was nobody else to help him!

So how do people use this wonderful system? Firstly you can use it to identify people to invite to a Peer Assist. Peer Assist works best when you invite people with a broad diversity of experience, and Connect allows you to find people from all over the company, not just in your personal network. Secondly, you can build your own advisory panel. Identify the 20 people with the most relevant experience, and set up an email Q&A, a telephone conference, or an online chat. Finally you use it to develop your own profile, so people can start to use you as a source of experience, and so extend your reach and influence within the company.

When I asked the participants at the end of the course, what they though were the most useful KM tools in the BP KM toolbox, Connect was the one they all voted for. It’s simple, it’s elegant, and it allows you to find “the people who know”. I would recommend a similar Yellow Pages for any large dispersed organization where finding knowledgeable staff could be of value.

Thursday, 15 October 2009


A polarity of KM ideologies




Boston Squares are great. They are a way of taking apart a complex topic; pulling it on two separate axes to see if the consequent subdivision yields any insight. They are the management analyst’s exploration tool.

Here's one I put together while working on my new book, as a result of a conversation with Peter Kemper of Shell. Here we are looking at systems for Knowledge Management along two dimensions – Connect and Collect, and Formal and Informal. And by systems, I don’t just mean technology, I mean the processes, the roles and accountabilities, the technology, and the governance (if any).

I think the interesting thing about this set of quadrants is that the choices between connect and collect, and formal and informal, are often made more through emotion and assumption than through logic. After all - KM is all about connecting people, isn't it? We all know it's got to be informal and bottom up, don’t we? By definition, KM is about content and collection, surely? If knowledge management is to deliver value to an organisation, surely it has to be formalized?

The choice between formal and informal is an important one. We can take a formal system as being one with defined roles, defined expectations, defined technology and defined workflows. The system operates within a defined framework, or set of rules. An informal system, on the other hand, has few if any defined roles or expectations, and operates in an adhoc, unmanaged and bottom-up manner. This is perhaps the more emotive axis of the diagram – people tend to like formality or informality for ideological reasons, rather than because that's what the situation requires.

The KM system can also be driven through Connect, or through Collect; in other words, knowledge and lessons can stay tacit (Connect), or we can try to transfer knowledge through the use of recorded or written material (Collect). In a Connect system, we look at building networks of people who seek and share knowledge through dialogue and conversation. In a Connect system, the transfer of learning and knowledge involves externalisation, combination and internalisation. It involves the creation of artefacts from which others can learn.

As the Figure shows, the interplay of connect/collect and formal/informal gives four quadrants, which can represent four end-member choices for a lesson learning system.

Formal Collect
The formal collection quadrant is where a company has an organized and managed system for the collection of new knowledge. This quadrant is the home of learning systems such as lessons databases. Perhaps the type examples of these come from the military sector and from aerospace, where databases such as the NASA lessons database form the technology hub for a rigorous and formal system of lessons identification, action assignment, and lesson tracking and reporting. Formal databases have the great advantage that it is easy to track, find, sort and group lessons and new knowledge. Each lesson is a single learning opportunity, and can be tracked through to implementation of the learning into new training or improved processes. The issues of “follow-through” can be effectively addressed with a formal collection system. Also the ability to track lessons, and to report statistics such as the total value of lessons, makes it easy to apply good governance. The Ford BPR system, for example, was a formal collection system, with kept a running total of the value delivered through Best Practice Replication. The disadvantages with such a system are that people find it frustrating or difficult to fill in forms. In conversation with Peter Kemper of Shell, he provided some strong arguments about the challenge of allowing for creativity while still allowing consistency in lessons capture. These lessons databases can be challenging to enter content, taking time and effort to add metadata, but are easier for retrieving and tracking content. Their natural home will be in organisations, such as the military, where the consequences of failing to learn can mean lost lives as well as massive lost financial value. Here learning is too important to remain informal. Also they may be necessary in organisations which need to be able to prove learning. Industrial private sector companies may open to prosecution on grounds of negligence if accidents recur due to a lack of learning systems, and so may need a system formal enough to ensure the ability to prove that safety lessons have been distributed to all who need to see them.

Informal Collection

At the other end of the formality scale are the voluntary, ad-hoc and self-organising community approaches such as Wikipedia. The Wikipedia model has sometimes been suggested as a model for sharing knowledge in a large organization, allowing wisdom to spontaneously emerge from crowds. The great advantage of wiki technology is that it is extremely easy to enter basic content, and a little experience allows you to add a richness of multimedia content as well. If you are motivated to publish, open Wikis such as Wikipedia offer very little barrier, and the crowd can be expected to edit as well as source material. However there are drawbacks with the informal Wikipedia model. The 90:9:1 rule tells us that voluntary wikis draw on only about 2% -3% of available knowledge, and all submissions in the Wikipedia model are voluntary and adhoc. So unless there is a huge user base and massive redundancy or overlap in knowledge, there is a real risk that crucial knowledge may never enter the system. Also there is no guarantee that lessons and knowledge, even if they do enter the system, will find their way to the user who needs them. With ad hoc entry and ad hoc retrieval, learning becomes a matter of chance. A wikipedia approach may be ideal where learning is complex and tacit and needs creative expression, while the risk and cost associated with not learning is low enough that closing the learning loop can be left ad-hoc.

Formal Connect
Formal connect-based systems are the formal networks, expert locators and virtual teams, which allow members use each other as a resource and repository of unwritten knowledge. Here knowledge exchange is through dialogue, accomplished within a formal network of people or during formal meetings such as Peer Assists. Anglo American, the global mining organisation, has run a system called Ask Anglo, where queries and requests for knowledge can be submitted online, and are then routed (based on topic) to the relevant company expert. In BP, formal networks are developed to steward knowledge on topics of strategic important to the company, each network having a budget, a leader, a sponsor, and a defined core team. Formal Connect systems are ideal for sharing knowledge and lessons in areas of complex or context-sepcific need, for one-off requests, and for topics which are rapidly changing, and where new problems are being regularly identified. They are less appropriate where processes are becoming better defined and more standardized, and where knowledge exchange is more routine.

Informal Connect
The fourth quadrant represents the informal Connect-based systems. Examples here can be found in the social networks found on the Internet, such as LinkedIn and Facebook. Here is the extreme of informality, where discussion groups emerge from bottom-up interest, allowing questions to be asked and answers to be given. The appeal of these systems is their extreme informality and ease of use, and the introduction of systems such as these can help to develop a more open discussion-oriented culture in an organisation. The disadvantage is the great difficulty in ensuring the right questions are asked in the first place, and then in making sure they are answered by someone with valid lessons and experience to offer. Many online discussions can end up as an exchange of opinions among a random grouping, rather than an effective trawl for experience; more gossip than knowledge exchange. Such informal Connect-based systems are ideal for beginning a culture change, but do not support a systematic approach to knowledge sharing.

A blended approach
As far as Connect and Collect are concerned, I firmly believe that the answer is “Both/And” rather than either/or. Any complete Knowledge Management or Lessons Learned system needs a blend of Connect and Collect, running both approaches in parallel. They need to be cross-linked of course, and the communities or networks can take accountability for some of the Collection, as well as the Connection.
As far as informal/formal is concerned, the answer is to find the right balance. Not a blend, but a balance. In any one company, for any one topic, to run formal and informal systems in parallel would be to confuse the user, and often to undermine one or other of the two - “I know that’s what it says in the official process, but what is the word on the street?” There is no value to anyone if the word on the street and the official line diverge; which would you believe?

The formal/informal balance on the Connect side is found in the communities of practice, where a community will develop (or be given) a level of formality which suits their need and purpose. On the Collect side, Shell have arrived at a semi-formal Wiki-based approach with an informal structure, but entry drawn from formal reports, and with the use of dedicated back-office support. This currently runs in parallel with their formal database, and plans are in place to investigate merging the two, to deliver the best of both. Similarly the US Army, a long time user of formal push systems, is now experimenting with wikis as a way to build process documents, or “Doctrine”.

So what do we learn from all this? Is there a conclusion to draw? Maybe the conclusion is to recognize that some of the polarity we seem to see (such as the KM/social media tension referred to by Luis Suarez) is more about where you start from, and what your ideologies are, then about the nature of KM. Social Networking views of KM are on the opposite side of the diagram from the Formal Content view, and neither is representative of the whole. Both need to recognize that they are part of a spectrum rather than the Whole of the Topic.

Monday, 12 October 2009


in defence of the K word - stop apologising!





Not Sorry
Originally uploaded by Poldavo (Alex)
I wrote this little polemic a while back in defence of the M word. Now here's a blog post in defence of the K word.

In this post "It's time for KM to come out of the closet", French Caldwell says

"A lot of KM professionals though have not been getting the love for a long time. Between the collapse of the tech bubble in 2001 and the economic collapse of 2008 they went into hiding — changing the names of their programs and projects — so they talk now about social networking, instead of tacit knowledge, or about being information-centric, instead of knowledge-centric.

All of us in the IT industry, whether we are vendors, service providers or users of IT, should quit avoiding the K-word. Alignment of information to business needs is job one, and KM is the strategic discipline for putting the right focus on that alignment. It is the most strategically valuable information risk management tool that is available to CIOs and other business leaders. For all those KM professionals, like me, who have been in the closet for the last eight years, in these tough economic times our organizations need us now more than ever — let’s bring KM into the light again".



Well, he's right.* We need the K word, and we need the M word.

I remember taking part in a discussion session in a KM Summit in Amsterdam back in 2004, with Jo Singel and David Gurteen, where one of our premises was "stop being apologetic about KM". Things have changed only for the worse in the intervening 5 years, and people have become, if anything, even more apologetic.

I am passionate about Knowledge Management.

I see knowledge as the last great untapped corporate resource, and knowledge management as the last great unaddressed management discipline.

Knowledge Management is the only thing that will deliver continuous performance improvement in a sustained way. Knowledge Management can deliver hundreds of millions of dollars in value. KM can cut project costs by 40% - I have seen it happen.

Is that anything to be apologetic about?

I don't think so!

* So long as we continue to be clear on the difference between IM and KM.

Saturday, 10 October 2009


The KM culture change


To illustrate this post about the nature of the KM culture change, I have recorded another YouTube video



Culture has been a theme of many posts to this blog - click on "Culture" in the Labels section to the right, to view some of them.

Friday, 9 October 2009


100 ways to wreck organisational lesson-learning



Train wreck, 1922
Originally uploaded by bobster855
This week I have been hard at work on my new book, the Lesson Learned handbook. I have already written several chapters on how an organisation can learn lessons from the past, and embed them to improve future performance. I've written about the success factors, the things you have to get right, the processes, the technologies and the accountabilities.

In the final chapter, I wanted to try something different. I wanted to turn it all upside down, and look at how not to learn lessons. I wanted to come up with a list of ways in which you could hinder, spoil or wreck a lesson-learning system.

I found 100 ways! Let me know if you can find more.


If you follow any of the advice in the list below, you will hinder lesson learning.

If you follow all of the advice, you need never learn a lesson again!

1. Learn only from mistakes. Why learn from success? You know you’ll never repeat it! And if you learn only from mistakes, you will associate "Lesson learning" with failure, with error, and with awkward conversations with management, which will be enough to tarnish the concept forever.

2. Don’t schedule lesson capture as part of the work cycle, just react to events in an ad hoc manner. That way you can miss many of the key lessons from projects that delivered as expected. After all, nobody minds if progress reporting or budget management is ad hoc, so why would they mind about lesson learning?

3. If you schedule the lessons capture late enough in a project, the project team will have disbanded and you won’t have to do it at all.

4. If you do have to schedule lesson capture, then don’t use an established process for this, and don’t give people any guidance on how to do it. It’s much more fun if they have to make up for themselves.

5. For significant projects involving a large number of people, allow no more than half an hour, once a year, for lessons capture. Any more than this would just mean getting into detail.

6. If the five questions of the after action review are OK for learning from a short task, then surely they are OK for learning from a complex multi-million dollar ten-year project as well. Why complicate your learning?

7. If you are holding a lessons-capture meeting for a project, and there is a similar project is starting up soon, then you need to ensure that nobody from the similar project is invited to the meeting. They would get too excited, and so spoil the atmosphere of calm disinterested detachment.

8. Ideally, allow people to identify lessons themselves, rather than discussing them through dialogue or at a meeting. That way you will be sure to stay at the superficial level, and never capture the “deep lessons”.

9. This will definitely be the case if you give them no guidance or template; just a blank sheet of paper to fill in.

10. Don’t involve the whole team in lessons capture. In fact, why involve any of the team? The project manager or team leader can identify the lessons, and that way you can be sure to get a one sided view of things.

11. Avoid the use of a facilitator for lessons capture meetings. They would only end up challenging the team, and asking awkward questions, which would make it very difficult to avoid getting at the truth

12. At the lessons capture meeting, allow random conversation. It’s much more fun to let conversation wander rather than homing in on specific learning points.

13. If you have to interject with questions, ask closed questions in order to get minimal answers.

14. Whatever you do, don’t ask any questions about what should be done in the future. Stick with talking about the past, it’s much safer.

15. Combine your lesson capture processes with personal performance assessment, and assignment of praise and blame. This will really cause people to clam up.

16. Don’t base your lessons capture on solid performance data. Why analyse facts, when it’s much more fun to collect opinions?

17. Don’t relate your learning review to the original objectives and deliverables of the project. It’s much more fun to reinvent history.

18. Root cause analysis is just too difficult and too awkward. Stick with the superficial high level things, and you will get your meeting over with much more quickly.

19. Don’t assign any roles and responsibilities for lessons identification and capture. It’s much better if everybody thinks it somebody else’s job.

20. If you’re collecting lessons from an individual, don’t brief them in advance. Surprise them, it’s much more fun.

21. Also don’t do any preparation yourself, to familiarise yourself with the interviewee; you’ll find out about them during the interview so why bother to brief yourself beforehand.

22. Don’t record the interview. I’m sure you can write fast enough to document everything.

23. And if you have to record, don’t have a backup recorder, because those things never fail and batteries never go flat.

24. One sheet of A4 paper should be big enough to write notes a 2 hour interview.

25. Let the interviewee ramble as much as he/she likes; you can catch up on some sleep.

26. Don’t follow up on the interview by requesting additional material; they may have mentioned some crucial documents but nobody else will want to read them.

27. Evaluations and assessments should never be systematic or objective, but constructed from ad hoc opinion. I mean, who’s going to take any notice of them anyway?

28. Once you’ve collected the evaluation data, feel free to make value judgments, but avoid learning points at all costs. If the team learns enough from your evaluation to be successful, they may never need evaluations in future and you will be out of a job.

29. Don’t separate out unique single lessons; combine all your lessons from one project into a single document. That will make it really hard for people to find them in future.

30. Document your lessons at the back of individual project reports. That way people can’t find them without reading the reports from every single project.

31. And if you can hide them on the library shelf, even better.

32. Make your lessons as generic as possible. Aim For motherhood statements. Everybody loves these - they sound so wise, but teach you so little.

33. Use fuzzy phrases like “do it better” or “do it earlier” rather than actually giving specific advice. The reader of the lesson will be thoroughly confused.

34. Don’t give lessons any consistent structure, it makes them too easy to follow.

35. Lessons should be supplied devoid of context, making it an exciting intellectual exercise for the reader to see whether it’s applicable to him or her.

36. Unless, of course, it is a very simple lesson that can be explained in a diagram a photograph, or a few lines of text. In this case, you may want to write a 50-page article.

37. In fact the best way to record lessons is as bullet point phrases. Aim for three words or less. A lesson such as “Improved contracting process” is so terse and economical, it’s almost like a haiku or a Zen koan. Something to meditate on.

38. Alternatively, instead of lessons, why not just write a little history of what happened with no moral, no conclusion, and no learning points? Leave it up to the reader to try to guess what they should do as a result

39. Even better, just tell a pointless story with no message. People will enjoy listening, and go away none the wiser.

40. When writing your lessons, it’s best not to have a particular reader in mind. It may be an engineering lesson, but perhaps an Archbishop or a ballet dancer may want to read it one day, so avoid using engineering language, and avoid explaining it in ways that an engineer can follow.

41. In fact, it’s best to make your lessons as difficult to follow as possible. If people spent all their time learning from your lessons, you would deprive them of the excitement of having to make the mistakes all over again.

42. Don’t write down the originator of the lesson, the date of the event, or the value of the lesson. That would just make it far too easy for people to know which lessons were important and recent, and who to go to for more information.

43. If a picture tells 1000 words, then why not just write 1000 words rather than attaching a picture to your lesson?

44. Never under any circumstances set up a system of quality assurance for identified lessons; this would put the “garbage in garbage out” principle at grave risk.

45. Never assign actions to lessons, it spoils the chance for the organisation to learn the lessons all over again. And again. And again. Actions just lead to change, change leads to improvement, and improvements threaten our comfortable mediocrity.

46. If there are any actions, they should only ever be of one sort; “circulate this lesson for information”. Certainly don’t require anybody to change anything.

47. You can avoid having to change things if you don’t make anybody accountable for the actions.

48. You can postpone change indefinitely if the actions have no closure date.

49. Any actions should be assigned by the most junior person present, especially if they are difficult or contentious actions. This will make them much easier to ignore, and much harder for people to treat them seriously.

50. You can avoid much of the risk of learning if your organization has no process owners for the major processes. If nobody owns any of the processes, then nobody can change them, and they will stay as inefficient as they have always been.

51. If there are process owners, then keep their job description as vague as possible and make sure it includes nothing about updating or improving the processes, as this would give them far too much work to do.

52. Process owners should have no expertise in the topic, should not be members of any community of practice, and should have no technical authority.

53. As a process matures, it’s important to keep the same process owner. It makes sense for completely mature processes to be owned by research and development, seeing as they probably invented them in the first place.

54. If you can disengage the process owner from the lessons learning cycle, then with any luck they will never be notified of the lessons in the first place. Certainly avoid any workflow which might push lessons (and work) their way.

55. See if you can avoid a validation step for lessons. I am sure every suggested change is equally valid, and if you spend enough time on trivia, the important lessons may be lost.

56. Avoid Management of Change procedures as well. Live dangerously - change your processes on a whim, and hang the consequence.

57. All process documents should be given equal weight. See if people can work out for themselves whether they are a mandatory company standard, or somebody’s bright idea.

58. Much fun can be had in choosing how to document a process or best practice. Simple principles like giving the reader all of the detail all at once, with no logical structure, with no context or high level summary, in dense text, with no pictures, audio or video, can create masterpieces of incomprehensibility.

59. Then store your process guides and best practices somewhere that the user will not find them. Give them misleading names, and hide them in an obscure branch of the folder structure on a remote file server. After all, everybody likes a game of hide and seek, especially when they are urgently searching for useful lessons.

60. Don’t date your documents - let people try and guess which is the most recent version.

61. Don’t tell anybody when processes have been updated, this would spoil the surprise.

62. If you have a blog at work, this is a great way of telling people about your holiday, and sharing the latest jokes. It would be far too boring to use it for sharing lessons and process updates.

63. The same is true for newsletters. They should only be used for staff announcements, and pictures from the Christmas party.

64. The training department have got their own budgets and their own staff - let them work out what has changed and what hasn’t. It’s not your job to make sure that training reflects the most recent lessons.

65. It’s best to avoid any review of lessons at the start of a piece of work. Just jump straight in and make it up as you go along. You will need the time later on, for coping with all the repeat mistakes that you will inevitably make.

66. A company lessons database is a complete waste of money. Why spend 10 minutes searching a database at your desk, when you could spend a leisurely 2 hours in the library (and still not find the lessons that you know are there somewhere).

67. If you are forced to invest in a database, then certainly don’t spend any time developing a taxonomy. Just file the lessons any way you want. Filing them by the last letter of the project managers surname is quite an interesting approach.

68. The lessons input form for the database should be just one single text box, to allow the maximum of free form creativity, and to eliminate any opportunities for tiresome sorting and searching.

69. In fact, why not eliminate the functionalities for sorting and searching?

70. And don’t introduce any push functionality, as it would embarrass the process owner to be notified of new lessons.

71. A knowledge library is a very bad idea, making it far too easy for people to find things. In my day we had to search through piles of reports to find everything, why should kids nowadays have it any easier? So no portals please.

72. And no search either, thank you very much.

73. As for wikis, I can see no reason why anybody should be allowed to comment on documents, processes or best practices. You lot out there should be applying the processes, not commenting on them, so just get on with your work.

74. Having completely sabotaged the formal lesson learning system, we really don’t want people to run any risk of identifying lessons informally. Therefore all attempts at setting of communities of practice should be avoided.

75. Any communities to do exist should not be provided with any way of finding each other, of asking questions, of storing knowledge, or of meeting or discussing anything. Give them the bare minimum of tools.

76. The community leader role should be given to the most autocratic technical expert. He or she can be relied upon to rule the community with an iron fist.

77. Choose communities to cover topics which nobody identifies with. Choose topics which people do rarely, and don’t like doing. An Income Tax Return community of practice, for example, will be inactive for most of the year and then spend a
couple of weeks complaining and grumbling together.

78. It’s best if your communities are very small. Big communities are too useful and contain too much knowledge. 20 people should be your upper limit.

79. If you can disempower your community, so much the better. There is no risk in them sharing lessons with each other, if they are not empowered to use the lessons they find.

80. Try and avoid giving your project staff the opportunity to learn from others at the start of their project. Processes such as peer assist give a project an unfair advantage, and should be discouraged.

81. If, by some mistake, a peer assist is scheduled, then make sure its objectives are unclear, that its focus is on criticism and critique, that it is attended only by managers who are senior enough to be scary, and that you have no facilitator.

82. Similarly avoid giving your project staff the opportunity to pass lessons on to subsequent projects. Processes such as baton passing and knowledge handover are also unfair, giving the subsequent projects a much greater chance of succeeding. Why should they be given an advantage? Why shouldn’t they start from a position of ignorance just like the rest of us had to? Failure is good for you.

83. You can clamp down on ad hoc learning by careful design of your surroundings. Give people individual offices, it gives them a great excuse not to interact.

84. Remove any communal areas. People can drink coffee at their desks, with door securely shut.

85. Remove any yellow pages, telephone directories, or any other temptation for people to call others and ask for their lessons.

86. Clampdown on any online conversation or social software. People are not paid to talk to each other, they are paid to sit there and work, so make sure they have no distractions.

87. There is a lot you can do to discourage lesson learning with the help of senior management. They can start by making their expectations for lesson learning very unclear. If nobody is clear what they should be doing, then most of the time they will do nothing.

88. You can set the expectation for lesson-learning too high, or too low. For example, ask a busy project to spend half an hour every day discussing and identifying lessons. Alternatively, require your most major projects to identify lessons only at the end of the project, no matter how many years they take.

89. Even if a senior management have set expectations, they can undermine these by not taking them seriously. Make sure they allow projects to continue without having done required learning, or allow projects to close without having identified their lessons.

90. Ask them to set priorities that over-rule lesson learning. People will soon realise a Retrospect is not valued, if it is consistently postponed to make room for another slide presentation to the chairman’s sister.

91. If senior managers are required to take part in any lesson identification meeting or process, ask them to decline.

92. There should be no clear chains of accountability for learning, neither within the business delivery organisation, nor within the supporting functions. This would just make it too easy for people to know what to do.

93. Never describe your learning system in simple terms. Don’t call it “learning lessons”, call it “quasi-experiential pedagogy”. Call it “knowledge gardening”. Call it “Enterprise 3.5”. Confuse people! They love a good buzzword!

94. If there is a central support team for lesson learning, disband it immediately. If nobody supports learning, they will gradually fade away over time.

95. As well as disbanding the support team, cancel any training for lesson identification and learning. We can’t have people who are actually skilled in the technologies and processes, just in case they manage to sneak a lesson through the system.

96. In fact, don’t have any training or awareness or roll-out for your learning approach. People will finder it harder to get value if they don’t understand the complete learning cycle.

97. Don’t monitor or measure learning activities. If it’s not measured, it can’t be managed, and if people know they are not monitored, they will take short cuts, or avoid learning entirely.

98. Even if you do monitor and measure, then for heaven’s sake don’t link this to any performance management incentives, or to any rewards for recognition. If people know they can avoid lesson-learning activity with no penalty, they spend their time doing other things they are actually rewarded for.

99. Learning metrics need to be kept secret. If senior management saw them, the people who aren’t complying with the learning expectations might get embarrassed.

100. If you want to reward people, then reward them for putting lessons into the lessons database. Pay them for each lesson. That way they will know that lesson learning is not part of normal paid work, but has to be incentivised separately. Also you will swamp the database with poor quality lessons, and when the reward is eventually removed, lessons identification will stop completely.

Thursday, 8 October 2009


YouTube video - KM and culture change


Following my blog post on the topic of the demographics of KM support, I thought I would record a YouTube video on the subject. It's a long one - 9 minutes - but there turned out to be a lot to say!

Tuesday, 6 October 2009


KM is dead? Two wrongs make a right




Here's a quote from a this blog, which I instinctively disagreed with on first reading.

“Knowledge Management” is dead. It’s dead because it views knowledge as a discrete product and not a two-way relationship of continuous updates.


My disagreement was with both “Knowledge Management is dead", and "it views knowledge as a discrete product and not a two-way relationship of continuous updates".

Both of these are wrong. KM is not dead, and effective KM does not view knowledge as a discrete product.

But then I realised - if you put them together, they are right. Two wrongs make a right. All you have to do, is change one word, and you get the following true statement.

“Knowledge Management” is dead whenever it views knowledge as a discrete product and not a two-way relationship of continuous updates.


Autumn newsletter




Signs of autumn
Originally uploaded by
Richard0
The Knoco autumn newsletter is available from our news page

The theme this month is "Implementing Knowledge Management"

And yes, we know that for many of you, it's springtime! But here in the UK it's definitely Autumn


Liberty without learning


To continue my series of posts based on the JFK quote on liberty and learning

If you remember, the quote said

"Liberty without learning is always in peril; learning without liberty is always in vain".
- John F. Kennedy


What about the first part? Presumably JFK was meaning that if a country or a people has freedom, but does not understand that freedom or the reasons behind it, that that freedom could be easily lost.

If we put this quote into the context of organisational learning, and look at the freedom of decision making, then we get a different conclusion.

Imagine an organisation, with people empowered to make decisions. Imagine no system for organisational learning. So in terms of Nancy Dixon's four steps for organisational learning, below, we have step 4, but steps 1 through 3 are missing. What then?

1. Widespread generation of information
2. Integration of new/local information into the organisational context
3. Collective interpretation of information
4. Having authority to take responsible action based on the interpreted meaning.


Then, I would suggest, you have anarchy and fragmentation. You also are putting people in a very scary position, asking them to make decisions without a mechanism for supplying them with the knowledge to make the correct decisions. People end up "making it up as they go". And if they are good people, they make up a good answer, but it may not be the best answer.

You see this sometimes in conservative project-based organisations. They hire very experienced project managers, and each project manager is empowered to manage the project their own way, in their own style, with their own reporting systems, often using their personal library of project management tools. Each will deliver the project based on their personal experience. And in the worst case, they end up repeating the way they have managed projects for the past 20 years. So instead of 20 years experience, they have one year, repeated 20 teims.

Imagine if you could pool that experience. Imagine if the project managers could learn from each other. Imagine if their teams could learn from each other. Imagine if you could add learning to the empowerment. Imagine what a powerful mix that would be.

In an organizational contest, liberty without learning is inefficiency, it is fragmentation, and at its worst, it is anarchy.

Monday, 5 October 2009


Knoco franchise in Indonesia



We are very pleased today to announce the birth of a new franchise – Knoco Indonesia. The Indonesian KM and IT company P.T. Mitra Tri Atma will be acting to deliver Knoco products and services in Indonesia.

We welcome P.T. Mitra Tri Atma to the growing Knoco family, and look forward to growing and serving the Indonesian KM market together.

Here's a picture of me and Rayanti Binawan signing the agreement, in an Airport hotel in Amsterdam.

Here's our Franchisee page


Learning without liberty (2)



Miss Liberty
Originally uploaded by laverrue
I was reading Nancy Dixon's book "The Organizational Learning Cycle (how we can learn collectively)" over the weekend, and Nancy's 4 principal components of Organisational learning struck a chord. They are

1. Widespread generation of information
2. Integration of new/local information into the organisational context
3. Collective interpretation of information
4. Having authority to take responsible action based on the interpreted meaning.


By "widespread generation", Nancy means that "the generation of information needs to be the responsibility of all members of the organization, rather than leaving those tasks to specialized functions such as R&D or customer service". So this is very much a view of learning that includes everyone in the organisation.

However point 4 is as important as points 1 through 3, and brings me back to my post from last week on "Learning without liberty", based on a JFK quote.

A learning organisation must empower* people to change what they do, based on what they have learned. In disempowered organisation, producing and integrating new learning only leads to frustration, if you cannot take action. I have seen this most clearly in the public sector, where staff at low levels can be very aware of learning, and the need to take change, but are blocked from taking action by either a lack of a route to escalate the need for change, or by conservatism (or by the political considerations) from overlying hierarchy.

To mix Nancy Dixon and John F Kennedy, we can conclude

"Learning without having that authority to take responsible action based on the interpreted meaning, is always in vain"


JKFs quote was punchier, Nancy puts the quote into an organisational learning context.

*(Also note that Empowerment is one of the four cultural elements in my OPEC acronym)

Saturday, 3 October 2009


my book in Japanese


I have just received from my publisher a copy of my book "Knowledge Management for Teams and Projects" which has been translated into Japanese.

Well, I assume it's my book!

And I assume it's Japanese! And I hope this image shows the title.

Other than a fading facility with Norwegian, I am afraid my language skills are not great :o(

Friday, 2 October 2009


KM in law firms - the impact of new billing structures





Drive Thru LAWYER !
Originally uploaded by brookenovak
Mary Abraham's, in her excellent Legal KM blog, has just delivered a series of posts on new billing structures, and how they will impact the work of the lawyers (see here, here and here).

She concludes, in a report on ILTA’s "Using Technology to Manage Costs, Increase Profitability and Support Billable Hour Alternatives" session, that "bare discounts are going to have a negative effect on a law firm’s profitability unless that firm significantly trims its costs of delivering legal services"

The session, with it's focus on technology, went on to list various technologies which they feel can help cost reduction, including search, blogs, wikis etc.

Now internal cost reduction has been a KM focus for years and years, for very many industries - automotive, oil and gas, manufacturing. Ford, with it's $1.25 billion cost reduction through BPR, BP with it's $260 m in a single year, Chevron with its $2 billion in 7 years, Texas Instruments with its "free fabrication plant"; all focused on internal cost reduction.

KM methods to address these costs have not been purely technological. Simple processes such as After Action reviews, Peer Assists, Quality Circles, communities of practice, Lean manufacturing and the like have been very effective in reducing internal production costs. Shell's Technical Limit process regularly reduces drilling costs by 40%, for example. In each case, technology goes hand in hand with process, with accountability, and with governance - the complete holistic KM model.

Perhaps now is the time to rethink KM in legal firms, focusing not just on technology, but also on process and on roles and accountabilities; focusing not just on improving content to clients, but on radically reducing the cost of the internal workings of the firm as well. This is a time of huge opportunity for the first legal firm that can revolutionise internal process using KM, in the same way that other sectors did a decade ago. It won't be easy - it certainly won't be as simple as buying a better search engine or setting up a wiki - but there is enough history from successful KM implementations that it should be possible to get it right.

The prize will be to become the first legal firm to offer big discounts to its clients, without hurting the profits for its partners.

Blog Archive