When not to bother with KM – the corollary to the business driver

---

There has been a very interesting conversation going on in Linked-in, started by Samraj. Samraj was asking about change management strategies where the leadership of the organisation has no wish to change.

It seems that Samraj is interested in introducing knowledge management to an organisation where senior management don’t see any need for it. The organisation is a niche player in a lucrative market, and seems to be making loads of money. According to Samraj, the senior and middle management want to continue as they are, and have no interest in change at the moment.

Putting to one side the issue of change management in such a situation, and putting to the other side the medium to longer term risk that Samraj recognises at the company (many of the key people who understand the business are due to retire shortly, and the company’s leading position may be at risk as their knowledge is lost), it left me with the question, are there cases where introducing Knowledge Management may be the wrong thing to do?

I have argued strongly in the past for Knowledge Management to be business-driven, and to be introduced as a solution to specific business needs; for Knowledge Management to be a strategic business support tool. But what if there is no business need? What if the inefficiencies of poor KM are a cost the company can well afford to bear? What if the company is working in a mode of “It works – let’s not mess with it”?

I would argue that in these cases, don’t bother with KM.

I know that this will be anathema to many of the evangelists, but my principle remains that Knowledge Management should never be introduced for its own sake, but to solve business problems.

Larry Prusak once told me “There is only one thing that gives you sustainable competitive advantage – what you know, how you use what you know, and how fast you can know something new. Unless you have an irregularity in the economy such as a monopoly, there is nothing else that is sustainable”.

Samraj’s company is in that “irregularity in the economy” zone, and knowledge management is not (at the moment) providing them with sustainable competitive advantage. The competitors cannot access the knowledge, knowledge easily and they may not be able to push in the resources to create this knowledge . So my primary advice to Samraj is – Don’t Bother with KM right now.

Don’t bother introducing Knowledge Management now, when the leadership see no need, and when the change involved in introducing KM could be a distraction; could “rock the boat”.

Instead, work with middle and senior management to understand the magnitude of the knowledge retention risk. Then if they accept the risk, then develop a strategy to address it, introducing the right tools, processes and roles at the right time to address the risk. Make KM a business-driven response to a strategic risk, rather than an unwanted skunk-works developed against a background of management apathy and resistance.

Speaking to the unknown user

---

Unknown
Originally uploaded by Salman Al-Salman

One of the biggest challenges that faces knowledge management, and that is the challenge of awareness, or consciousness. Knowledge is derived from action and experience, but most of it remains unconscious. We learn, we are able to do things better, but we are often not aware of what we have learnt. We do not know what we know. The tools and techniques we have developed and applied in Knoco for capturing knowledge, are specifically designed to get at the unconscious knowledge. By applying these techniques, we can make knowledge conscious, and then if we need to capture it, we populate our knowledge banks with quality knowledge.

However the other side of the coin is that the customer for the knowledge, the future user of the knowledge, is unaware of what she needs to know. She does not know (or is not aware) what she does not know. You cannot rely on her interrogating a database to find the knowledge she needs, when she is blissfully unaware of what she needs. She could not search for it, as she does not know what to search for. She doesn't know which tags to look for, she may not know which sites to visit or RSS feeds to join. The knowledge she needs has to be presented to her in a structured form, so she can learn what she needs to know. It needs not just to be findable and usable, it needs to guide and lead the user as well.

The way in which knowledge is stored in the knowledge bank is crucial. If it is not user focused - if it does not give the future knowledge user what you are sure she needs to know, rather than what she thinks she wants to know - then the real knowledge does not get transferred, and so does not get applied.

So think through - who might need this knowledge in future? How can we lead them to understand it? How can we give them the overview as well as the depth? How can we show this unknown user the things they don't realise that they don't know?

Knowledge and Power

---

I've Got the Power
Originally uploaded by C.P.Storm

An interesting discussion on Knowledge and Power on Linked-In, led by a question from Akin Oni, who asked, Is knowledge really power, or is effective application of knowledge power?

My initial thought was that in Physics, Power is the ability to do Work, while in Business, Knowledge is the ability to take effective action. To that extent, Knowledge gives you Power. You may not use the power until you effectively apply the knowledge, but you have the power, as you have the ability to act effectively.

Alan O'Neill took the conversation in the direction of knowledge hoarders, talking about people who use knowledge for personal power, claiming that "I believe that if someone doesn't share Knowledge they become a liability; if you think about it, if one individual has all of the key knowledge about a particular feature, product, technology or process and won't share it - What happens if they leave, or worse still drop dead? That Knowledge is lost! At best it is going to cost the company money to recreate the knowledge and introduce time delays whilst recreating the knowledge"

This harks back to my blog post on the KM culture shift, which involves the shift within the organisation from "knowledge is personal power" (which is what drives the knowledge hoarding that Alan describes) to "shared knowledge is organisational power"

Akin then asked, how would you define power in this context?


I believe that in the work context, power is the ability to gain advantage!

So someone who hoards knowledge gains advantage over those who don't, and a company who's staff share and re-use knowledge gains advantage over competitors who don't. That's where the power lies.

Shared knowledge, shared power, shared advantage.

Frozen pizzas of knowledge

---

frozen pizza
Originally uploaded by scottfeldstein

When I worked in the BP KM team, our concept of the structure of our "knowledge bank" or "knowledge base" evolved through time, through a process of trial and error. I shall describe three knowledge bank models, and illustrate them with the analogy of going to the shops to get the ingredients for a pizza.

Imagine ‘going to the shops so we can have pizza for supper’ as an analogy for ‘going to the knowledge bank so I can find knowledge to help my project’.

The first knowledge bank model we experimented with, I shall call the ‘Teenager’s bedroom’ model. This is a model where you dump everything in an unstructured bank, and rely on a good search engine, and/or good metadata tagging, to be able to find it again. It is like my son’s bedroom used to be; he knew where everything was - it was all on the floor! He could search through the pile of stuff and find what he needed - eventually. In the shopping analogy, this is like our grandparents going to an old-fashioned grocers store, with sacks all round the walls, and hams and salami hanging from the ceiling. If you want the ingredients for a pizza, you ask the grocer (the ‘search engine’) and he finds them for you. You go home and make the pizza. Those of us who have tried searching a poorly structured file server know how frustrating this model can be, and you will never find the things that you don't know to ask for - the things you don't know you need to know.

The second knowledge bank model is one of storing the knowledge in some sort of framework. However it is hard to create a framework which has longevity, and which can be understood by all users. In the shopping analogy, this is like the supermarkets our parents went to. Everything is on shelves, and when you get to know the supermarket, you know where to find the flour, the olive oil, the canned tomatoes, and the mozzarella. The drawbacks of this model are that the onus is still on the user, the shopper, to find the ingredients. If you don't know your way around the shop, or the knowledge bank, it is easy to become frustrated, and if the items are moved from one shelf to another, you need to search the whole store again. People generally will not look for knowledge for very long, and if they don't find it quickly, they will reinvent it. And once again, you never find the things you don’t look for. SharePoint can suffer from this - an uncontrolled SharePoint roll-out can result in a thousand new silos; like the thousand shelves of an unknown supermarket.

The third model is one where the knowledge is pre-packed for the benefit of the end user. The knowledge bank then contains a whole set of bundled and packaged units of knowledge; units that in Knoco we call ‘Knowledge Assets’. Each knowledge asset is designed to give the ‘knowledge customer;’ everything they need to be fully briefed before their project. In the shopping analogy, this is like you or I shopping for a pizza for supper. We will go to the supermarket, head for the freezer counter, and pick out a frozen pizza, already prepared. Or perhaps we will place an order by phone and have a pizza delivered to our front door. This third model, where the knowledge bank is full of pre-packaged knowledge (perhaps in the form of a well structured wiki), we have found to be far and away the most effective. It places the onus on the creators of the knowledge to do the packaging (and the Retrospect process leads naturally to packaged knowledge) so the knowledge user is given what they need to know, whether they are aware of that need or not.

The reason you have to do all the work for the user - all the packaging and structuring - all the preparation of the frozen pizza - was summed up by this Dr Johnson quote;

Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be ignorant than would take even a little trouble to acquire it.

If you don't package the brain food for them, many users would rather go intellectually hungry.

KM maturity models

---

measuring up
Originally uploaded by woodleywonderworks

I have been in several discussions recently about KM maturity models, and we offer a simple maturity model here.

However I am increasingly of the opinion that a maturity model is the wrong tool to use.

We no longer see KM as a capability that matures, we see it as a management approach (or a management framework) that is either in place, or not in place. So nowadays we in Knoco see three main metrics, which cannot easily be combined into a single maturity mode, as they represent phase-changes in the implementation.
1. A gap analysis metric, which measures whats missing from a complete KM framework - what roles, accountabilities, processes and technologies are missing, and so need to be introduced.
2. A metric which measures introduction of these roles, accountabilities, processes and technologies - from zero to 100% (a roll-out metric if you like)
3. A metric to measure application of the complete framework. Who is using it, and who isnt. You use this to drive recognition, reward, sanction and intervention, and also to drive maintenance and upgrade of the KM framework

Then on top of this you would have a business outcome metric and/or a value metric, to see whether KM is having the business impact that is needed.

If you try and measure all this with a single measure, you can't separate out the intervention you need to make.

Real Stupidity (quote)

---

Bookfather
Originally uploaded by Danacea

Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.


Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

Knowledge with Shelf-life

---

Shelf life?
Originally uploaded by Jaako

There is a place in Knowledge Management for explicit knowledge - knowledge which has been documented and stored. That place is where we need to give it some shelf-life.

Explicit knowledge is almost always a second-best to tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge has context, it has depth, it has vibrancy. It lives in practice, and grows with practice. Explicit knowledge can be devoid of context, can be shallow and dead. It can be separated from practice. However it has shelf-life and it has longevity.

Imagine a task where there is a gap in practice - where we do the task once, then several months pass before we do it again. During this time, the human memory starts to leak. It starts to change. It's fallibility becomes apparent, and the three Gorilla Illusions start to work their destructive spell. The tacit knowledge loses its reliability, and quickly the explicit knowledge takes over. Its reliability offsets many of its impediments, and the checklists, the wikis, the knowledge assets become our primary source (or at the very least, back up the tacit knowledge and fill in the gaps)

Our challenge then, as knowledge managers, is to recognise where knowledge must be tacit and where it must be explicit; and where it has to be explicit, we capture it with the maximum of context, the maximum of depth, and the maximum of life.

What is Learning?

---

:: Learn how to . . . ::
Originally uploaded by » Zitona «

We have discussed on this blog many times what the definition of Knowledge might be, and what the definition of Knowledge Management might be.

In this interview with Hubert St Onge, we also have Hubert's definition of Learning. Hubert says

"Learning is the process of taking information and inserting it into one's practice"

I think, from the qualifications later in the article (despite a few missing lines), Hubert would be happy if I rephrased this as

"Learning is the process of taking KNOWLEDGE and inserting it into one's practice"

This is an excellent definition, and allows us to extrapolate to a definition of Organizational Learning

"Organizational Learning is the process of taking knowledge and inserting it into organizational practice"

 This becomes a very clear definition. I have argues elsewhere that learning has to involve change, and that if nothing changes, nothing is learnt.

So what changes as a result of Organizational Learning? Organizational practice changes.

This organizational learning can happen in a managed way, or in an unmanaged way.  The management structures you put in place to support and direct organizational learning, comprise Knowledge management. KM is the structure, OL is the outcome. The result is improved practice, and improved performance.

Egypt interview

---

Cairo, Egypt
Originally uploaded by Bakar_88

I have been asked to do an email interview for a conference I am attending in Egypt next month, and thought you might like to see the answers, as it's in many ways a succint summary of my views on KM value and implementation.


1. You are recognized as one of the most distinguished KM practitioners, so in your opinion is it easy for organizations to accept the idea of applying KM?
It is not particularly easy at the moment for organizations to accept the idea of applying KM, as there is such a range of views about what KM actually encompasses. KM is a term with a very fuzzy definition, and when you skim through the internet, it is very easy to become confused what KM actually means, and what it can do for you. However when you present KM as being a managed and systematic way of people in the business have access to the knowledge they need to do their work to the best degree possible (and that they actually do use this knowledge), then it makes a lot more sense.
There is a very close link between knowledge (or know-how) and performance. The more you know (as an individual, a team, or an organisation), the better you perform. If you learn from performance you increase knowledge. If you find and apply knowledge, you improve performance. That learning and applying represent knowledge activity, and closing the loop between knowledge and performance in a managed and systematic way represents knowledge management. If you look at it this way, you can see than KM is the engine that drives continuous performance improvement.

2. Based on your experience in British Petroleum (BP), which is considered one of the leading companies in KM, What are the essential elements that would ensure effective KM implementation in the organizations?


There are two major issues here, one is implementation, and the other is embedding. You not only have to introduce knowledge management, you have to make it stick.

For effective implementation, there are some simple rules.

Firstly you need to fully align your KM strategy with the organizational strategy. You are not introducing KM “because it is a good thing” - you are introducing it to help the organization deliver its objectives. So KM needs to align with organizational strategy.

Secondly, the KM implementation needs to be run as a change project. Like introducing any other management system, there will be change involved, and change management will be at the heart of KM implementation.

Thirdly it needs to be led by the right person; someone with influence and a good network, a leader, and an insider, someone with support from a high level sponsor, and ideally someone with a history of influencing change in the organization.

Then for embedding KM, you need to set clear expectations for the use of KM tools and processes within the work cycle or the project management framework, you need to observe the use of these, and you need to make sure that good KM is recognised in the reward system, and that bad KM is “discouraged”.

3. What would you say for people who suspect the future of KM, or who claim that it is just a fad?


If knowledge or know-how is an asset to your organization, and if you believe in managing your assets, then how can you argue against KM?

Like risk management, safety management, brand management, reputation management, stakeholder management - knowledge management is another way to deliver value from your intangible assets.


4. In your point of view what are the organization KM enablers which can stimulate and facilitate the implementation of KM?


I use the word OPEC is an acronym for the cultural enablers that really support knowledge management.

• O is for Openness. Openness within an organization is a great supporter for knowledge sharing - openness to new ideas, openness to learning, looking openly at mistakes and successes from the past.

• P is for Performance focus. A focus on delivery, and in using all available resources (including knowledge) to enable delivery. A drive to continually improve, will only be achieved through a focus on continually learning

• E is for Empowerment. Staff need to be empowered to use the knowledge they find. Empowerment goes hand in hand with knowledge seeking - people need to be given their objectives, empowered to deliver, and provided with access to knowledge. Knowledge also empowers. Knowledge is power, knowledge management is empowerment.

• C is for Conversation. Steven Denning once said that a company's success in KM is related to it's ability to have good conversations. Conversations happen in teams, in projects, in networks, in peer assists and in community knowledge exchange. It is through conversation that knowledge is shared and exchanged.
Organizations with an OPEC culture will find KM straightforward, and have a real head start on the KM journey.

5. Finally, what are the advice that you can provide for organizations to reach a successful KM implementation?

Some of my advice is provided under Question 2, but perhaps the key piece of advice is to be very very clear WHY you want to introduce Knowledge Management. What is the organizational reason - the driver behind KM implementation? What are you trying to achieve? What problem are you trying to solve?

If you do not have a clear answer to these questions, your implementation is unlikely to be successful.

The authentic voice of Experience

---

an old lady with an umbrella in Ravangla market!
Originally uploaded by Sukanto Debnath

When you are packaging knowledge, the recommendations, the lessons, the knowledge should be given in the real words of people who have been involved. This does help in establishing authenticity, and people seem to trust the advice a little better if they know that there is a person behind it.

We tried an anonymous knowledge asset once, and the feedback we got from the users was ‘why should we believe any of this?’ Using real words from real people gives authenticity and credibility”.

Also people are far more ready to offer their knowledge, if they know that they will continue to be associated with their knowledge. It is not like somebody else “taking your knowledge and passing it off as their own”

Job swap day

---

A story from Paul O'Noal (CGIAR) in 2001

It wasn't billed as a KM exercise at the time. Some years ago I worked for a small sister institute in the Netherlands. I forget exactly why but... we had a one day workshop (actually 10AM-4PM) on "The Fun of Working Together."

The fun bit was that people changed jobs for the day. Even more fun was comparing notes afterwards. This was supposed to last an hour. It went for
over 3 hours and I can't remember many more entertaining evenings in the office. People wept with laughter and powerful lessons were learned, some of which concerned knowledge management.

Here's what happened:

Tasks were prepared by job holders for their temporary replacements to do. No, the cleaning lady didn't get to write to the President of the World Bank (but it might have gained more news coverage than anything else done that year) but... Senior staff accustomed to being served were suddenly placed in service roles in central files, in the telecoms office, in the travel office etc. Junior staff got to make life interesting for their bosses without really trying and they also enjoyed a somewhat stress-free day.

Some people's participation was only grudingly given and in a few cases it was withheld on the grounds that nobody else could possibly stand in for them. This missed the point, but it didn't matter, total participation wasn't necessary.

A vignette will suffice:

Urgent fax from Dr.X proves to have an incorrect fax nr. Dr.X has left for the airport and is uncontactable. Fax operator/telephonist has to tear hair to get the right number (not in address database). Fax machine plays up. Meanwhile, a visitor who is unheard of must be found and a message delivered. Outgoing message must be sent. Incoming calls repeatedly interrupt. Senior staff member asks how he is possibly supposed to file anything when he keeps being interrupted and when people don't share their contact information etc. etc. A fax arrives that needs a special manual procedure to be deliverable. It's not documented. Senior staff member doesn't speak the language when he gets through. At 5PM senior staff member is exhausted and day's work is hardly started.

Lessons:

Other people's jobs are harder than they look; you only think you know about
them
Tacit knowledge is used all the time
An ounce of making tacit knowledge explicit would save a lot of money in wasted staff time and improved performance
Moving people even temporarily can expose failures to make adequate backup arrangements clear (also sense of humor failures)
The comparing notes/performance appraisal process afterwards was HILARIOUS but yielded many ideas for ensuring the capture and use of tacit knowledge

Going into this exercise, many people were reluctant and saw it as pointless because letters would not sent for real, or calls made etc.In practice it didn't matter. So much was learned all round that it was agreed to repeat the excercise in future.

Objective - Learning

---

Bath Rugby 1
Originally uploaded by roguesgallery17

"The success or failure of ALL games will be measured ONLY by the lessons learned through post-game analysis (POGANA). In this respect, the object of each game is not victory"

"Notes for Wargamers", studies centre, London. Quoted by Len Deighton in "Spy Story"

The quote above refers to simulation exercises run by the military during the cold war era, rather than the more modern concept of wargaming, where the objective IS victory. In a simulation, the objective is learning, not winning. However if you learn enough, it enables you to win in real life.

I was reminded of this quote last night, watching Bath Rugby play a pre-season friendly game against Ulster. Many times during the match, my wife and I wondered out loud why Bath had chosen to do certain things, like substituting players at strange times. Some of these decisions seemed likely to reduce their chances of winning.

But of course, in a pre-season game such as this, the outcome is not as important as the learning. The substitutions were not tactical, they were experimental.

At work we can play games as well. We can run simulations, we can do role play, we can conduct scenario planning.

In each of these cases, we must remember that the Objective is not winning, it's learning.

(By the way, Bath beat Ulster by 26 points to 14. Hopefully they learned a lot as well, because when the season starts, the objective WILL be Victory)

10 "Don't"s for communities

---

Hand Stop Sign_1724
Originally uploaded by hoyasmeg

This list comes from Asif Devji of the ComPrac community

It is his list of the top ten worst practices, or “ what not to do to have a successful CoP". It's a great list, and very thought provoking

Don't ...

1) Expect a CoP to change your organizational culture

2) Incorporate a CoP into an unstable organizational environment

3) Use a CoP to filter down organizational talking points

4) Be exclusivist in your selection of CoP members

5) Fail to recognize employee participation in your CoP

6) Control the discourse in your CoP

7) Leave your CoP to its own devices

8) Use a CoP to colonize knowledge (ie lurk in there, and steal ideas).

9) Commodify a CoP for profit

10) Expect a quick quantifiable ROI from your CoP

Dumb teamwork (quote)

---

dumb&dumber
Originally uploaded by batrax

One man alone can be pretty dumb sometimes, but for real bona fide stupidity, there ain't nothin' can beat teamwork.

- Edward Abbey

Nick Milton blog offline due to holiday

---

Essential Maldives (COCOA ISLAND/MALDIVES)
Originally uploaded by Chi King

There will be a short break in blog postings, while I go on holiday

Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible.