Two types of learning action

---

There are generally two types of actions that come out of lessons learned reviews.

The first is an action to notify others, so that they can become aware of the lessons.
The second is an action to make a change to process, policy or procedure as a result of the lessons.

For example, a project may have identified a problem with a particular type of equipment from a particular supplier. Let’s call it the XMV valve seal, from XMF ltd. The first action would be to notify all operations that there is a problem with the XFS Vale seal. Any operation using this seal should consider themselves notified, and if they are smart, they will check these valve seals, see if they have the same problem, and change them. The second action would be to remove the XFS value seal from the list of preferred equipment, and to request a response from the XMF ltd concerning how they will address the problem.

 Both of these actions are probably needed, but it is only the second type of action that will avoid the problem recurring in future.

 Unfortunately most of the lesson-learning systems we are asked to review never deal with the second type of action – only the first.

The importance of terminology

---

We are hemmed in by terminology. There are terms for almost everything in business, and when we introduce a set of new roles, new processes and new technologies, then we need to introduce new terms as well.

This is true for when introducing Knowledge Management roles, processes and techanologies, and can easily be a minefield. Let me give you some examples.

In one company, we were introducing the role of the "process owner" - the subject matter expert who is accountable for knowledge of a particular organisational process. "Oh no", the company said; "our processes are defined as very high level things, the sort of business activities that needs ownership is at much lower levels". They use the term Process in a very specific way, and we ended up with the term "practice owner" instead.

In another company, we were introducing communities of practice. "But we already have communities" they replied. When we checked, we found that they use the term for anyone who does a particular job, regardless of whether they have any interaction, any community feeling, anything at all, in fact, which binds them together other than their job title. So they could talk about "the engineering community" even though there was no sense of community. We used the term "leanring networks" instead, because otherwise we were proposing something (communities of practice) which they thought they already had.

In another example, we were introducing the Retrospect process - a post-project meeting to identify and record lessons. "We already hold Retrospects" they told us. When we checked, their Retrospects were a review of project activity and delivery, but no discussion of learning, and no identification of new knowledge. These were not a KM process, so rather than redefine Retrospect, we called them "Project Learning Reviews" instead.

In many ways it seems that every company needs to invent their own terminology for the elements of the knowledge management framework - the processes, the roles, the structures, the governance. They need to distinguish these elements, through terminology, from other business elements which are already in place, or from terms which they currently use for other things.

Unfortunately that means that different companies end up using different words for the same thing, and the same words for different things. After Action reviews, for example - one company uses the term for short stand-up meetings, the other for 2-day conferences.

So we need to introduce new elements to our KM implementation, terminology agreement meetings, glossaries, definitions. And when exchanging KM experiences between companies, we need to start by defining our terms.

KM in three levels

---

We can look at three levels of Knowledge Management Implementation

1 The lowest is the level of activity, and of application of individual KM tools. This level can support the routine job of the common staff , it is visible at low levels, and easy to do. You can introduce KM by stealth at this level (but only at this level). However it lacks management support, and can have a very short lived effect. Like a shallow-rooted plant, it can wither away quickly.

 2 The middle level is to change the process of the organisation in one area of work. we can introduce a Knowledge Management framework and embed KM into the business, to make KM an organizational activity. This is the level at which real value can be delivered, but Knowledge Management can still find itself at war with corporate policies, such as internal competition, reward mechanisms, inadequate technical career paths, lack of accountability for knowledge, and so on.

 3 The highest level involved the senior managers. It requires them to change the vision they that they had about KM, and to see it as a strategic tool. In the longer term, the support of senior managers is needed, to develop the conditions that support a Knowledge-focused culture, and to deliver a truly learning organisation.

A strategic implementation will take Knowledge Management through these steps in a progressive way

 Level 1 would be addressed during the Definition stage, where you would trial various elements of KM at a low level in the organisation. The purpose of level 1 activity would be to define the framework you would use in the piloting.

 Level 2 would be addressed during the Piloting stage – to introduce a knowledge management framework framework on  a large scale scope

 Level 3 would be addressed after the pilot, and would be the change management program that accompanies the roll-out of Knowledge management to the organisation.

 For level 1, we need the support of lower to middle level managers
For level 2, we need the support of middle level to high level managers
For level 3, we need the support of the highest managers

At each level, we demonstrate enough value to gain the support of the managers at the next level.

Tom Peters on Best Practices

---

As I said myself, (also here and here) - nothing wrong with the concept if it's used in the right way

Lots wrong with the concept if it's used in the wrong way

What do you do with your Best Experts?

---

What does your company do with the Best Experts?

In some organisations, the best experts - the most experienced and most knowledgeable staff - are put full-time on the top projects. The theory is that the highest priority project should have the best people working on it.

To me, that's a waste of knowledge. It would be like finding your best general, and putting them in a tank in the toughest battle, on the theory that "they have the most knowledge, let them fight the hardest fight".

As Knowledge Management professionals, we know that there are other ways to get knowledge into a project than by employing the people full-time, and we also know that the more knowledge a person holds, the more she or he is of value to ALL projects. There comes a time when an expert transitions from being a Doer, to being a Teacher; from being an individual who applies their knowledge to do a good job, to an individual who shares their knowledge, and develops the knowledge of others, so that everyone in the organisation can do a better job.

You see this model in many companies. In BP, the most experienced staff become Network Leaders, who have joint accountability for maintaining the knowledge base, and the knowledge assets, and for building the learning networks and communities of practice (they also consult to the most important projects, on a  part time basis). ConocoPhillips have a similar model. In SABMiller, experts from all operating hubs work within “Centers of excellence” who maintain company standards and Best Practice. In Shell, the role of global consultant is the pinnacle of the technical ladder, where the expert consults to many projects, and plays a key role in the Communities of Practice and in developing content for the Shell Wiki.

In each of these companies, the expert has a far greater impact on developing the capability of the organisation, than if they were full-time in an all-consuming project on the far side of the world.

If you Can, Do. If you Know, Teach.

What is a Knowledge Asset?

---

There's some confusion and discussion around the term "knowledge asset"

Here's my take

A Knowledge Asset is a single set of documents, or a single document, containing compiled, structured and validated guidance on a specific area of practice.

·         The key aspects of K Assets are that they are

o   Validated (by a process owner, practice owner or CoP)

o   Collated (from may sources)

o   Structured (in the most useful way for the reader)

o    Contain Guidance – tells the reader how to perform a task or a practice. They are Know-How, rather than Know What. So Wikipedia, for me, is not really a Knowledge Asset.

·         Knowledge assets are likely to include

o   Process documents

o   Guidelines

o   Checklists

o   FAQs

o   Templates

·         Knowledge assets will not include

o   Project documents (unless they are selected by the practice owner as being a very good example that others should follow)

o   Contracts (unless they are selected by the practice owner as being a very good example that others should follow)

o   Cases (unless they are selected by the practice owner as being a very good example that others should follow)

o   Lessons learned

o   Job descriptions

Knowledge Assets

o   Could be on a wiki (supported by a folder where linked files can be kept)

o   Could be on a portal (with different parts of the asset being files in the portal eg guidleines, templates, examples)

o   Could be a document

o   Could be a book

Could be expressed as

o   Procedure

o   FAQ

o   Checklist

Could be structured by

o   Practice/topic taxonomy

o   Steps in a workflow

·         Knowledge assets may be linked to training material

Here's a fantastic Knowledge Asset for new soldiers deploying to Afghanistan - its a book, it's structured by topic, and it's written as checklists. It's validated by the Center for Army Lessons learned, it's collated from many sources, and structured so as to be of maximum help to the reader. If I was deploying to Afghanistan, I would read this cover to cover, several times.

Here's another great Knowledge Asset for small businesses in the US. It's a website, it's structured by topic, and it's written as guidance, with added tips and hints. It's validated by the Wall Street Journal. Again - very useful. If I were starting a small business, I would be very interested in guidance from the WSJ.

Now we all know that a Knowledge Asset on it's own is not a complete Knowledge Management solution. Far from it. The Knowledge Asset can codify, structure and store the core explicit guidance, but can never capture everything you need to know, at every level of detail. The soldier deploying to Afghanistan, and the entrepreneur in New York starting up this own small business, will also need to find other sources of guidance, and to ask forums, communities, experts and mentors for the next level of detail.

But the Knowledge Asset gives you a start, introduces you to the complexities of the topic, and may point out some of the things that you don't know that you don't know, and therefore might never think to ask.

So what knowledge assets would be avidly read by the people in your business? A guide to starting up a new project, perhaps? The "first 100 days" of new-country entry?

Another Chinese hiatus

---

As I am off to China again for a few weeks, I am afraid this blog will be quiet for a while!

KM success stories - Tanzania Milk

---

A great story reproduced from the world bank guide to knowledge exchange:

Although Tanzania’s child mortality rate has been falling steadily in recent decades, it remains 77 percent above the world average, at 108 deaths per 1,000 children. In order to address this problem, the Tanzanian government sought to improve nutrition and incomes in rural areas by restructuring its agriculture sector, particularly the struggling dairy industry. 

Tanzania wanted to follow the best model and learn how India carried out its renowned “white revolution,” during which it increased its milk production by a factor of five to become the world’s largest single milk producer. Last year, the World Bank funded a Knowledge Exchange between the two nations, aimed at improving the performance of Tanzania’s dairy sector by promoting favorable policies, incentives and efficient dairy supply chains, as well as improving the operational efficiency of the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) and the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA). 

The initiative involved a number of Knowledge Exchange Instruments and activities and was highly successful. A working group from Tanzania and India met in a series of videoconferences to plan the exchange, which was anchored by a 10-day expert visit to Tanzania by six officials from the Indian National Development Dairy Board and the Gujarat Federation. Then a small delegation of 14 Tanzanian officials, chosen from the MoA, NDDB, dairy producers, processors, and distributors, visited India on a study tour to see first-hand how India had transformed its dairy industry. The exchange participants held a follow-up videoconference and developed a brochure and videos summarizing the lessons learned.
The outcomes included:

• Enhanced knowledge and skills 

• Improved consensus and teamwork 

• New implementation know-how 

Using their new insights, Tanzanian dairy officials have not only developed policies based on the Indian model, they have also successfully implemented dairy reforms and built consensus among stakeholder groups for a blueprint of further reforms. The NDDB has implemented the rapid results approach learnt from India to scale up the reforms across the country. Even though Tanzania may not see its milk production quintuple in the near future, it has started to make progress in revamping and improving its agriculture sector. Boosting nutrition and incomes in rural areas cannot be far behind.