How escalating lessons can help burst knowledge bubbles

Any lesson learning system requires a method for escalating lessons. However escalated lessons may need to break through "knowledge bubbles". How do we reconcile these two issues?

Rainbow bubble by Lena on Flickr

As we have often argued on this blog, the purpose of lesson learning is to drive change and continuous improvement. If nothing changes, nothing has been learned. Each lesson therefore must lead to an action or a request for action, and the action must lead to change. Once the change is made, the lesson has done its job. 

But change can be hard when people do not want to change, and where they protect themselves by knowledge bubbles; hearing only what they want to hear. How can we address this issue?

The issue arises when the team that identifies the lesson does not have the authority to make the change, and has to escalate it to a higher level. Maybe the team has identified a company process that needs to be updated or written. Maybe an equipment redesign is needed. 

These are actions for either the company process owner or the person who holds the contract with the equipment supplier. Neither of these people is in the team, and the team leader doesn’t have authority to tell them what to do. The action has to be escalated to a level where the required authority lies - perhaps with the head of projects, the leader of a particular functional discipline, or a member of the senior level steering group.

Here we run into the issue of the Knowledge Bubble. 

The knowledge bubble is the unwillingness of people to believe new knowledge that contradicts their world-view, for example Stalin's refusal to believe that Hitler was about to invade Russia despite the huge amount of intelligence which proved otherwise. It's not just dictators that face this issue - all of us cherish our own established knowledge and views, and are reluctant to change them.

How then can we ensure that the head of projects, the functional leader and the senior level steering group are not protected by knowledge bubbles, and that they are open to new knowledge supplied through the lessons system? The political version of this is "speaking truth to power", and is not an easy thing. Likewise telling management that change is needed, based on lessons from the troops, can also be difficult at times. 

There are 8 ways in which we can help escalated lessons break through any knowledge bubbles./ 

1. The senior people need to be involved in, and have ownership of, the lesson learning system. Their roles need to be well defined, and they should have been consulted during the design of the system.

2. The lesson learning system needs to be applied rigorously, so that the senior people can expect to see a flow of escalated lessons as part of normal business.

3.   The lesson learning system needs to be quality-controlled and validated, perhaps by the technical experts, so that the senior people know that lessons represent real knowledge rather than opinion. This implies that the documented lessons should show the evidence and the root cause analysis behind the request for change.

4. The lessons must have some measure or description of impact, so the senior people can realise the importance of making the change

5. The lessons must be associated with an author, so the senior people know who to contact for more details

6. The senior people must not be able to reject a lesson without both registering that they are rejecting it, and giving a reason for rejection. 

7. The lesson learning system must be monitored and reported to a senior level, so that the organisation knows whether lessons are being consistently ignored or rejected by certain individuals or groups. 

8. Through their involvement, management must collectively accept accountability for the operation of the lesson learned system. 

The last component is key. It is this accountability, linked with monitoring and reporting, that identifies and maps out the knowledge bubbles, which the most senior management of the organisation (provided they buy into the concept of organisational learning) must then use their influence to dismantle. 

In a comment to an earlier version of this post. Lisandro Gaertner said that in his organisation:

"We work with a two step implementation process. First the technical experts assure the quality of the knowledge and, when it needs further actions to implement, it is passed on to the senior leaders who should tell how, when and by who it will be implemented or why it is not going to create changes on the company. The senior leaders are then accountable for the knowledge they didn't implement. It empowers the employees and create a system to fight the knowledge bubble".

This is a combination of many of the approaches above, with emphasis on the assurance role of the experts, and the accountability of management. 

Contact knoco for guidance on building a bubble-proof lesson-learning system

What is KM governance, and why is it important?

Nowadays I talk about the four legs of the Knowledge Management table being Roles, Processes, Technologies and Governance.  But why do we need the extra leg? What is the purpose of KM governance?

I have seen many examples of organisations with what look like very good Knowledge Management systems which are not being used.

For example, they might have defined accountability for capturing knowledge from projects, they might have a defined process for lessons capture meetings, and they might have a top range lessons management system, and yet only a trickle of lessons are entering the database, and even fewer are actually re-used.


So what is missing, when a system is in place but is not used?


You could say "culture" or "behaviours" - but both of these are outcomes of something else, namely governance. To understand what else is needed, let's think about what makes people adhere to other systems at work. For example, what makes people follow the (sometimes onerous) safety procedures, or the security procedures, or the time writing procedures?

It's three factors:

• They know they should follow the procedures
• They know how to follow the procedures, and
• They know if they don't follow the procedures, there will be consequences.

These three elements are the elements of governance, and apply to every management system, at work or at home. If these governance elements are in place, the behaviours will follow, and the culture will develop. If there is no governance, then KM remains an optional process, and who has time for optional activity nowadays?

To take a trivial example, if you wanted to get your teenage son or daughter to take over the task of mowing the lawn, for example, you would

• Firstly be very clear with them what you expected them to do (and when, and how often, and to what standard), 
• Secondly you would show them where the lawnmower is, and show them how to use it safely, and 
• Finally you would check that they really have done that they were asked, reward good performance and not reward sub-standard performance. 

Without the clarity of expectation and explanation, they would most likely claim that they weren't sure what to do and so not do it, or else they would half-do the job, leaving the edges untrimmed and the grass clippings all over the lawn. If you don't give them the lawnmower and show them how to use it, they wouldn't be able to get started anyway, and if you didn't check up on them, the likelihood is that they might be distracted by more urgent but less important activities such as the PlayStation, or TikTok. Those three elements - clarity of expectation, the tools to do the job, and monitoring – make sure the job gets done.

We need similar governance elements for Knowledge Management to make sure the KM task gets done, despite the distraction of more urgent (though often less important) work activities. We need:

• A set of clear corporate expectations for how knowledge will be managed in the organization (for example a KM policy), including accountabilities for the ownership of key knowledge areas, and the definition of corporate standards for Knowledge Management;
• Training and support in the use of the Knowledge Management framework, including training in how to perform roles, how to follow KM processes, and how to use KM technology; 
• Monitoring, measuring or auditing the application of KM, to make sure that people are delivering on their accountabilities, and applying the system in the way that they are expected to: to identify the need for new interventions to improve the KM system, and to ensure a continuous improvement in the ability of the organization to manage strategic knowledge.

That's Knowledge Management governance, and that's why we need it, because without it the chances that people will actually use your KM system are as remote as your teenager voluntarily mowing the lawn.

Contact Knoco for help in developing your own KM Governance system

Which are the most commonly-used elements of KM governance?

As part of our three global surveys of Knowledge Management professionals in 2014, 2017 and 2020, we asked the participants to select from a list the Knowledge Management governance elements that had in place in their organisation. 

The results are shown here.  

Most of the survey respondents reported at least one element of Knowledge Management governance, with the most common being the Knowledge Management Strategy  (reported by 62% of the people who responded to this question).

Having a defined KM approach was second highest, followed by KM reference materials, to allow this approach to be followed.

It is also interesting to see a Knowledge Management policy being applied in 35% of the cases.  KM policies are quite hard to find online - but there must be a few of them out there.

Please do not think that because a governance element is low in the list, that it is not important!

 We would suggest that all these elements are important, with the exception of having a separate KM incentive system (see here for more on KM incentives). It's just that some are more commonly applied than others, often because people do not realise the value these elements bring.

The diagram below shows how the usage of these KM governance elements varies as the KM program matures from the early stages (blue), through "well in progress" (red) to fully embedded (green).


Firstly it is seems that the big difference - the biggest jump - is between the early stagers and those who are well in progress. This represents either the adoption of KM governance needed for progression, or the lack of progress of those who do not have those elements.

Those organisations where KM is embedded have an even greater application of all of the KM governance elements, the top 4 being KM strategy, Knowledge Management framework, KM training and KM reference materials. The biggest proportional difference in usage is the KM success stories, which tend to be collected as the KM initiative progresses.

At Knoco we would suggest that some of these governance elements should be developed within the first year of your KM journey, notably the strategy, the framework, the business case, the vision and the high level champion. Others such as the success stories and the network of champions in the business should be the next target, while the KM policy, training, metrics and reference are late-stage governance items.

"Pendulum swings" in Knowledge Management - a story

Knowledge Management often involves balancing two forces - Connect and Collect, for example, or value to the individual and value to the firm. If you are not careful, this balance can turn into pendulum swings from one factor to the other. Here is a story of this happening.

Typical cycles in the balance between predator and prey

This is a story about how KM activity and support, in one organisation, has fluctuated wildly on an 8-year periodicity. It is also a story about why this happened (with reference to predator-prey cycles) and how other companies can avoid it happening to them.

The story

In the mid 80s, the company in question first realised that the various factories around the world were failing to learn from each other, and that there was a massive efficiency gain to be made by sharing best practice. They started a series of Global Practice Groups, and immediately began to deliver some quick wins in terms of business value. 

Over time, the members of the Global Practice Groups found that they were also getting personal value from being part of the group. The groups were seen as an excellent opportunity for personal networking, and membership grew and grew. New GPGs were formed, and they grew as well. After a while the management of the organisation began to think that people were spending too much time on the GPGs. They were seen as too many, too costly to the business, and too time consuming. Management closed them down in the mid 90s, and started a different system - Performance Improvement Teams. 

These immediately began to deliver some quick wins in terms of business value. Over time, the members of the PITs found that they were also getting personal value from being part of the group. The PITs developed into networks, and were seen as good value for money. New PITs were formed, and they grew as well. After a while the management of the organisation began to think that people were spending too much time on the PITs, which were seen as too many, too costly to the business and too time consuming. Management closed them down in the early 2000s, and started a different system - Communities of Practice.

These CoPs were a lot like the GPGs but initially there were fewer of them and they now had more effective processes, better KM systems and designated leadership teams. They immediately began to deliver .........you can guess the rest. Delivery of business value, declaration of victory, growth in popularity,  eventually deemed too expensive, too numerous and too time consuming. Management closed them down in the late 2000s and replaced them by Continuous Improvement Forums. The story continues.

Why did this happen?

The GPGs, PITs, CoPs and CIFs started off small and focused, working on organisational problems. The members then found they also were gaining value, the groups grew, and the pendulum swung from "value to the company" to "value to the members". The company saw costs growing and value diminishing, and restarted the cycle with a fresh swing of the pendulum.

These cycles happened on about an 8-year periodicity.  In a way, they are reminiscent of predator-prey cycles such as the one in the picture, where an increase in prey population causes an increase in predator population, which then causes a subsequent crash.

A predator prey cycle, and the KM cycles seen above, can both be thought of as a balance swinging between two extremes. In the predator/prey cycles the extremes are

• many prey, increase in predators (growth)
• many predators, decrease in prey (crash)

In the KM cycle, the extremes are

• much value to the organisation, less value to the members (growth)
• much value to the members, less value to the organisation (crash)

This imbalance was referred to by Siemens as "the customer trap"; the need to balance the expectation of the business, in terms of delivery of the KM program, with the expectations of the user.  Knowledge management often requires attention to two forces, which we (or at least those of us in a western dualist mindset) see as opposing:

• Connecting and Collecting
• Top-down and Bottom up
• Conversation and Content
• Search and Browse
• Tacit and Explicit
• Value to firm and value to knowledge worker

Where forces are seen to oppose, then rather than finding a balance, the pendulum may swing from one side to the other, as in the story above. We need to avoid this dualist trap, and see KM in a systemic way, where these forces form part of a system, just the lynx and hares do on the picture above.

How do you avoid the pendulum?

What we really need is a balance -

• sustained value to the business
• sustained value to the members

Setting this balance is a governance issue, which would result in long term stability.

Both the leadership of the groups and the KM leadership of the organisation need to ensure that the CoPs/GPGs are focused on both value propositions. They need to:

• help the communities develop charter that stress the need for value both to the organisation and the members;
• track and report the value to both sets of stakeholders;
• intervene when needed to balance the two value propositions.

Without such governance, communities of practice in any organisation may suffer from the same problem of radically fluctuating support, and constant 8-year cycles of growth and crash. 

Example Community of Practice charters

Every community of practice should have a charter, but what does a good charter look like?

Image from wikimedia commons

One of the main success factors for a community of practice is a charter.

A charter is a definitional/governance document, created by the community members, which describes what the community is for, and how it will work. Often a draft is created by the community core team, or by the people present at the community launch event, and that draft is then refined over time through discussion within the community.

The community charter usually contains the following elements:

• Community Purpose - what the community is for; it's high level aims and vision, and business case if appropriate 
• Objectives - what the community is trying to achieve in concrete terms; things that you can measure
• Scope – which areas of practice knowledge are in scope, and which are not
• Processes - the ways in which the community will operate in order to share, use and co-create knowledge
• Tools – the technologies the community plans to use 
• Roles – who does what (names of the community leader, sponsor, core team etc)
• Principles and Behaviours - which underpin the community.

Let's look at some charter for real communities of practice, and see what they cover. My favorite is the third one.

The Community Charter for the PMI Agile Community of Practice contains the following elements:

• Vision of Who We Are (a community of highly accountable project professionals, improving skills, expanding minds, and continuously raising the day-to-day effectiveness and professional satisfaction of project teams across the world.)
• Mission (To equip PMI Members with Agile skills and knowledge)
• Values
• Goals & Objectives
  • Resources
  • Committed from our sponsor
• Expected from community stakeholders 
• Roles
• Working/Operating Agreements

I like the way resources has been split out, and I like the way "values" and "operating agreements" are differentiated.

The Wisconsin Heart health community charter is a 9-page document containing the following sections:

• Overview
• Justification
• Scope
  • Vision (Wisconsinites living with healthy hearts)
  • Mission (To improve cardiac health related outcomes across Wisconsin - especially a reduction in hypertension - through the advancement of best practices, establishment of strong organizational relationships, and the mutual activities of community of practice members)
  • Goals
• High level requirements
• Major Deliverables
• Participation
  • Benefits
  • Norms
  • Ground Rules
• Assumptions
• Constraints
• Risks
• Roles and Responsibilities 
• Facilitator

For me, this is just a little too long, and many of the sections which could be single sentences, are paragraphs instead. However it is certainly a very well though through charter, and there are several charters out there that use a similar template.

The Restraint Reduction Network community of practice

Without using a formal template, the page linked above defines

• The Vision of the community (We are a community seeking to equip one another to reduce restrictive interventions through using person-centred, proactive, preventative and therapeutic strategies)
• The Mission (We share and discuss resources, tools, policies, research and personal experiences to encourage and inspire one another as we seek to improve quality of life for those at risk of restraint and the people who interact with them on a daily basis)
• The tools the community uses,
• and a really nice "Rules of Engagement" Graphic linked below.

I think I like this charter best because it is concise and straightforward, and the Rules of Engagement poster is inspiring, simple, and can be printed and posted on a wall as a reminder of the way the community works.

Pendulum swings in KM, and how to avoid them

The problem with Dualism in KM is that it leads to pendulum swings in terms of focus. Here is how to avoid this.

Image form wikimedia commons

There can be quite a lot of Dualism in KM - seeing KM in terms of two mutually exclusive opposites which require a choice. Examples might be

• A strategy of Connecting (connecting people) vs a Strategy of Collecting (collecting content)
• KM introduction from the Top-down, or Bottom up
• KM all about People, or KM is all about Technology
• A focus on Conversation, or a focus on Content
• Optimisation for for search or optimisation for browse?

Of course this Dualism is wrong, its always a case of "both/and" rather than "either/or", and the trouble with Dualism is that when you choose one alternative you neglect the other. Over time, you realise you are missing something and switch your attention to the "opposite pole".

As a result, KM can suffer from pendulum swings.

To give you an example, one company for many years had a KM approach focused almost entirely on Communities of Practice. After a series of project overruns, they  introduced a framework for project KM, which had a fantastic impact on results.

Over the subsequent years this approach became taken for granted - seen as "embedded". The high level champion left, and was replaced by a lower level champion, who was replaced again by someone even lower, and gradually attention and governance slipped. The framework began to be ignored, new management came in, and said "project KM doesn't work - lets put our attention on Communities of Practice instead".

And so the pendulum swang, with a frequency of a decade.

Maybe in 5 more years there will be a series of project overspends, the spotlight will turn again onto project KM, and the pendulum will begin it's back-stroke.

How do you guard against this? How do you ensure that KM is given an even-handed and consistent treatment?

A clue comes from a comment from John Donahue on one of my blog posts. John says

I've been working with US Army KM programs for some time and even with this structure (of strategic teams) there's a tendency for KM to slip into IT/Portal management. Fortunately this strategic level guidance allows units to self-assess, and "adjust fire" as they'd say. I don't believe Army KM would have been so successful without this formalized structure to keep the program on track.

The formalised  strategic guidance - KM Governance - stops the KM pendulum swinging towards IT and Portals. And certainly the company I mentioned above doesn't have the strategic level guidance.

If you want to avoid the pendulum of fashion when it comes to KM, then you need to set up, and maintain, the strategic level governance that can keep it on the straight and narrow.

If you outsource knowledge work to contractors, make sure they have KM in place

If you outsource knowledge work, make sure the contract requires the contractor to have KM in place. 

Contractors review plans,
by US Army Corps of Engineers, on Flickr

A few years ago I was running a multi-day lessons capture event with a company that had recently commissioned construction of a large production plant.

 Here's a story that the client project manager told at the event.

"This plant was based on a similar plant built by the same contractor, and on that previous plant they had made a big construction error - in one of the emergency release lines, they had put a non-return valve in backwards. Had there been an emergency, this could have been a disaster. We spotted the error, fixed the valve, and we discussed it, together with other lessons, with the contractor at the end-of-project lessons capture session.  

So this time, when I was walking the lines, I thought 'shall I bother to check that valve? Surely they would not have put it in the wrong way round again? But I thought - better safe than sorry - and blow me down, it was the wrong way round again!"

Disaster averted for a second time, but what's the moral of the story?

The moral is that when we outsource work (to a contractor, or to an outsource provider) we are also outsourcing the knowledge of how to do the work. We  expect the contractor or the provider to bring the knowledge needed to deliver the work properly.

And when we outsource the knowledge, we outsource the management of the knowledge as well. We expect the contractor or provider to learn - to constantly improve their knowledge - to never repeat mistakes.

So what went wrong on this case? Who was to fault?

Obviously the contractor was at fault; they should have had a proper KM system in place, with closed-loop lesson-learning, which eliminated repeat mistakes. And there is nothing worse for a contractor than having a client with a better KM system than you - who knows your repeat mistakes before you do!

However the client was equally at fault. They assumed that "Surely they would not have put it in the wrong way round again? Surely they would have learned?".

But this was an assumption. There was nothing in the contract that stipulated a KM system, and no audit of the contractors learning ability. The client just assumed, and we all know what Assume makes!

The moral of this tale is that if you outsource major work, you also outsource the knowledge needed to do the work, and you need to outsource the management of that knowledge as well. Therefore make sure that your contractor has a top-notch, independently audited and verified, KM and learning system, with the sort of closed-loop learning that eliminates repeat mistakes.

Make sure this "effective KM" is stipulated in the contract.  require your contractor to demonstrate an effective KM approach, compliant with ISO 30401:2018.

And its still worth walking the lines and checking as well - just in case!

Fully embedded KM is when people can't get away with not doing it

Knowledge Management is fully embedded when refusing to do it is not an option.

Let me give you an analogy, from the world of Safety. A couple of years ago I was conducting knowledge management exercises at a gas plant in the Niger Delta.

In places like this, safety is a huge consideration; both personal safety (keeping individuals safe in a hazardous environment), and process safety (keeping the environment from becoming even more hazardous).

For example, it was mandatory to wear a hard hat and safety boots when on site, no matter how uncomfortable these might be in the African sun.

One of the engineers was giving me a tour of the plant, and we were on a high walkway when he spotted a worker who had climbed a tall tower and was sitting at the top, resting in the sun, without his hat and boots on. Immediately the engineer stopped the tour, and ordered this guy to put his safety equipment back on and report to his foreman about the break of safety regulations.

It did not matter that the worker was safe, and that nothing was about to fall on his head or his feet - it was that such behaviour - such a breach of the safety policy - was not permitted. One small breach for the sake of resting in the sun could lead to a larger breach, and then to something dangerous. There was zero tolerance, and everyone was involved in reporting breaches. Even out of sight on a tall tower it was not allowed, and anyone (like my engineer) who spotted it would take action. If this worker could get away with avoiding the safety rules, then others would know, and would copy, and soon there would be a reduction in safety discipline, and accidents would happen.

Now, if we truly want Knowledge Management to be embedded, then we will eventually need a similar attitude.

Imagine if lesson-learning were truly embedded in the project lifecycle for example.  Imagine that the leadership of your organisation had realised the cost of repeat mistakes and rework, and had made it clear in their Knowledge Management policy that they expected every project to identify, document and share lessons and knowledge for the benefit of the rest of the organisation.

Then imagine what would happen if people could get away without doing it.

As soon as one project manager realised that they could skip lesson-learning with no sanction, then the others would also realise, and would copy, and soon there would be a reduction in learning discipline, and repeat mistakes and rework would creep back in. This breach of the Knowledge Management policy, this neglect of lesson learning, could cost the organisation millions of dollars and put other projects at risk. It should not be permitted.

If you are serious about Knowledge Management, and if you want it fully embedded in your organisational practices and your organisational culture, then you need to aim, eventually, for a time when people cannot get away with not doing it.

The problem with half-way governance for KM

KM Governance on its own is like a half-built bridge. It gets you nowhere.

Half built bridge
cc-by-sa/2.0 - © David Lally - geograph.org.uk/p/2266263

KM governance is a crucial part of KM, and much of the new ISO KM standard deals with issues of governance, such as leadership, support, and the creation of a KM Policy. However governance on its own is not enough, you have to go farther and tell people exactly how to fulfill the expectations set by the governance system. Let me give you an example.

I was working with a major company, doing an assessment of their knowledge management capability.

One of the things we always check for is Governance of Knowledge Management - whether people know what they are expected to be doing in KM terms, whether they have the resources to do it, and whether the incentive system is aligned with KM expectations (i.e. are they disincetivised, and could they get away without doing KM, and still avoid getting into trouble).  These are all elements within the ISO KM standard.

I was reviewing the alignment of project management and KM within this organisation, and particularly the habit of capturing knowledge from projects.

"Yes", they said. "We are expected to capture knowledge. It says so in our project guidelines".

When I checked they were absolutely correct, there was a line in there about "all projects will document lessons learned from their activity". However there was no guidance on HOW to do this.  As a result, there were a variety of approaches, the most common being for the project manager to jot some things down in a spreadsheet, and file it in the project files.

As regular readers now, this is far from being an effective lesson-capture process, and the lessons were sketchy, inconsistent, poor quality, and very hard to retrieve.

So the company had gone halfway towards having a KM policy for projects (albeit a sketchy one, hidden within the project management guidelines), but had not gone all the way in defining what actually needed to happen, not on quality-controlling the content, nor on ensuring that the lessons could be and would be re-used.

Governance is crucial, but needs to be accompanied by well-defined processes, roles and technology if it is to fully span the KM gap.

"You are obligated to ask" - Elon Musk's email

Even in the most progressive organisations, sometimes the boss needs to drive a "culture of asking." Here is how Elon Musk did it.

Image from wikimedia commons

Musk's email is quoted here, and seems to have been sent in response to a dissatisfaction with default communication and knowledge sharing habits at Tesla.

There are 6 things I want to point out regarding this email, which I have highlighted in the text of the email

below.

1. Musk is setting the expectation for lateral communication and knowledge flow, rather than the vertical communication seen in many other organisations (which I describe as knowledge hedge-hopping).
2. He makes his expectation very clear, and backs it up by spelling out the consequences ("Any manager who allows this to happen, let alone encourages it, will soon find themselves working at another company").
3. He places this expectation in the context of problem-solving and asking for help ("Anyone at Tesla can and should email/talk to anyone else according to what they think is the fastest way to solve a problem for the benefit of the whole company"). Musk is looking to drive a culture of "open asking".
4. He makes this expectation very eplicit. It is not a request, it is an obligation.
5. He separates out this behaviour of problem-driven asking from "random chit-chat", and sees it as key to competitiveness.
6. He recognises that the default "hedge-hopper KM" behaviour is driven by a natural human tendencies which needs to be "fought" in support of the corporate good.

Here is the email quoted in the link above (the text in bold below was highlighted by me, not by Elon Musk)

Subject: Communication Within Tesla 

There are two schools of thought about how information should flow within companies. By far the most common way is chain of command, which means that you always flow communication through your manager. The problem with this approach is that, while it serves to enhance the power of the manager, it fails to serve the company. 

Instead of a problem getting solved quickly, where a person in one dept talks to a person in another dept and makes the right thing happen, people are forced to talk to their manager who talks to their manager who talks to the manager in the other dept who talks to someone on his team. Then the info has to flow back the other way again. This is incredibly dumb. Any manager who allows this to happen, let alone encourages it, will soon find themselves working at another company. No kidding. 

Anyone at Tesla can and should email/talk to anyone else according to what they think is the fastest way to solve a problem for the benefit of the whole company. You can talk to your manager's manager without his permission, you can talk directly to a VP in another dept, you can talk to me, you can talk to anyone without anyone else's permission. Moreover, you should consider yourself obligated to do so until the right thing happens. The point here is not random chitchat, but rather ensuring that we execute ultra-fast and well. We obviously cannot compete with the big car companies in size, so we must do so with intelligence and agility. 

One final point is that managers should work hard to ensure that they are not creating silos within the company that create an us vs. them mentality or impede communication in any way. This is unfortunately a natural tendency and needs to be actively fought. How can it possibly help Tesla for depts to erect barriers between themselves or see their success as relative within the company instead of collective? We are all in the same boat. Always view yourself as working for the good of the company and never your dept. 

Thanks, Elon

What's the reporting line for KM in the organisation?

When you are setting up a KM function, where should it report?  Here are some statistics about the most common reporting set-ups.

The statistics are drawn from all respondents to our 2014 and 2017 global KM surveys. Any any multiple responses from the same company have been removed from the dataset, leaving 503 responses.

The results can be seen above.

The main conclusion is that there is no single common reporting line for KM.

• The most popular reporting line (20% of respondents) is for KM to report directy to senior management. 
• The second most common response (16%) was "Other" - indicating that there are a vast number of reporting lines for KM
• Third was Operations (12%)
• Then IT (9%)
• Then Strategy (7%)

Then there are a whole number of other options.

I tried cross-correlating these with the scores for "KM satisfaction" but there was no correlation - almost all the reporting lines were associated with a satisfaction rating of between 2.5 and 3 out of 5.

Respondents in the "Other" category include

• Health and Wellbeing Division 
• Knowledge which is different than L&D 
• Different departments, depending on Business Unit 
• Information Technology + Business transformation program 
• Services coordination 
• Finance 
• Corporate Services 
• Dual: COO and Firmwide 
• Managing Partner - Legal 
• Knowledge and Information Services 
• Fire & Incident Management 
•  Corporate 
• Naac 
• Executive Committee 
• Dirección de Estudios 
• Management and Coordination 
• Corporate communications and Knowledge management 
• Finance 
• Audience in the CoP Meetings 
• CEO 
• Each Division has its own KM team and report to the director of division 
• Customer Support 
• Research Analytics and Knowledge 
• enabling the delivery of products and services to customers through long term strategy, planning, and infrastructure delivery. 
• Sport Science and Medicine Director 
• Customer services entral Services - Information Management 
• Innovation and academic development 
• KM 
• Business Systems 
• Business Services 
• Business Development & Wider Knowledge function 
• Quality and Operation department 
• Distributed model - embedded within organizations 
• Technical Services 
• Corporate University
• each department has its own KM strategy 
• Management Development Department 
• Private offices group (ministerial) 
• Client Experience (formerly learning and development) 
• Combination of several departments 
• Directly to the Portfolio Management, 
• KM and strategic projects team 
• Corporate Resources 
• all part-time and from diverse departments. 
• Planning and evaluation 
•  Secretariat Office of the Deputy 
• Multiple projects flowing up to the Program Manager 
• No clear ownership - is integrated into our business, not even named up as KM 
• My organisation is within IT. However, we have way more mature KM organization lead by an Ex. Dir. which is part of the manufacturing division. R&D is also starting something more formally. 
• Education Research 
• Business Excellence 
• Safety 
• HSE.... Portfolio Division 
• Future Business Enablement 
• Policy analysis & Research 
• Professional Services and Technical Support 
• The name of my function is Technical Excellence and it is a corporate function. 
• It could be classed as Business Improvement,  Separate reporting line, Strategy. Performance 
• Policy 
• there is no KM role as such for the company as a whole - we report to the CLO 
• Consumer 
• Market Insights and Business Intelligence teams 
• HR and Engineering dept/division 
• Strategy, innovation and risk management 
• Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning 
• Science Group 
• Perfomance 
• Planning and Evaluation 
• Management 
• Administration 
• Technical planning and projects 
• volunteers and strategy 
• Corporate Resources 
• Education and quality 
• Institutional partnerships 
• Corporate Services 
• Capability and Service Managemnt 
• I answer to the Service Line Leader 
• Supply Chain 
• Customer operations director 
• Corporate Development

Knowledge Management in the corporate Code of Conduct - Example

One powerful enabler for Knowledge Management is a clear statement from senior management. Here is an example.

Medco Energi is a publicly listed Indonesian oil and gas company, founded in 1980. Winners of a MAKE award in 2007, they have had a KM program in place for many years, led and supported by my Knoco Indonesia colleague, Sapta.

Medco Energi has done something quite unusual in terms of Knowledge Management Governance, which is to put Knowledge Management within their "Good Corporate Guidelines and Code of Conduct"  document, dated 2014. 

Within the Code of Conduct we can find the following:

Knowledge Management Knowledge management is a set of proactive activities with the aim of supporting the organization in developing, integrating, disseminating and implementing its knowledge. 

Knowledge management is a continuous process to understand the organization's need for knowledge, the location of knowledge, as well as the process for improving knowledge. The goal of knowledge management is to increase the organization's ability to perform its key processes effectively.  

Knowledge management requires commitment to advance the organization's effectiveness, in addition to improve opportunities for its members. 

Thie current focus seems to be on sharing knowledge externally, as the code of conduct goes on to demonstrate, with the following guidelines on external knowledge sharing:

Participation in Lecturing, Training, Radio and Television Broadcast 
MedcoEnergi encourages its employee to give lectures or participate in training or radio and television broadcasts. However, prior to engaging in such activity, employee must obtain the approval of his/ her Line Director if he/she use document and information relating to MedcoEnergi. The employee is permitted to receive remuneration from such activity. If an employee acts as a representative of MedcoEnergi, he/she then must report any received remuneration to his/her direct supervisor for further deliberation.  

Publishing of Articles or Books 
Every employee is permitted to publish articles in journals, daily newspapers, magazines, or other print media and/or publish reports and/or books without affecting the working time. Any profit from and copyright of publications that is not related to MedcoEnergi shall remain the property of the employee. In the case of writing, where the employee uses documents relating to MedcoEnergi, he/she must obtain the approval of his/her Line Director prior to publishing the article and the copyright of the published article or book shall become the property of MedcoEnergi.

Even with this purely external focus, it is still good to see KM as a significant Code of Conduct item.

Expectation, metrics, rewards, support - the KM Governance quartet

Four elements make up Knowledge Management Governance. Expectations, metrics, rewards and support.

Governance in the cloud, by Blue Coat Photos, on Flickr

Governance is often the missing element in Knowledge Management, and although it is one of the four legs on the KM table, it is the one that gets least attention.  This is partly because governance is not easy, and partly because there is no clear published model for KM governance.

Governance represents the things that the organisation does, and the management of the organisation does, that drive the KM behaviours and adoption of the KM Framework. We see four elements to governance - expectations, metrics, rewards and support.

Knowledge Management Expectations.

The first thing management needs to do in terms of governance is to set the expectations for KM. This requires a set of clear corporate expectations for how knowledge will be managed in the organization, including accountabilities for the ownership of key knowledge areas, and the definition of corporate KM standards, KM principles and KM policies. These documents should tell everyone what is expected of them in Knowledge Management terms.

Different departments can then add to these expectations, and individuals with KM roles will have KM expectations written into their job description (see examples here).  Within a project, the expectations are set by the Knowledge Management Plan.  Expectations may also be set using the competency framework.

If there are no clear expectations, nobody will know what they should be doing in KM terms.

Knowledge Management Metrics.

If standards and expectations have been set, then the organisation needs to measure against these expectations. For example, if the corporate expectation is that every project will conduct a lesson learned session, and every knowledge topic has an owner, then you should measure whether this is happening.

There are other types of KM metric as well - see these blog posts for more discussion.

If there are no metrics, then nobody will know what people are actually doing in KM.

KM rewards and recognition.

If you are measuring people's performance against the expectations, then this needs to be linked to rewards and recognition. If people do what they are expected to, this should be reflected in their rewards. If they don't do what is expected, then there should be a sanction. See these blog posts for a wider discussion of incentives.

If there are no links between metrics and reward/recognition, then nobody will care about the metrics. Particularly important are the sanctions for not doing KM. If people can dodge their expectations and get away with it, then this sends a strong message that the expectations are actually options, and not expectations at all.

Knowledge Management support

It is unfair to set expectations, measure people against them, and then reward people based on these measures, unless you make the expectations achievable in the first place. Therefore you need to set up the systems, the training, the coaching, reference materials and so on, that make it possible for people to meet their expectations.

If there is no support, then you have set up an unfair system which people will resent.

Together, the quartet of Expectations, Metrics, Reward/recognition and Support form the basis of an effective Knowledge Management governance system.

What the NASA CKO said about KM policies

Knowledge Management policies are still rare, and opinion on them is divided. Here is what the CKO of NASA said about the topic.

Image from Wikimedia commons

Knowledge Management policies are coming.

When the ISO KM standard is in place, next year or the year after, a KM policy becomes a requirement under the standard. This requirement is not unique to KM - all the ISO Management System standards reauire a policy. After all - can an organisation be said to have adopted a management system if there is no policy?

However many people are resistant to KM policies. "Added beauracracy" they say. "We have a strategy - we don't need a policy" they say. "We are getting by OK without one" they say.

The NASA CKO, Ed Hoffman (now retired from NASA) used to be similarly sceptical, but is now a big convert. Here is what he says on the matter.

"A policy sends a number of messages.

First, it declares that we, as an organization, recognize what’s important.

Second, it identifies a community of people who are held accountable for taking action.

Third, a policy indicates that the organization and its leaders want to make sure things are done the right way. It sets a course without being overly prescriptive.

Fourth, excellent organizations make a practice of communicating what they really stand for".

This is hard to argue with really. The policy is "a statement of what we really stand for", and if you don't have a policy for KM, do you really stand behind the topic?

The NASA KM policy is not a top-down mandate but establishes a federated approach for governance of knowledge.  As the CKO says

"Each center and mission directorate will develop its own strategy, with the understanding that knowledge will be shared across the agency to the greatest extent possible. The policy unifies these efforts.

I am optimistic that the knowledge policy represents a significant step toward helping NASA achieve its potential as a learning organization. We have built a community that shares a commitment to sustaining NASA’s knowledge resources, and we have charted a course toward greater integration across the agency.  

If you have been doing Knowledge Management for a few years - if you feel that KM is becoming embedded in the organisation, but needs greater integration and greater commitment - then your next step is probably to craft a Knowledge Management Policy. 

Validation in Knowledge Management

Any knowledge management framework needs to address the issue of Knowledge Validation.

I have an old video of Professor John Henderson, where he says "every Knowledge Management system I have seen, addresses the issue of Validation".

Validation means a process to say "this is good quality knowledge. It's not opinion, or conjecture; it is justified and valid. It has the stamp of approval. We can trust it".

If Validation is important, and I believe it is important, then who validates? Who "signs off" on Knowledge?

There are multiple approaches to this:

1. Validation by an individual, where a single person has validation sign-off. You see this in organisatuions where people with technical authority sign off on standard procedures.
2. Validation by a group of individuals. Think of the aviation industry, where new knowledge gained through indicent investigation is used to update pilot chekclists, but only after sign-off by the manufacturer anthe aviation authorities.
3. Validation by a community of practice. Here a community of practice collaboratively agrees (perhaps through the use of online discussion and/or a wiki) on the validity of knowledge. 
4. Validation through experience and use.  Again you might expect a wiki to be self-correcting, as the knowledge is validated through use. However you need to make sure that the knowledge is based on evicence, not opinion, preference, prejudice or hearsay. We hear a lot about "evidence based policy" in Governament, or "evidence based healthcare" in the medical world, and often an individual or group is accountable for reviewing the evidence, which moves us back to option 1 or 2 again.

The more we see Knowledge as being community property rather than the property of any one individual, the more tricky the issue of validation becomes. Here are some thoughts about which approach to choose under carying circumstances.

Firstly, there is the issue of the important of the knowledge itself. The more important it is, the more of a life-end-death issue it is, the more validation becomes the provenance of a single person or a small group of experts. This is partly for purposes of accountability. Single-point accountability, in business and government, is the cornerstone of good governance and ultimately, good performance. Without single point accountability for processes, organisations have no means of ensuring that what have been determined as the goals for the organisation are likely to be met. So let's imagine knowledge of Nuclear Power Plant construction. If you want good performance in Nuclear Power Plant construction, then validation of the knowledge requires single point accountability. One person must sign off, generally using a Community of Practice or a smaller Community of Experts as an advisory board.

If the knowledge is of lesser importance, then the Community of Experts can take a collective accountability, and validate the knowledge themselves. If single-point accountability is not so important, then let the group decide.

Where experience and evicence is widespread and dispersed, then a Community of Practice may act as a better validatory mechanism. You could give the users of the knowledge some sort of "voting rights" on the knowledge, so they can vote on what is useful, and what is valid. You would end up with a CoP validation process. This is only possible when the Community Members are experienced enough to be able to validate. Take a community of amateur bakers, validating the best recipe for Victoria Sponge. A community voting process to define the best recipe would be very effective.  In other cases, the CoP members may be largely inexperienced, and lack the capability to make effective validation judgments. A poll of tabloid newspaper readers regarding the validity of newspaper horoscopes might not give an answer that was consistent with scientific study, for example.

So when you are addressing the validation issue, ask yourself who knows enough to validate, who can weigh up the evidence, and whether there needs to be single point accountability.

This week's free KM newsletter

A reference version of this newsletter can be found here together with all past newsletters

Sign up for future newsletters here

February 2016  Knowledge Management Governance The missing link for success In This Issue Why governance is important The three elements of governance Leadership Expectation Metrics and governance KM and performance management Governance and lesson learning When governance is missing  Continuous improvement as part of KM governance  Other News KM Starter Offers We have introduced a range of low-investment starter offers, for companies wishing to get started in KM. These include quick and easy ways to ·         Assess KM in your organisation ·         Build a KM Strategy ·         Scan knowledge topics, to find those most in need of attention ·         Gain engagement though a workshop ·         Understand your org. learning culture ·         Create a KM "proof of concept" Forward If you have people you would like to forward this email to, please forward using the button above Subscribe   If you are not subscribed to this newsletter and would like to be, please subscribe using the button above. Unsubscribe You're receiving this letter because you signed up at knoco.com or ordered free templates from us. If you no longer want to receive this newsletter, please unsubscribe using the button above. Contact us   Our Website Our contact details Previous newsletters Email us Our facebook page Our Linked-in page Nick's blog Tom's blog Rupert's blog Stephanie's blog Vedalis blog in French Ewa's blog in Polish Knoco on YouTube Governance seems to be the neglected element in many KM programs, but is an essential part of any management framework. You can have all the roles, processes and technologies you need, but without governance Knowledge Management may never get off the ground. In this newsletter members of our world-wide Knoco family address this crucial element, explore the three components of governance, and look at what happens when governance is missing. Why governance is important  Nick Milton, Knoco UK We have seen many examples of organisations with what look like very good Knowledge Management systems which are not being used. For example, they might have defined accountability for capturing knowledge from projects, they might have a defined process for lessons capture meetings, and they might have a top range lessons management system, and yet only a trickle of lessons are entering the database, and even fewer are actually re-used. So what is missing, when a system is in place but is not used? You could say "culture" or "behaviours" - but both of these are outcomes of something else. To understand what else is needed, let's think about what makes people adhere to other systems at work. For example, what makes people follow the (sometimes onerous) safety procedures, or the security procedures, or the time writing procedures? The answer is Governance. In each successful case, people know the rules and expectations, they know how to follow the rules, and they know if they don't follow the rules, there will be consequences. These three elements are the elements of governance, and apply to every management system, at work or at home. Our knowledge management assessments show that governance is one of the least well developed aspects of KM, but is one of the elements that will make most impact to the longevity of your KM program.  Read on to learn more, or contact us for help in developing your own KM governance program.   The three elements of governance Rupert Lescott, Knoco UK Knowledge is a key factor that influences on performance of teams and efficiency of processes. Because of this, when an organization takes the decision of implement a knowledge management model it’s crucial to integrate it in a governance frame. We see the KM governance frame having three main elements: ·         The company expectations about knowledge management: what level of KM activity is expected, who is expected to do it, what standard is expected, and when it should be done.  These expectations can be set out in a KM policy or similar document, and there may be separate expectations for sub-components of KM such as communities of practice, lesson learning and the corporate knowledge base. ·         Performance management: measuring the application of knowledge management, looking for the teams and individuals that are performing well against the expectations and recognising them, and looking for the teams and individuals that are performing poorly and offering them support. ·         Support: the resources offered to support people in meeting the KM expectations, including resources for training, coaching and monitoring, and online reference resources, elearning and manuals that cover the KM processes, roles and technologies. Those three elements together - clarity of expectation, a link to performance management and a high level of support – make sure the KM task gets done, despite the distraction of more urgent (though often less important) work activities. Read more about Knowledge Management Governance here   Leadership expectation  Cory Cannon, Knoco US (Kansas) Through my years working in Knowledge Management in both the military and civilian realms, one of the items that always comes up is the importance of governance for the program. Establishment of clear expectations for  how Knowledge Management program will work in the organization provides that much needed guidance for the Knowledge workers in the company. There are three simple things to consider when developing these expectations: ·         Ensure your Knowledge Management policy follows the mission and vision of the organization.  Having your governance nested with the mission and vision links your program to the larger strategic goals of the company and gains that crucial buy-in from the Corporate Levels of the company. ·         Include a statement from the leadership expressing the importance of the program. This can be a simple one page forward or memorandum from the person who is either the company president or the person who acts in the Chief of Staff role for the organization. This statement gives validity to your program and shows the middle management they need to take this policy seriously. ·         Understand who is your audience: If your company is at one location with only local individuals then KM governance and a KM policy are relatively easy to develop. However, if the organization involves multiple locations and especially different cultures, these have to be kept in consideration. These considerations, no matter if the organization is only 50 people from the local neighbourhood or 50,000 people from 64 nations gives the focus on your program and the importance it is not only to yourself but how it affects the entire mission of the company. Contact us for help in defining your own KM policy Metrics and governance  Didier Plegat, Knoco France Good governance requires good metrics, and you cannot govern what you cannot measure. This is as true of Knowledge Management as it is of anything. we need to be able to measure both compliance with the KM expectations, and also KM activity levels down to the level of the individual. We need to know: ·         Who are the experts in our key focus areas, and how engaged are they with the communities? ·         What are the topics for which we lack expertise? ·         How can we prevent our company from a loss of critical knowledge related to turnover or retirement of employees? ·         How well are we disseminating knowledge in our organization? In our changing world, with dispersed organisations and more and more complex business issues, it is essential to answer precisely these questions to build and steer a successful knowledge management program. Luckily there are a lot more online networks about nowadays, the concept of CoP is widespread, and the ability to collect big data about Community activity. However, there often is a lack of analysis tools for the transformation of raw data into meaningful and useful information for Knowledge Management purposes. An efficient solution is based on three pillars: defining indicators which reflect quantity and quality of knowledge and knowledge sharing; using advanced algorithms such graph theory to model relations between knowledge objects; and, finally, making the results accessible, usable and visible through graphics and mappings. Analytic graphics from the Vedalis CoP tool Contact us for help in applying analytics tools to your communities of practice KM and performance management  Joaquim Carbonell, Knoco Spain In the last decades management models (once focused in specific areas: customer, processes, quality etc) are converging to global models. Knowledge management, as one of those global models, can take advantage of some of those already-embedded approaches. One particular case is the alignment with Management by Objectives (MBO). MBO is implanted in a large number of organizations. It’s about starting from the corporate goals and business drivers, assigning (in cascade) particular targets to business units, areas and departments, and so on until you reach individual targets. MBO is a very rich model as it allows different levels of target assignment and appraisal: ·         Performance: related to the measurable achievements. ·         Accomplishment: related to assigned functions or tasks. ·         Commitment: related to some desired behaviors.  This model is totally aligned with the background of the governance frame, particularly for individuals with a KM role to play, such as the KM champions, the departmental or project knowledge managers, the community of practice coordinators or the process owners. So, if you are implementing (or have already implemented) a knowledge management model and one of your concerns is related with governance, you can develop or align your existing model of MBO to ensure that it includes also the appraisal of KM-related aspects of specific roles, or just general engagement with the KM expectations of the organisation. Contact us for help in building a KM performance management system. Governance in lesson learning  Ian Fry, Knoco E Australia The starting point is that Lessons Learned itself is an act of Governance; making sure positive lessons and techniques are promulgated, and that something is done about negative outcomes. Unfortunately we regularly see organisations "observe" lessons without actioning them, and in many cases we can trace multi-million dollar losses occurring, with the probability of ongoing losses. This important role of Lessons Learned has finally been acknowledged in ISO9001-2015. Within a Lessons Learned regime there are three important points of governance. ·         The first is Root Cause Analysis. This is a well-established practice and we encourage it. It means continuing to ask "Why" until you have identified the actual factor (and ALL the factors) responsible for a specific organisational outcome. Too often we see organisations jumping to the first conclusion resulting in re-occurrence of the outcome. ·         The second is Validation. It comes up frequently when we discuss Lessons Learned with organisations. This means that the Lesson is validated by a subject matter expert, preferably within the organisation. Again we are seeking a complete understanding of the context and outcome. Even if the lesson is raised by a senior and experienced person, it should still be submitted to peer review to test for completeness. ·         The third is ensuring action. A lesson is not learned until something has changes, and every lesson is associated with a change action. The lessons learned regime ensures these actions are assigned, and taken. Once the action is complete, the lesson can be archived. These 3 points of governance are important in all lesson-learning systems. Where they really stand out is when it is established that the outcome was due to non-compliance. In that case the organisation has nothing to "learn", and the Validation and Root Cause Analysis will replace the reported "lesson" with a new one around training and discipline. The Lessons Management Hub (LMH) software embodies these governance points. Contact us to learn more about effective lesson learning and the Lessons Management Hub When governance is missing  Ewa Stelmaszek, Knoco Poland Do you know what Brownian motion is? Brownian motion is the random movement of microscopic particles suspended in a liquid or gas, caused by collisions with molecules of the surrounding medium. For the external observer the movement is completely chaotic, although a lot of energy is involved. The key word here is "random", which is what I saw in a recent implementation program for an educational portal. The portal was a great tool with a complex functionality, an easy way to create its own e-courses, support social activity and cooperation, find experts, make surveys and questionnaires, and of course to collect and share knowledge. It was a really great tool, and people liked it. However the downfall of the project was the Brownian motion syndrome. Different people in different places of the organization implemented the functionality they liked or were simply fascinated in. Sometimes other people joined them. Sometimes not. Sometimes they stopped using a particular tool, or changed the subject of their interest. They were no rules, no clear expectations, so they could stop whenever they wanted and start something new. From my external observer's point of view it was just random activity. What was lacking was a clear Governance framework, with a set of expectations related to the question "What do we want to achieve?" This would put some rules on the chaotic activity, stop the Brownian motion, and direct the flow of knowledge in service of the company's strategy. Continuous improvement as part of KM governance Ian Corbett, Knoco S Africa When Nick requested input for a newsletter focused on governance, it made me wonder how many boards of organisations actively apply Knowledge Management to the improvement of governance. In his book The Corporate Citizen Mervyn King (South Africa's governance guru and author of the King Reports) says that "Good governance is a journey and not a destination. It is a continuous learning process". Interestingly, knowledge and the development of experience features frequently in the book and Mervyn King highlights the danger of "asymmetrical knowledge" at board level produced by an imbalance in internal "coalface" knowledge of a business with external experience. He also makes a point that rigidity in process can dilute enterprise. Governance, like many organisational activities, is a dynamic process that should continuously improve in order to meet the challenge of changing external and internal dynamics. From King's perspective quality and continuous improvement should be fostered in the company's control procedures. Like the revised ISO9001:2015 standard, this focuses attention on how an organisation is led. If leaders make the judgement call on introducing KM, it is vitally important that they should contribute to defining how it will be applied to add value by applying their "coalface knowledge of the business". Knoco has found this to be a key differentiator of success versus failure when it comes to KM implementation. Where leaders abdicate this important judgement call to people with limited knowledge of the business and the way in which it creates and delivers value, the return on the investment is much harder to achieve. For this reason, good KM governance should include a regular health check, where the effectiveness of KM processes are reviewed and lessons learned reapplied to continuously improve the value adding capability the KM team can bring by exercising enterprising thinking. Knoco is the registered trademark of Knoco Ltd. All company details can be found at www.knoco.com Don't want to receive these emails anymore? You can Unsubscribe