How to retain critical knowledge (video)

Courtesy of the Patrick Lambe Vimeo account, here is Carla Newman talking about the Knowledge Retention process developed at Shell 

Carla Newman on ROCK (Retention of Critical Knowledge) from Patrick Lambe on Vimeo.

When Knowledge Retention becomes a national issue

You know how we, as knowledge managers, have been warning about the risk of retirement knowledge loss for decades? Finally people high up are taking notice.

Here is a paragraph from the 2016/17 report from the Public Commisioner of Western Australia.

As a result of the reforms announced by Government, some leaders with extensive public sector experience may exit the sector. Without effective succession planning and knowledge management strategies in place, critical leadership knowledge will be lost. Further, organisational delayering that often occurs during times of reform may see operational staff take on management responsibilities without being suitably upskilled.

The Commissioner is an independent statutory officer, established under the Public Sector Management Act 1994, responsible for setting and monitoring public sector standards and codes of ethics, and for the promotion of effectiveness and efficiency within the public sector.

It's good to see such a high level official recognising the risk of not having a knowledge management strategy.   

The "bus factor" in KM

From the latest NASA JPL KM Newsletter -

Image from publicdomainpictures.net

"The Bus factor - The widespread capture and sharing of key knowledge increases the bus factor— the number of employees that would have to be run over by a bus before JPL would lose an important technical capability"

The bus factor would be a useful challenge to your own managers!

NB the concept of the bus factor is quite widespread in software development and related areas

The false allure of alumni networks in knowledge retention

When faced with a knowledge retention challenge, it seems an obvious idea to set up an alumni network of retirees so their knowledge can still be accessed. But is this always such a good plan?

Image from wikimedia commons

The allure of the alumni network is that it seems to avoid the knowledge retention issue. If critical knowledge is still held by the alumni, then by networking them (perhaps by including them in the skills directory, or letting them retain membership of the relevant communities of practice) you still have access to the source of knowledge. If someone in the organisation needs knowledge, the knowledgeable alumnus remains reachable.

However there are a number of drawbacks with this model, which you need to think through carefully.

• If the alumnus has retired, then they are no longer active in their domain. Their memory will begin to fade, often quite quickly. The human brain is a poor long-term knowledge store (see this blog post on the forgetting curve). Over time the details begin to disappear, then the main points become re-invented and become false knowledge (see also this post). 
• Unless they still have complete access to the company system, the alumnus will no longer have access to the files and documents they would have used to jog their memory. One would hope that the alumni don’t still have all their private collection of company files on their laptop, and it was this private stash that they used to refer to. Without it, they are not so useful.
• If the alumnus has retired, then they begin to lose their “relationship capital”. People don’t know, them, they fall out of the “circle of discussion” which is closely linked to the “circle of trust”.
• Once the alumnus has retired, their knowledge begins to go out of date. It’s a short step from “You shouldn't do it like that for the following valid reasons” to “In my day we never did it like that”.
• You lose the face-to-face aspects of knowledge transfer, such as coaching and mentoring.
• You are only postponing the problem for a few years. After a while he retirees will lose interest, and you are putting a big chunk of your KM strategy in the hands of people who one day will choose to go and play golf instead.
• If the alumnus is available for rehire as a consultant, then you immediately introduce money onto the equation, and set up a barrier to wider knowledge retention. As Dave DeLong points out in his excellent book “Lost Knowledge”; 

This (using retirees as consultants) may seem like the most practical approach, but it can also undermine knowledge transfer practices among older employees who know their expertise is their ticket to a comfortable consulting relationship after they retire. When older employees are routinely hired back as contractors, they have much less incentive to share their knowledge with others before retiring. “Your knowledge is your security here” said a retired research scientist who had returned as a consultant. “If you didn't still have the knowledge, they wouldn't want you back”.

Because of these pitfalls, the Alumni model should not be an alternative to a comprehensive Knowledge Retention and Transfer strategy. At the best, it can be seen as a back-stop. At the worst (the final bullet point above) it can actually undermine other retention efforts. 

There are however a couple of circumstances where is it can add value. I can think of two:

• When the knowledge is deeply historical, there is no other means to retain it, and nobody to transfer it to. The type example of this is NASA's Oral History project where NASA retirees have been interviewed to develop an oral history of the major events in the organisation's history.
• When the activity is being outsourced. Here the knowledge will not be retained in-house, but the company will still want access to the services of skilled and knowledgeable people with an insider view of the organisation. A type example of this was when Knoco was set up in 1999. BP were winding down their KM program, and wanted access to people with knowledge and experience in oil-sector KM. The core of the KM team left to form Knoco, BP granted us intellectual property rights to the knowledge we had developed, and we provided services back to BP right up until the recent oil price crash. As alumni, we understand the context of the organisation, and as active consultants can also bring new experiences and new developments back to the organisation.

Four quadrants for a Knowledge Retention Strategy

---

This matrix is based on a similar diagram in Dave DeLong's excellent book "Lost Knowledge: Confronting the Threat of an Aging Workforce" (highly recommended for anyone working with Knowledge Retention).

It is a very useful guide for evaluating some of the driving forces behind your Knowledge Retention strategy.

The matrix defines four quadrants, based on how much time the retention and transfer process will take, and the time you have available. They are as follows

Plenty of time available, short time needed to transfer knowledge
This is the ideal place to be, but beware complacency. Too many retention strategies start too late, driven by the imminence of a risk that there is too little time to address. If you are in this quadrant, consider implementing a complete Knowledge Management program, so that knowledge can be spread within a community and gathered (where possible) in documented processes and guidance, and so that the risk of knowledge departing in the head of the holder is much diminished.

Plenty of time available, lots of time needed to transfer knowledge
Here you would employ multiple approaches to retention, as explained in our White Paper on Retention (available here). Approaches will include Capture, Transfer, Buy-back or Buy-In, or elimination of the need for the knowledge.

Short time available, short time needed to transfer knowledge
This is not a bad place to be, so long as you act now. You have the time you need, but plan carefully so you can address transfer of knowledge as well as capture, and so that you prioritise the methods that work the best.

Short time available, lots of time needed to transfer knowledge
Here you are into Triage. You are in the emergency room, desperately trying to staunch the flow of knowledge loss. You can focus, at this point, only on Capture through interviews and debriefs (Transfer will have to wait), and even the Capture must be prioritised based on Urgency and Importance (see blog post on retention prioritisation).

The key message is, make sure you never end up in that top left quadrant!

Where to focus your Knowledge retention capture

---

Imagine you are setting up a Knowledge Retention interview with a company expert. This expert has a lifetime's knowledge which would take an eternity to capture - where do you start? Where are the highest priority areas for capture?

This Boston Square may help.

Firstly, the Expert has something that the ordinary practitioner does not have, and that is an understanding of the non-routine activity - the "one in a thousand" occurrences that most people never see, but which an expert has either met, or heard of somewhere. Most practitioners, even the junior ones, understand routine activity - it is when they meet non-routine circumstances that an expert is needed.

Secondly, how critical will that knowledge be? Will it save lives and millions, or is it not particularly critical?

Obviously the focus for your retention is the critical non-routine areas. If you do nothing else, then capture the knowledge of these topics.

Then, if you have time, address the "critical and routine" (although most people will know this already, it may be good to have the experts viewpoint), and then the "Non-critical non-routine" (it will at least help people avoid reinventing the wheel).

KM and demographics - Schlumberger studies

---

Thanks to Jeff Stemke for forwarding me this interesting analysis from Schlumberger on the demographics of geoscience resources; one of an annual series of presentations from Schlumberger business services.

OK, the demographics of geoscientific resources may not sound relevant to your business at first hearing, but in fact this is an interesting study of a global "war for talent", and some of the KM-related responses that are in play in a number of companies.

Here's the story.

The Oil Industry is facing "The Big Crew Change", as a generation of older experienced workers give way to younger graduates. For many years it was feared that the number of new graduates would be insufficient to fill the gap. Now that's not the case, though the supply of staff from the top institutions is still much less than demand. However the nature of the work is changing, from a few big oil fields, to many smaller fields, requiring higher levels of staffing. The new staff are coming into a more demanding environment. To stick with old style "natural learning" patterns and expecting an effective result, is no longer an option.

So how do companies respond?

The screenshot here is from Schlumberger's 2006 study, and contrasts the difference in "time to competence" (or "time to autonomy") in geoscience staff between what they call Innovative companies, and Conservative companies. An "innovative company" can help new staff develop autonomy within 4 years, a conservative company takes 10 years. That 6 year difference makes a massive difference in the effectiveness and efficiency of your workforce (in later presentations they reduce this difference to 3-5 years, and suggest that the innovative companies are generally the Western Internationals, and the conservative companies are generally the National Oil Companies (2011 study)). They explain that what differentiates Innovative companies is

• The amount invested in training
• The length of graduate development programs
• The use of blended learning, and
• the use of Knowledge Management in a big way

Schlumberger themselves are of course one of the worlds leaders in Knowledge Management, as are many of the Western International Majors such as Shell and ConocoPhillips.

Another KM response is shown in the screenshot below from the 2010 study.

The western majors are investing in codifying their practice, at least for routine tasks, in order to provide explicit knowledge to younger staff. The National Oil Companies are not. 

And the value for all of this? A final screenshot from the 2010 study shows that without faster time to competence, without codification of practice (among other interventions), there are only a number of things you can do 

• Abandon projects (lose money)
• Abandon the operator role (lose control)
• Delay projects (lose money), or
• Carry more risk.

So some very interesting survey responses here, which all illustrate the support that Knowledge Management has to play in an industry with changing demographics, in order to save money and reduce risk.

NASA's lost tapes - one giant leap backwards

---

You couldn't make it up. According to Dave DeLong's "Lost Knowledge" newsletter, NASA erased all the original video footage from the 1969 Apollo 11 moon landing.

That's one small step for saving money on archiving costs, one giant leap backwards for Knowledge Retention.

As Dave says;

According to an Associated Press story, NASA has admitted that it erased and reused all 45 tapes that recorded what many believe to be the greatest scientific and technical achievement in human history. (Now don’t you feel better about those DVR recordings you wiped out recently?) Fortunately, video editors in Hollywood have bailed NASA out. For only $230,000, the same company that restored “Casablanca” and “Raiders of the Lost Ark” has digitally sharpened the grainy footage from four copies of the video that NASA dug up around the world.

Two routes to knowledge retention analysis

---

Knowledge retention is a big issue for many organisations, particularly engineering organisations, who may be facing a 10%-20% annual loss of knowledge as the experienced staff retire. Knowledge retention is also one of the most challenging tasks for KM, as it represents the need to "capture" and/or transfer tacit knowledge, as it is the tacit knowledge that is being lost. And everyone knows that tacit knowledge is very challenging to transfer and to capture. It's not as simple as a "brain download" or a vulcan mind meld.

I am currently updating our company offering on Knowledge Retention, the first step in which is an analysis of the risk of knowledge loss. It has become clear to me that there are really two strategic approaches to doing this.

The first is a people-based approach, where you go through the company person by person, assessing both the risk of their leaving, and the value (and replaceability) of the knowledge they hold.

The second is a topic-based approach, where you go through the needed competencies of the organisation one by one, assess for each the value (and replaceability) of the topic, and its risk of knowledge loss.

The end point is the same - a risk assessment mapped against both individuals and topics, which is a starting point for your retention plan, and for the suite of interventions you will need to apply, depending on the context and the amount of time you have available. However the starting points are different.

The choice of which approach to apply depends on the size of your company. An SME, with a relatively small number of staff, many of whom take multiple roles, will need the people-based approach. A large organisation, for pratical purposes, will need to take the topic-based approach.

Whichever approach is best for you, it will allow you to clearly map out the scope and impact of retention risk, and so build an effective retention plan.