Showing posts with label pitfalls. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pitfalls. Show all posts

Thursday, 8 May 2014


How to make your KM program reorganisation-proof


Did you know that the biggest risk to your Knowledge management program is internal reorganisation?

That's one of the early findings from our Knowledge Management survey - a survey of nearly 400 kmers round the world. Some of these people had been in charge of KM programs that had folded, and we wanted to know, in these cases, what the reasons had been for the abandonment of Knowledge Management.

The most common reason was Internal Reorganisation.

The Knowledge manager found themselves reporting to a new boss, a new CEO or new management, who were not supporters of the KM program, and the "plug was pulled".

This sort of reorganisation can happen to any of us at any time. You need to make your KM program reorganisation-proof.

Here's how, in easy steps.

1) From the start make sure your Knowledge Management program is focused on delivering real business needs and objectives. Read this blog post. Get this business-focus into your Knowledge Management strategy, and get the strategy signed off by senior management. 
2) Have some idea of the size of the prize. Value your KM program - find out what it would be worth to the business if all staff had access to the knowledge they needed to make their key decisions. 
3) Conduct some early proof of concept exercises. Prove that KM works in your context, and get early endorsement (ideally on camera) from your business customers. 
4) Conduct some business-led pilots, designed to deliver measurable benefit. Get agreement from senior managers before-hand that if the pilots are successful and add enough value, KM will be endorsed from on high as "required behaviour" 
5) Embed KM roles into the organigram, KM processes into the high-level operational processes, and KM technology into the technology suite. Weave KM so tightly into the fabric of the organisation that it can't be unwoven. 
6) Present KM widely to the external world. Make your company famous for KM. Win a MAKE award. Get into a position where abandoning KM would be an embarrassment.
Do all these, and you will have the argument, the evidence and the momentum to survive any but the most extreme internal reorganisation.

Monday, 25 November 2013


Knowledge Management - stay relevant to survive


Survival Tips Being a Knowledge Manager is a precarious place to be, until KM is fully embedded.

Just this week we heard of another KM team disbanded in the aftermath of a merger.

The thought process behind such post-merger rationalisation goes like this;

  • We promised short-term cost savings through the merger - what can we cut?
  • We cannot cut the front line operations (although we can delay expenditure on some items).
  • We cannot eliminate anything that directly supports the front line, such as procurement, or finance, but we could probably slim them down; combine our procurement and finance departments and make them smaller.
  • We can safely cut anything that is 2 steps away from the line; the teams that work on things that will eventually help the front line. That's KM, Quality, Risk, R&D (in many companies) etc etc.
So KM is cut, because it is seen as only indirectly supporting the front line. It is seen as 2 steps away from where the money is made.

So how do you ensure your survival as a Knowledge Manager?

The answer is simple;

DIRECTLY SUPPORT THE FRONT LINE OF THE BUSINESS.

Work directly on business problems and on business issues, introducing the KM tools and techniques in order to solve those issues. Don't be generic, be specific. Introduce KM one business issue at a time, rather than focusing on generic roll-out of technologies or processes (until the commitment is made, in which case you can be generic).

Then when the merger happens, and the axeman comes to call, the business will say "don't cut KM; we need them to win this contract, deliver this project, or develop this product".

Stay a only one step from the business. Stay relevant. Add Value. Survive.

(see my post on "putting a man on the moon" for more explanation)

Friday, 9 October 2009


100 ways to wreck organisational lesson-learning



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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, 30 September 2009


KM supporters - don't just preach to the choir




Happy Devils Fans
Originally uploaded by C.P.Storm
Here's an observation from eighteen years of working KM

Only about one in five people instinctively "get" KM.


Only about 20% of staff are supporters of the idea from the beginning. When you talk to a room full of people about KM, the "KM Light Bulb" will switch on over the heads of about a fifth of your audience.

Now this is a good thing, as that 20% will become your allies, your supporters and the early adopters.
However, about 3 in 5 people don't care about KM

They don't get it instinctively, the light bulb doesn't switch on. They will do it if they have to, if it's part of the job, but if they don't have to do it, they won't. If KM is voluntary, or "encouraged", they won't bother. They have better things to do. They just want to get on with their job. Now in a way, this is also a good thing, because if we make KM part of "doing a good job", they will do it.
The remaining 1 in 5 really don't like KM at all

They think it a waste of time, or a personal threat, or a way of "stealing their ideas". These people will resist KM, unless it is made unavoidable and fully embedded into performance management so that their job prospects suffer if they refuse to share.

There are a few implications of these demographics.

Firstly, if you introduce KM from the bottom up, you only reach 20% of the people.

There is still a strong movement in KM who beleive that what you need to do is allow people the time and space, provide them with the tools, and KM behaviours will emerge. Well yes, they will emerge, but only among the 20% of supporters. You will get a lot of Buzz, you will find some exciting projects, but you are preaching to the choir. The KM fans will create a KM bubble, but you won't penetrate the rest of the organisation, so 80% of the knowledge remains untapped and unmanaged. This is a pattern we have seen many times. If you go back to the initial KM launch in BP in 1997, the mood of the meeting was "Management just need to allow us the time and space to do KM". This was because the meeting was attended by enthusiasts, who just wanted to be allowed to share knowledge. Ten years later we realise that to reach the other 80%, management need to move beyond Allowing, and move beyond Encouraging, in order to get to Expecting or Requiring. Management Expectation will reach the next 60%, Management Requirement will reach the remaining 20%.
Secondly, you can use the 20% of enthusiasts to make the case to management

Management are not going to set the expectation or the requirement, unless they believe KM really adds value. So use the 20% who are your supporters and early adopters to conduct the pilots, deliver the benefits and write the case studies that will convince management to set KM as a corporate expectation. Use this resource as a stepping stone to the next step. This is the thinking behind our staged implementation model which we will cover in the next newsletter. To continue the ecclesiastical metaphor, its OK to preach to the choir, if you then use the choir to produce the required miracles that will convince management.
Finally, you won't complete the journey until KM becomes inescapable

If the company is committed to KM, then the last 20%, who really don't like it, need to know that their future is at risk if they continue to avoid or sabotage the KM efforts. As Bob Buckman said, "we incentivise KM. If you share your knowledge, we incentivise you by letting you keep your job". OK, this is hard-nosed stuff, but if you let KM remain optional - if you let people avoid it with no sanction and no follow-up, then the word gets round, the 60% stop doing it (as they have other things to get on with), and soon there's nobody in the church except the choir see blog post about "the tipping back point")

Now the figures may vary from company to company, and from culture to culture, and may not always be 20%, 60%, 20%. In a truly progressive company, it may be 40%, 55%, 5%. In a cynical old-style firm, or a public sector department riddled with politics, it might be 5%, 50%, 45%

However the demographic groupings will be there, and your KM implementation program needs to recognise this. Its fun to preach to the choir - you get lots of positive feedback - but it won't get you very far in the long run.

Monday, 28 September 2009


KM failure stories number 5 - choosing the wrong tool



felt tools
Originally uploaded by CREEPETZ
This is the story of a medium sized company that wanted to start KM.

They looked around at what others were doing, read the books, bought the magazines, and decided that Shell were one of the leaders to emulate. One of the core components of Shell's KM model is it's communities of practice, which use online question and answer forums to share knowledge around the globe.

The company decided to copy this, and to introduce online question and answer forums. Now already you can see a few warning signs - you cannot assume that communities of practice alone will deliver KM (Shell has many more tools in its KM toolbox*), and secondly you cannot assume that the technology alone will deliver the communities. So perhaps it was unsurprising that the community forums remained almost completely unused.

But there were other issues as well. Shell's communities are spread around the globe; this company had all its staff in a single office. Shell's community staff could only interact virtually; in this company they could talk, they could visit each others offices, and they could talk to their colleagues if they had a problem. Shell is a multilingual organisation, and an English Language forum made sense; in this company, although their forum was in English, the staff all spoke their native language, making it far easier to talk verbally in their native language, than communicate through the forum in written English.

I am pleased to say that this company very quickly realised that they had made a false start, and rethought their strategy, deciding instead to implement a full set of KM processes, tailored to their own context. But it's a lesson worth learning - there is no one-size KM solution. Although there are a set of universal principles, the solution you create and the toolset you adopt must be designed around your own needs.

Wednesday, 23 September 2009


More reasons for failure - let's learn from BPR



Truck accident
Originally uploaded by Larsenio

Hey - I hope I'm not being unduly negative here, with all these posts about failure!

If we understand reasons for failure, we can avoid them in our own KM campaigns, and successful KM implementations are based on a thorough understanding of what not to do, as well as what to do.

Here's a list of 19 reasons why BPR exercises failed, from Hammer & Champy (1993, Chap. 14). I have put (KM) in the list instead of Re-engineering - see how many of these reasons make sense to you in a KM context.

  1. Trying to fix a process instead of changing it

  2. Not focusing on business processes

  3. Ignoring everything except (KM) [e.g. reorganisation, reward system, labour relationships, redefinition of responsibility and authority]

  4. Neglecting people's values and beliefs [need to reward behaviour that exhibits new values and behaviour]

  5. Be willing to settle for minor results

  6. Quitting too early

  7. Placing prior constraints on the definition of the problem and the scope for (KM) effort.

  8. Allowing existing corporate cultures and management attitudes to prevent (KM) from getting started. [e.g. consensus, short termism, bias against conflict]

  9. Trying to make (KM) happen from the bottom up

  10. Assigning someone who doesn't understand (KM) to lead the effort.

  11. Skimping on the resources to (introduce KM)

  12. Burying (KM) in the middle of the corporate agenda.

  13. Dissipating energy across a great many (KM) projects.

  14. Attempting to (introduce KM) when the CEO is 2 years from retirement

  15. Failing to distinguish (KM) from other business improvement programs [e.g. quality improvement, strategic alignment, right-sizing, customer-supplier partnerships, innovation, empowerment, etc.]

  16. Concentrating exclusively on design [forgetting implementation]

  17. Trying to make (KM) happen without making anyone unhappy.

  18. Pulling back when people resist making (KM) changes

  19. Dragging the effort out [1 year is long enough]



So, what do you think? Do any of those not apply? Maybe number 1 is more a BPR concern than a KM concern, but other than that the only comment I have is that number 6 and number 19 are in conflict, and I have yet to see a successful KM implementation that took less than a year.

Otherwise this view of a focused, managed, well-resourced, visionary, committed program, supported from the top down and not afraid to make waves, fits most of the really successful KM programs that I know.

Now KM is prone to ADDITIONAL reasons for failure, which you will find in older posts on this blog.


KM failure stories number 4 - right tool, wrong situation


A good story here about someone using specific KM tools for the wrong reasons, and going wildly off course as a result.

The Los Angeles Times decided that it would be good to have an editorial composed and edited by the masses. The LA Times started by posting their editorial, and then provided a wiki for the public to respond. As Wikipedia has learned, there is no alignment of goals among political types and the partisans reigned supreme during the very brief life of the wikitorial. In the organic, evolving world of wikis, consider the wikitorial an evolutionary dead-end. At first, the users made a good faith effort to collaborate on an editorial, but they soon concluded that producing a single editorial that was acceptable to everyone was not going to happen and there had already been attempts to delete the entire editorial, so by the second day, they forked the editorial so that it would be possible to represent different points of view. Once news of the wikitorial experiment showed up on Slashdot, a technology-related news website (http://slashdot.org), it attracted a lot of attention and it was soon followed by pornographic posts and so on. On the third day, the wikitorial was shut down.

The reason the Los Angeles Times wikitorial failed is that an editorial is a point of view about a controversial subject. The goals of the individuals on either side of the debate are to discredit those who disagree with them and establish their world view as pre-eminent. In other words, the goals of the left and the right are not aligned. Therefore, I suggest no bi-partisan wikis. Ever. There is no such thing.

Tuesday, 22 September 2009


Signs that your KM strategy is about to crash



accident waiting to happen
In a great post, Lucas McDonnell provides 6 signs that your KM strategy is in trouble. These are

1. People outside your group don’t understand what you’re doing.

2. You keep changing vendors/technologies/products.

3. You keep layering vendors/technologies/products on top of each other.

4. You find it difficult to explain what you’re trying to accomplish.

5. You’re prescribing organizational change.

6. You’re making big promises.


Now numbers 2 and 3 make me think there is a missing "sign 7", namely

7. All you are focusing on is vendors/technologies/products


It still amazes me how often you hear "KM is all about people" from teams who are concentrating solely on technology. we have known for Years that KM is about technology AND people AND process.

So however much time and money you spend on technology, spend the same on People - coaching people, training people, listening to people, setting people's roles and people's accountabilities, and looking at people structures.

Then spend the same amount of time on Process - work process, knowledge seeking process, knowledge sharing process, community process, team process and project process. Finally there is the issue of governance, which is often neglected completely.

Driving a KM strategy on technology alone and neglecting the other three aspects of people, process and governance, is like driving a truck with only one tyre inflated.

Sooner or later, something is going to crash.

Monday, 14 September 2009


Right focus, wrong team



One of the most frustrating situations you can face as a consultant, is working with an internal KM team that does not have the capacity to deliver. You want to help them, you want them to succeed, they are focused on the right things, but they are just the wrong people.

So who are the right people? I am talking here primarily about the team that implements Knowledge Management - that introduces the roles, technologies, processes and governance, and that leads the change to a new way of working.

The team leader, first and foremost, needs to be a change agent. They need to be a visionary leader, capable of working at the highest levels in the organisation as well as the lowest. They need to be an insider; this is a role that cannot be outsourced, as they need to "speak the language", know the politics, and have the credibility. They need to know enough about KM to translate it into business and customer terminology, but able to back it up with sound KM theory.

The skills of the KM team need to be varied. KM covers the area of overlap between IT, HR (or Learning and Development) and Organizational Practice, and so the team needs a blend of people who can cover these areas. Some of the following skills should be on the team.

Facilitation/influencing skills. The knowledge management implementation team has a hard job ahead of them, changing the culture of the organisation, and the soft skills are absolutely core. They will be working very closely with people, often sceptical people, and they need very good influencing and facilitation skills. Secure facilitation training for the team members as soon as you can.

Coaching and training skills. If the aim of the team is to introduce new behaviours and practices to the organisation, they will need people skilled in training, coaching and mentoring. Look for people with skills as change agents and business coaches. One or more people with a training background should be on the team.

Writing skills. The processes of knowledge capture and packaging are in some ways very akin to journalism. Interviewing, group interviewing (e.g. Retrospects), analysis, summary, write-up, presentation, are all part of the stock-in-trade of journalists. Make sure there is at least one person on the team with journalistic or writing skills, and preferably more than one.

Marketing and communication skills. The early stages of implementing knowledge management are all about raising awareness, and "selling" the idea. The team needs at least one person who is skilled at presenting and marketing. This person will also be kept busy raising the profile of the company's KM and Best Practice activities at external conferences.

Technology skills. The team needs at least one person who is aware of the details of the current in-house technology, the potential of technology as an enabler knowledge management, and who can help define the most appropriate technologies to introduce to the organisation.

This is what John Keeble, the CKO of Enterprise Oil, said

"If you look at the team more widely, rather than just the person leading it, far and away the most important things are the interpersonal skills, and we have said whoever we are recruiting anyone for the team, that's the most important thing. We can teach them the knowledge management skills, they bring their own network with them, but they have got to have the interpersonal skills, because so much of this is about persuasion. You cannot coerce people into sharing their knowledge, you have to be able to entice and cajole and persuade them to do it"


The organizational backgrounds of the core team need to be varied. The team will be attempting to change behaviour, and embed knowledge management into the business process, across a large part of the organisation (or indeed the whole organisation). Ideally the team should contain people with good and credible backgrounds in each major organisational subdivision. This is really to establish as much credibility as possible. When members of the team are working with business projects, they want to be seen as "part of the business", not "specialists from head office who know nothing about this sector of the business". They have to be able to "talk the language" of the business - they need to be able to communicate in technical language and business language. They act as Best Practice champions within their area of business, and when the working team is over, may take a leading Knowledge Management role in their subsidiary.

The members of the team will also need to be passionate about the topic. The team members must be seen to be personally committed to best practice and knowledge management if they are to retain credibility. They need training in the skills and theories of KM and Best Practice transfer, and need access to books, conferences and forums on the topic They must be enthusiastic about applying knowledge management tools and techniques in their own business, and to their own work, in service of improving their own performance.

Finding such people is not easy, but changing the culture of an organisation is not easy either. With the wrong people on the team, you don't get the right result, even with the best consultants in the world to support you. However with the right team, the right leader, and the right approach, absolutely anything can be done, and KM implementation will be easy.

Friday, 4 September 2009


KM failure stories number 3 - all push and no pull



Ready!
Originally uploaded by jasonippolito
Another organisation started implementing Knowledge Management, and found that there were very many excellent stories to share in the organisation. As well as introducing a range to tools, they began to provide a service of capturing and sharing knowledge and stories from around the organisation, and did an excellent job of this.

They did so well, that their services became very popular, and soon they had little time for anything else. They put their KM strategy work on hold, and became almost a full-time capture service. Eventually the organisation "declared success" for KM, and wound down the team, whereupon KM activity rapidly tailed off.

There were two issues here. One was that the team became diverted from the strategic issues of KM implementation and became a service team rather than a change leadership team. Consequently when the team disbanded, there was no change to sustain. There will always be a demand for capture services - a greater demand than you can service - and you need to find a way to deal with this. You train others in capture and storytelling, you develop the skills internally or you outsource the capture work to give yourself space to delivery the strategy. A KM implementation team needs to work at a strategic level, not a tactical or service work level.

Secondly, the focus was all on knowledge Push, and not on knowledge Pull. They were great at pushing out stories, but not so great about creating the demand for learning and the demand for knowledge. With no Pull, there was little re-use, and little delivery of benefit. Like the waterskier in the picture above - with no Pull, you can't get going.

Thursday, 3 September 2009


KM failure stories number 2 - a KM tool in isolation is like a pump without pipes



Manifold and pump
Originally uploaded by Bryn Pinzgauer
We were working with a KM team, who had asked us to come into their organisation and run some Retrospects from major successful bids. They wanted to develop and deploy knowledge of how to bid successfully.

We held a series of Retrospects, and they worked very well. We had some fantastic dialogue within the bid team, and with the internal client, and identified a series of learning points. We found some really good success factors whch should be repeated in future, and whole set of opportunities for improving the bid process, including some things that were really frustrating the bid teams (mostly related to inappropriate company policies). We documented the lessons and the opportunities for improvement, trained the client in the Retrospect process, and moved on.

A few months later the client called, and said "That Retrospect process is rubbish". That took me aback, as I know from experience that it is a very powerful and robust process, so I asked him why he said this. He replied - "those issues that were frustrating the team when we started, are still there. They have come up again in the latest Retrospects. Nothing has been changed".

Well - nothing would be changed, if all they did was hold Retrospects. Retrospects are great for identifying team learning, but there needs to be a follow on process to take action on the issue, and for this particular company, those actions needed to be taken at a high level in the organisation. They had not implemented a process or workflow for addressing the actions, and had no engagement from senior managers in the learning process. Retrospects, like so many KM tools, need to be part of a system, and no tool in isolation will stand in for the system as a whole.

I blogged a while back about "KM and central heating", making the point that a KM system is like a central heating system in that it requires many components that work together in order for knowledge to flow (For those of you in hot countries - think of air conditioning systems in big buildings).

Introducing Retrospects without a system to act on the learning is like installing a hot water pump with no pipes and boilers and radiators, and then expecting your house to get warm.

This is a surprisingly common KM failure mode - introducing one or two tools, and expecting them to do the work of a complete system of technologies, processes, accountabilities and governance.

Tuesday, 1 September 2009


Knowledge management failure stories - #1



Failure ' Day 63
Originally uploaded by worak
We worked with a company, which used to be a state utility, and now was facing commercial competition. They decided that they had a lot of in house knowledge, which could be a real asset if brought to bear on commercial bids, and the subsequent work.

We worked with them to build a KM strategy, but were worried from the start by the organisational level at which KM was set, and the calibre of the leader of the KM team. He was a very competent engineer, but not a change leader, and not confident with senior management, and this was something that we were unable to influence. As a result the value and vision of KM was not really communicated well enough up the organisation to gain sponsorship.

The KM project subsequently focused on delivering a KM portal, fed by lessons from Retrospects (therefore focusing on push rather than pull). KM roles were assigned in the projects, training courses were delivered, and a couple of pilots were initiated. However the technology was delivered 6 months late, and by then the impetus had already began to wane. There were no quick wins to demonstrate value, and the long gap between training and delivery of the technology meant that KM activity was not sustained. When a major reorganisation followed, KM was effectively abandoned. It now remains only at a very low level, and the deliver of value has been well below what could have been acheived.

So what was missing?

. A strong leader, prepared to lead change
. High level buy-in and sponsorship
. A phased implementation approach, with a roll-out phase when the entire KM system was ready
. A change management strategy, with early wins used to drive later adoption
. Any form of Knowledge Pull (see here)

Monday, 31 August 2009


Why KM fails



Oops!
Originally uploaded by bobster855
The list below (from this blog post) was created by Dion Hinchcliffe as a list of "reasons why Enterprise 2.0 fails". It's equally valid for KM.


1.It starts strong in a single department and then never makes it out;
2.Selecting the tools first;
3.Selecting the wrong tools and sticking with them;
4.There are no resources allocated to adoption and training;
5.It’s purely an IT initiative;
6.The effort excludes IT;
7.Engaging with HR, legal, branding, compliance, etc. too soon;
8.Pushing Enterprise 2.0 as a generic toolbox instead of the solution to specific problems;
9.Lack of effective executive champions;
10.Lack of effective participants: Empty blogs, wikis, or silent social networks;
11.No long term plan or budget for governance, community management, upgrades, or maintenance;
12.Failure to draw in key influencers as adoption broadens;
13.Building it all as a self-contained, top-down effort; and
14.Not waiting long enough to let critical mass build.

I would add one more -

15. Building it all as a bottom-up effort

Incidentally, I have been posting a series of "KM quantified success stories" recently, which you can find via the "case study" label to the right. I was thinking today that it might be equally instructive to post a series of "KM failure stories", so will start on that tomorrow.

Monday, 20 July 2009


Knowledge Management is not an end in itself


Here's an excellent quote I found in my archives, from a review of Bechtel corporation in the late 90s

"Knowledge Management is not an end in itself.
Companies do not exist for the purpose of propagating and advancing knowledge - they exist to sell products and services.
But to the extent that competitive advantage relies on informed decision making within the business - knowledge management has a crucial role to play".


This speaks to the whole issue of the driving purpose of KM, which I covered in my blog post "Are you putting a man on the moon? Or just trying out a new mop?"

The key three words in this quote are "informed decision making". If the key decisions in the company can be informed by the collective knowledge of the organisation, then competitive success is within your grasp.

Friday, 3 July 2009


Learn from mistakes, or learn from success?



Trial and error, or trial and success? Which is the better learning mechanism?

A thought provoking piece here, makes the argument that people learn much better from their mistakes, as a result of the emotional charge and the emotional scars that failure brings.
I know this is true on an individual level, but do we really have to fail before we can learn?

I believe that on a corporate level, or as a society, we collectively make the biggest learning steps when we finally succeed.

Think of Edison and his light filament; when did he do the most learning? When he tried each of the 99 options that didn’t work, or when he found the one that did? Now you can argue that he learned from both, but now let’s look at transferring that knowledge. If you were a light bulb maker, which of these two statements would be of most value to you?

1. You can’t make a light bulb filament out of cat hair
2. You can make a
light bulb filament out of tungsten

It is learning from the successes that are most valuable for others.

Now let’s look at KM in an organisation, and how an organisation learns. The ideal for an organisation is that it learns from the *minimum of mistakes*. We know that it is human nature to learn best from mistakes, but we don’t want to be at the mercy of human nature*. We don’t want people to have to screw up in order to learn. We don’t want mistakes and screw ups if we can possibly avoid it, because mistakes and screwups can cost money, they can cost lives (in certain cases), and they can cost careers if they are big enough. I know that people find a mistake a powerful learning experience, but KM in organisations must aim at countering this, and giving people access to learning from other’s mistakes. (In fact it is notable that where mistakes are most serious, as in the Military, the greatest attention is given to systematic learning and KM)

Somehow we need to make that learning as powerful as possible. We don’t just want to say “do X”, we want to say “Do X, because you can get into real trouble if you don’t”. Or even “Do X – I didn’t, and let me tell you what happened”. Ultimately, if X is definitely the right thing to do, we might want to say “Do X. That’s the company way. If you work here, X is what you do”

Basically, we cannot afford to let people learn from mistakes when mistakes are avoidable. The first time a mistake is made, it can be a mistake only in hindsight – at the time it might have been the best option based on the knowledge available at the time. It may have been a justifiable risk. The second time that the same mistake is made, is a failure of KM. The new knowledge available should have warned of the probability of the mistake. The hindsight from the first mistake should become foresight to avoid the second.

An organisation should learn from its mistakes, but only once! The best approach is to learn once from mistakes, and many times from success.

*in fact most management systems are attempts to guard against human nature.

Thursday, 18 June 2009


Are you putting a man on the moon? Or just trying out a new mop?





Space shuttle liftoff from the
Kennedy Space Center: Merritt Island, Florida
Originally uploaded by
State Library and Archives of Florida
The story is told of how President John Kennedy once visited NASA. He came across a cleaner and asked him what his job was. The cleaner replied: ‘My job is to help to put a man on the moon.’

There is some discussion of whether this story is true or not, but what it illustrates is the cleaner's complete alignment with the aims of NASA, and the collective mission and strategy.

What if it had been the Knowledge Management lead that Kennedy had spoken to? What sort of answer would he have received?

I believe it is vital that KM efforts are linked to business outcome, and I am not the only on who believes this. I have a quote from a survey from the early 00s, that reads as follows

  • “Most successful knowledge management applications
    addressed a ‘life or death’ business situation
    addressed an existing
    business issue

    Successful cases answered two questions at the outset -
    What business objective am I trying to achieve?
    How can I apply existing
    knowledge?”

Similarly Tom Davenport and co-authors, in the paper "Building successful Knowledge Management projects", conclude that "Link to economic performance or industry value" is the number one success factor for successful KM. I was reminded of this yesterday, at a presentation from Conoco Phillips, where they showed some of the portal pages for their Operational Excellence Communities of Practice, and there on the front page was the community goal to deliver X number of additional barrels of oil production to the organisation, plus the number of barrels delivered to date. They knew their role - to deliver additional oil to the bottom line.

Conoco Phillips aren't the only ones - Mars directed KM at delivering growth in emerging markets, De Beers at Block Caving, BP at cutting the cost of constructing retail stations, Ford at continuously decreasing manufacturing costs. In each case, this was their "man on the moon" - their business imperative that KM was serving, their "life and death" business issue. KM was being directed at solving real issues, and therefore gained a seat at the strategy table, and delivered successful programs as a result (at least for a while).

However a lot of KM professionals don't seem to have made this link with business value and business imperatives in their KM strategy. If you ask them what they are doing, they say "We're rolling out SharePoint", or "I am trialling MediaWiki". This would be the equivalent of the NASA cleaner saying "I'm trying out a new mop head". It doesn't have the same impact somehow!

Addressing urgent business issues is even more important during a recession, when management are looking to cut costs. I heard yesterday of another KM program closed, and another KM leader looking for a job, as the company sought to cut back on expenditure. If you're not seen to be addressing the crucial business issues*, then you could be seen as optional, and times are too tight for optional expenditure.

So if you were asked "What's your KM focus this year" - what would you answer? Could you point to a crucial business issue* you were helping to solve through application of KM? Could you say "We're helping put a man on the moon?" Or are you just mopping the floor?

*By the way, "reducing travel costs through enabling online collaboration" is not a critical business issue, nor is "reducing the time to find information". Your company is not a travel agent nor an information finder, and neither of these issues will keep your CEO awake at night.

Blog Archive