Trove KM

An organization’s knowledge and information is constantly changing, in a constant state of flow. The closest approximation to what I’m selling is a conveyor belt for knowledge. Once the conveyor belt is set up, I then train people how to get stuff on and off. It is assumed that people already have knowledge to put on the system. They need help organizing it and moving it around.

The conveyor belt system is varied, made up of rollers, magnets, rubber, etc. Each bit of the system does something different. They have different attributes, offer different benefits and designed for different things. They’re all intended to move things around – different things, in different ways.

To my mind, KM is the practice of moving knowledge and information around an organization. The aim is to make sure that it is available to people whenever then need it. The challenge is to anticipate what people will need and when (which is pretty much impossible). The solution is to have constantly updated/revised information and the appropriate  mechanisms to deliver it . Most commonly the mechanisms are computer based, but not always, e.g. debriefings, CoPs, sharing sessions, etc. The most important element are people. IT systems are nothing without the right inputs and usage.

It’s not about the conveyor belt. It’s not even about the packets that are moving around the belt. It’s about the people putting on and taking off the packets. Eveything else is just a mechanical process.

I was listening to a news report this morning, while out walking my dog on Sandymount Strand, about the recent floods in Ireland, specifically Newcastle West, Co. Limerick. The local authorities said they would be conducting an investigation into what happened and what could be done in the future to prevent such catastophes.

It started me thinking that while post-mortem on such an event has to be done, would it be possible to do “pre-mortems” on events such as these? This would be gathering information together prior to an event occurring. Often it is difficult to gather together information after the fact. In crisis situations there can be panic or disorganization. In serious events some of the information may be lost or destroyed either explicitly, e.g. documents destroyed in office fire, or implicitly, e.g. physical evidence of infrastructure washed away in a flood. Part of KM is preempting events by the diligent, consistent codification of knowledge. It’s partly risk management but it’s also part of what organisations should be doing in their day-to-day KM program. For instance, if an organization has good data and information gathering procedures and culture this will dovetail with what they are doing anyway.

I thought I had come up with a new term but it seems Gary Klein, for one, had already used the term. Ah well… let’s hope it’s a case of great minds thinking alike! Here’s Gary’s article if you’re interested: Performing a Project Premortem, Gary Klein, Harvard Business Review Article (2007).

Here’s a brief analysis by Shawn Callaghan of Anedote.

I noticed in a comment by Keith De La Rue mentioning “Minority Report” and the concpet of pre-crime and the pre-cogs. Nice connection there.

Interesting how nobody has a problem with the term “Military Intelligence” yet people seem to go off the deep end when you mention “Knowledge Management”?

Arguably there is no “intelligence” involved in the collection of information and data for military purposes – not even close (and I’m not alluding to that old chestnut of MI being an oxymoron). We all know well what is meant when we hear the term “intelligence” in relation to military or law enforcement activities. I suspect the difference is we accept and acquiesce to hyperbolic terms when it comes to such activities. Either that or it’s just not acceptable to question the “higher’ authorities…

Could it be that KM is to business what MI is to government? Is it all just nomenclature?

Deeper research into the similarities between MI and KM would be warranted. For now, here are a few references on military intelligence:

Intelligence has been defined as the art of “knowing one’s enemies” (“Military Intelligence”, by John Patrick Finnegan, Center of Military History, United States Army, Washington, D. C., 1998) ). Interesting to see the usage of the word knowledge in there.

“Military intelligence means information” - The Oxford Companion to Military History

Military and strategic intelligence includes the collecting, processing, analyzing, evaluating, integrating, and interpreting openly or covertly acquired information about foreign countries and areas, regions of actual or potential military operations, and hostile or potentially hostile forces. US History Encyclopedia

Although the means have grown more sophisticated, the basic function of military intelligence (voyennaya razvedka) has remained unchanged: collecting, analyzing and disseminating information about the enemy’s intentions and its ability to carry them out. Encyclopedia of Russian History, Gale Group, Inc.

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol2no4/html/v02i4a08p_0001.htm

The history of military intelligence in the US Army seems like match for KM’s progress.

I attended the 2008 Annual Partnership Conference yesterday held by the National Centre for Partnership and Performance (NCPP).

The theme of the conference was “Participatory Leadership Identified as Key to Public Service Reform”.

It was set against the backdrop of the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation & Development (OECD) major review of the Irish Civil Service.

My motivation for attending was to validate a hunch I had about trust. One of the biggest obstacles I encounter as a KM practitioner is people’s lack of interest, anxiousness, fear, etc. KM is often seen as a tool of management with no upside for the employee. Not an unreasonable view given that I am invariably hired by management. It is said time and again that without employee engagement you are not really doing KM. And yet, for the most part, employees have no interest in doing KM. I believe it comes down to a matter of trust. As an extreme example, an employee may well fear that they might be “downsized” once they have revealed all their valuable tacit knowledge. I can appreciate that.

Participatory leadership could be one way of resolving this issue of trust. If an organisation engages in real participatory management where all views are represented at the table and people feel they have a real input, then all initiatives that are carried out, including KM, will have the impermatur of legitimacy and trust. It’s pretty straightforward – people are more apt to cooperate and join in processes that they initiated.

I posed this question to the panel and was told that, yes, evidence has shown that participatory management has been shown to be major builder of trust in organisations.

My follow-up question was, how to get started with a participatory leadership program? I found the answer to this less satisfactory. In my mind, I thought there was a government program that an organization could sign up for. I had visions of mentors, booklets, hand-holding, etc. Instead it was recommended that the best way to get started is with “service reform”. That is, change the way you serve your customers.

For me this was a big disconnect. I thought it would have started with, say, next Monday get all employees together in the conference room and tell them, “From now on, we will be practicing participatory leadership. This means…. x, y, z. Over the coming months we will be holding lectures, workshops, forming teams, etc., etc.” Instead, the view seems to be start from the outside and work inwards. Maybe I misunderstood…

I am not an participatory management expert, but I think the process should start internally. Surely, the participation is between staff and management, not between organization and customers? An organization could always change the way it offers its services without touching participatory management.

I’ll have to do some more reading on this one. I think it holds great potential for KM. Of course, like a lot of management initiatives, it could be a fig-leaf for business as usual. A sop to the staff. That, however, is beyond the scope of this post which is, to say, if participatory management is carried out properly, one of the side benefits could be a much more positive reaction to KM.

Localization is critical when it comes to the human side of KM. That is to say, the ability to empathize with your subjects.

Because there is so much weirdness when it comes to “people-KM”, e.g. fear of loosing job/power/advantage, etc., it is vital that the KM practitioner is able to lessen these anxieties. One of the most important elements is that he/she is not seen as a complete outsider. Sometimes the far-away-prophet status of a consultant is useful, but it is not a good label to have when dealing with rank and file staff. Good for winning the contract, bad for doing the work. It’s a fine line. Obviously you are an outsider so trying to be too chummy will come across as insincere (and possibly appear more sinister). But you have to understand and identify with the people undergoing the process. How you speak, how you dress, how you conduct yourself, etc. will all send powerful signals of intent.

Remember, there is a fear of KM. It carries with it am implicit threat, no matter how you spin it. When you, as a KM consultant, walk through the door you are perceived, rightly or wrongly, as a threat. All our lives we build up and improve our knowledge. It’s an innately personal thing. In work, it’s where our paycheck comes from, the next promotion, the annual bonus, etc. It’s where a huge amount of our prestige comes from, especially if you’re smart (and nobody likes to be thought of as dumb). As far as most people are concerned, you want to take their knowledge. The higher up the corporate ladder you go, the more there is to take and the more there is for that person to loose. Knowledge isn’t like any other quality. In the same way an expensive suit or car can make a person fit in or measure up, knowledge cannot be simply taken off a shelf. People can have all the Cole-Hahns, the Callaways, the BMWs, but they know that it’s their knowledge/their smarts, that’s truly what makes them superior (unless they’re really stupid/shallow). Naturally then, any discussion or attention on this area is going to elicit a visceral reaction like none other. (I’ll get into the other side of the equation in a later posting, i.e. what’s in it for them, but for now I’m just focusing on the qualities needed as a KM consultant). Therefore, trust is a key factor in being a successful KM consultant. More so than other consulting profession, the ability to connect with people and show concern/respect for their feelings is a vital skill for KM consultants. The difficult thing is, it can’t really be taught and it certainly can’t be faked. If you are naturally imbued with personable qualities, your professional life will be that bit easier and more productive.

One of the implications of this is (and this isn’t going sound very “PC” or cosmopolitan) if you’re operating in France, use French consultants; in Poland, use Polish; Malaysia, use Malaysians, etc. Even within countries, if you’re in Glasgow, use Glaswegians; Moscow, Muscovites, Los Angeles, Angelenos, etc. Of course there will be exceptions, but in general the closer you can get to embodying the outlook, concerns, thought processes, etc. the more insight you will have and consequently success.

A lot of this only comes with experience and a bit of trial and error. If you have err, just like at a social event, err on the side of being overdressed. You can always pull off the tie. Likewise with your demeanor, go in formal. It’s always easier to loosen up during the day. It’s easier to climb down and relax than it is to try and get back respect if people think you’re a joker. You don’t need to go too far down… you don’t want to become so empathetic that you forget what you’re being paid to do (”Stockholm syndrome”…?).

• You don’t want to be crawly/subservient
• You don’t want to be haughty
• You kinda of want to be one of the gang, but not too much that you’re overstepping social boundaries
• You don’t want to be too cool/laid back/aloof/disconnected
• You don’t want to be too intense
• You don’t want to be too alien

You need natural empathy, heaps of it and as fast as you can. It’s the Goldilocks equation: you don’t want to be too cool or too heated. You want to be just right.

It occurred to me that many things in life are not measured with explicit reference to finance and profit. The most obvious being health. We measure our health all the time without reference to money (unless perhaps if one is very sick or maybe a professional athlete). Health is seen as an end in itself. We simply want to look and feel good.

Health sells

There is an important lesson here for KM. Just because an activity is not measured in financial terms, it does not mean it isn’t important. Why else are gyms, dental practices, cosmetic surgeons, vitamin shops, personal trainers, sporting good stores and clothing manufactures (to name a few) booming? Our mountain trails, jogging paths, swimming pools, golf courses, basketball courts, yoga centers and other sporting arena are full of people seeking to improve or extend their health levels.

Prove it!

There is a drive and exigence among KM practitioners to prove the financial addition KM brings to an equation. And that’s understandable. When it comes to business conversations it is the (missing) elephant in the room. For KM, proving its value is both desirable and difficult. This is not very different from other “soft” services, such as HR or Public Relations, and contributes to significant frustration among its believers.

Explicit KM gains

Certainly, there are times when KM actions lead to obvious, quantifiable financial gains. The pharmaceutical industry, for example, has seen significant cuts in time to market resulting in millions of dollars extra profit. Several auto companies have had large cost savings through their KM programs.

Change in ethos

Perhaps, overall, KM should switch to a “health check” ethos? We all know being healthy brings many benefits, both financial and otherwise, but money is not foremost in our minds when we go for our annual check-up. After all, like the saying goes, “health is wealth”.

Spotted these two vids over at Knowledge Thoughts. As Neil and Matt say, they can help people understand km.

The first one does a better job of illustrating the challenges of managing knowledge, I think. The second one is a corporate vid from Lotus/IBM.

Searching for “knowledge management” on YouTube will get you quite a few results.

Information R/evolution

Discover What You Know

This is how I feel the weighting of work and emphasis goes in the early stages of a KM program:

I think that as time goes on the weighting will shift away from the “PR” activities towards the pure “KM” activities.

I think this might be helpful for people to see, in graphical terms, where the weight of their efforts might go at the start of a typical KM project.

(I put PR in “” to denote selling/marketing activities and KM in “” to denote what people might consider strictly KM activities. In reality, everything on this chart is part of a KM initiative.)

An organization of knowledgeable people is not necessarily and a knowledgeable organisation.

An organization may have much information, data, reports, publications but there needs to be a knowledge strategy behind them. Otherwise they are independent efforts (which might be fine…).

Without joined-up thinking there will be little or no residual value returned to the organisation. The retention of best practices, lessons learned, how-to’s, etc. is low, ad hoc and/or accidental.

Move staff from an analog mode to a digital mode (or from nothing to digital, i.e. create new avenues, outlets, opportunities) .

Move as much work as possible to computer in order to record and codify corporate knowledge, information and memory.”

“Social networking” tools could strongly assist/enable this movement.