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.

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”.

The value of this short video, for me, is it highlights the generational technology divide (even between people who work with youngsters).

KM & Technology

I like to think that KM isn’t entirely about technology, but there’s no getting away from the fact that it’s largely technology based. Will older, non-techie people will be able to handle KM or even be included in a KM program? If people don’t even know what some of these tech tools are, e.g. blogs, wikis, realistically, what will be the chances they’ll ever use them…? Practically none, I’d say.

Litmus Test

Is it the case that aptitude and appetite for KM can be discovered by looking at a person’s aptitude and appetite for technology? Would that be a quick litmus test when kicking off a new KM program? I ask this question even though I’m a firm (hopeful?) believer that KM is more than technology.

Two Camps

As a KM practitioner, would it be reasonable to divide organizations into two camps: tech and non-tech? At the very least, perhaps it would spare one the frustration of trying to convert un-convertibles or shove square pegs into round holes. Could you save yourself the trouble from the outset of trying to ‘lead a horse to water’ and just tailor your KM initiatives to the two camps. You could have your “hard” KM, e.g. document management systems, and your “soft” KM, e.g. sharing and learning.

One immediate flaw I can see is that the “tech” KM people would blast away from the “non-tech” people. The exponential power of technology would mean that a person participating in wikis and blogs, etc. would make far more headway than the people holding monthly sharing events.

Indicators

It may well be the stinging fact that the aptitude for technology is the simple “in/out” test for KM. Even though KM isn’t all about technology, perhaps it’s a lead indicator of the type of people who are sharers, codifiers, thinkers, do-ers, experimenters, self-teachers, etc. It’s a bit rough, but could it be the case that a lack of interest in technology will lead to a person being a poor “knowledge worker”? If this is the case, then perhaps it isn’t an age thing, it’s more of a personality thing?

Question

Bottom line question: from a KM practitioner’s perspective, do you try to bring everyone along or do you cut bait and focus on those who are are “tech friendly”?

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.)

Anyone thinking of pursuing a career as a KM consultant should read this paper. It captures very accurately the challenges facing KM practitioners in their daily work.

“The Gospel of Knowledge Management in and out of a Professional Community “

Norman Makoto Su, Hiroko Wilensky, David Redmiles, Gloria Mark
Department of Informatics
University of California, Irvine
Irvine, California 92697-3440, USA
{normsu, hwilensk, redmiles, gmark}@ics.uci.edu

Institute for Software Research (PDF)

Institute for Software Research (HTML)

ACM Portal

I saw this IBM infomercial over the weekend and thought it was a compelling case for KM. It’s probably a bit more on the information management side of things but I’d have no problem using it to (vividly) illustrate the ethos of knowledge management and some of the approaches.

Here’s the link to the vid on YouTube and a link to IBM’s site. Here’s a case study if you’re into reading material.

(Production notes: Agency: Ogilvy, New York. Directed by Jeff Feuerzeig of Maysles Films, New York. Shot March 21, 2007. Full details in Shoot)

For me, this quote by George Bernard Shaw, sums up the essence of KM:

“If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.”
George Bernard Shaw

I would suggest that there are 3 strata of KM in existence:

1) Academia, where KM is researched and taught

2) Consultants who implement KM programs for organisations

3) Organisations who practice KM as a by-product of their work, e.g. stock brokers

The first two strata are explicit while the third is implicit.  These, in my opinion, are the avenues of opportunity for practitioners in the area of KM.