Replys

1. 

   Jen C - November 2nd, 2009 at 6:19 pm

   Hi Sarah,

   I don’t think organizations ever really arrive at KM, because knowledge is so organic. Especially in large organizations, people are always coming and going, so there is always knowledge to “take” as well as “give”.

   Honestly, I think that organizations who have “achieved” KM are being arrogant, and probably in detail about the information and knowledge within their firm.

   Failure in KM is not necessarily bad. It just means that the organization now has a better idea of what works. Seriously though, a truly mature organization can learn from their mistakes and move forward, instead of dwelling on what is/was less than ideal in a KM implementation.
2. 

   Jen G. - November 4th, 2009 at 9:35 am

   I was reading a recent article online regarding the Department of Defense’s (DoD) ongoing KM strategies. In it, Army Chief Information Officer Robert Neilson suggests that “If you think you’ve [succeeded in knowledge management], you aren’t doing knowledge management”. I tend to agree with Neilson’s assessment (which also echos Jen C.’s thoughts) in that organizations are fluid and dynamic entities, there is constant movement with employees, policies, and processes. A KM strategy that is “successful” in my mind is one that recognizes its never fully done assessing the needs of both the organization as a whole and the knowledge workers collaborating within the system. Measures for KM success don’t necessarily fit into neat little boxes and are different that what I think many of us as employees are used to in terms of how we would assess our own performance. What’s interesting about the DoD is that they recognize their workers aren’t used to the idea of collaboration as being essential to productivity, and approach KM as a “discipline”, particularly is it relates to the culture of the organization.

   http://www.fcw.com/Articles/2009/10/16/DOD-knowledge-management.aspx
3. 

   Mary - November 4th, 2009 at 7:44 pm

   I have worked in the same enterprise-level organization for a number of years. The culture of the organization encourages knowledge sharing and learning, after all, it is a teaching health facility. My observation is that KM has been going on from the beginning, but the term KM was not used. Even today, I do not see this term come up in any organizational newsletter, policy or procedures. However, I remember that the institute started a documentation system with version control over 12 years ago. The system is only recently upgraded to a more interactive version. There are other information channels that one can find information, but they are department or site specific with lots of redundancy. My impression is that with large enterprise consisting of multiple self-sustained units (e.g. multi-national companies and national enterprises), KM is a complex issue, requiring continual re-assessment and refinement. With my organization, KM definitely is not there yet, but it is going towards that direction.
4. 

   Carmen - November 8th, 2009 at 1:05 pm

   Hi Mary,

   Your observation that KM, regardless of what it’s been called, has been going on since the beginning, echoes what Neil MacAlpine said in his KM Cafe interview about KM in the future. So past and future — we share knowledge regardless of nomenclature.

   At the cafe, we have been asking ourselves if KM is dead, and Neil’s input was that the name of KM doesn’t matter, that KM will continue despite what we call it, mostly because knowledge sharing is something we do naturally. His point is, however, that organizations can do a better job of supporting strategic knowledge sharing, which can result in better decisions, broader understanding and greater transfer of tacit knowledge. So there is a role for KM in organizations now and in the future.

   He was also pretty adamant that the technology component of KM was the least that the field had to offer. I think there’s a spectrum of value that spans the technology itself to vibrant communities of practice and even to academia and complexity theory, where we are still trying to determine how best to support and encourage, rather than interfere with, a natural tendency to share.

   -Carmen
5. 

   Lois - November 13th, 2009 at 12:57 pm

   I have to agree that organizations need to build iin time for knowledge sharing, i.e. discussion. Unfortunately many organizations (unless they are committed to being learning organizations) see this as unproductive time, or even just a waste of time, i.e. idle chitchat.

   Even if it doesn’t seem to result in discrete knowledge objects I think any opportunity for discussion is productive, and successful organizations should build in time for employees to not only discuss work-related topics, but also to engage in social exchanges, and this can help build group cohesiveness.

Leave a Reply