KM & Organizational Structure

November 11th, 2009

Organizational StructureWhat type of organizational structure is ideal for KM initiatives to succeed?

This is without a doubt a difficult question to answer and all sorts of different views exist on the topic. George Vagenas (2008) wrote a clear blog post outlining the traditional hierarchical structure of KM in organizations including the positions of Chief Knowledge Officer (CKO), Knowledge Managers, Knowledge Workers and the Subject Matter Experts.

Others argue that due to the goal of a flat and decentralized KM where all are encouraged to participate, this hierarchical structure has got to go. Instead the role of CKO ought to be more horizontal by acting as an internal consultant that coordinates and supports other managers in their duties.

Last month, David Snowden (2009) posted an interesting blog post with his views on why the position of CKO is a bad idea. He believes that by appointing a CKO, the rest of the organization takes a step back and no longer sees KM as their responsibility.

Instead, Snowden proposes several alternatives to the CKO position including making it a rotating 6-month position in order to keep connected to the real needs of the business or having a panel of international KM experts give their guidance to the CEO throughout the year.

Whatever the correct organizational structure may be, no one can really deny that some sort of leadership must take place in order for KM initiatives to succeed. Even the flattest companies still have senior management positions after all.  I’m curious as to what you think about the role of CKO. Is it necessary?

~Sarah


Related

Replys

  1. carmen - November 16th, 2009 at 7:50 pm

    Hi Sarah,

    I think that the first wave of KM, which was mostly IT and technology focused, was the product of mechanistic organizational structures. Now that more organic structures are needed for improved decision making in constantly changing business environments, KM can more readily evolve from its second-wave focus on explicit vs tacit knowledge capture to a third wave founded in the belief that knowledge is socially constructed and is therefore more readily exchanged and shared in conversation. Flat structures, in which individuals and frontline managers have more autonomy are, in sum, more suited to developing communities of practice and encouraging conversation than top-down hierarchical organizations.

    -Carmen

  2. Carmen - November 17th, 2009 at 8:18 am

    Hi again,

    I had another thought about structure and how it affects KM. In KM, there’s acknowledgment that employees — the knowledge holders — are not always so willing to share what they know because knowledge is valuable and can be used to increase status, power and even bargaining position with regard to position and compensation. Management, on the other hand, is keenly interested in separating what people know from the people who know it — makes it easier to wring value from the asset if you own it. Of course, that separation is now widely acknowledged as impossible. So the question is this: how does corporate structure interfere with or encourage resolving the conflict between employee knowledge and management desire to own and leverage it?

    I think it has to come back to mechanistic versus organic organizational structures, but maybe this is too simple a dichotomy. What do you think?

    -Carmen

Leave a Reply