For those interested in the literature, KM follows what seems like a linear trajectory that mirrors, in many respects, shifts from mechanistic organizational structures to organic ones, from the industrial age to the information age and the knowledge age, and from positivism and postpositivism theories to constructivism and critical theory. These broad movements must surely paint a more detailed picture within organizations as employees leverage what they know on behalf of their employers, as we renegotiate the employer-employee relationship and as organizational culture is recognized as a key driver of organizational success.

The Evolution of KM

The first stage of KM focused on technology, data collection and information management, although its stated mission was to capture all knowledge.

The second stage quickly realized that such an approach was limited and it could not “manage” less tangible forms of knowledge. Nonaka and Takeuchi, for example, identified a KM cycle that accounted for how the intangible, hard-to-articulate knowledge in people’s brains – their tacit knowledge – could be shared with others and eventually made explicit. They felt that the only real way to enable this cycle was through socialization and conversation, i.e., knowledge was socially constructed. Critical theory also addressed issues of organizational structures and discourse that favored management perspectives, priorities and direction over a more desirable state of organizational democracy.

The third stage of KM, which is arguably still at play, focuses on the complex interplay of forces that occur in fast-paced, constantly changing environments, such as those created by globalization and intense competition. Knowledge, as described in this evolutionary stage, is fleeting, especially tacit knowledge, which is often outdated by the time it becomes explicit, if it becomes explicit at all. Influenced by complexity theory and organizational learning, 3^rd-gen KM examines the processes by which we engage in and can encourage adaptive learning.

Knowledge Management vs Knowledge Worker

But this evolution still seems to have left unresolved a critical tension at the heart of KM: Why should I, as an employee, share what I know (what’s in it for me) and why does the organization want to “manage” knowledge (what’s in it for them)?

As employees, and people, we are generally so jaded by stories of corporate greed that our understanding of corporate motives is largely negative. That understanding makes it difficult to believe that what we give organizations in exchange for a salary or career won’t somehow be used against us if we don’t carefully state the terms of the exchange (think of reasons for the rise of labor unions). The literature is full of discussion about employees’ inherent distrust of KM systems and management attempts to specify how people share what they know.

Why is that?

KM was founded on the belief that knowledge – important knowledge – could be separated from its knowers. KM may dismiss that characterization today, but its history continues to plague discussions about the purpose and direction of KM.

What knowers have figured out about that history is this: the first inspiration for the discipline of KM – the separation of knowledge from knowers – makes knowers much more dispensible. Employees know that; employers know that; it’s the elephant in the room. That recognition leads to a very clear, tacit, collective understanding that knowledge sharing is always a negotiation that has the potential to net each side certain benefits, and there may be winners and losers.

Add to that KM’s track record of expensive implementations with few results, and it is not difficult to conclude that employers have been unable to address employees’ fundamental concern: Why, in a relationship based on explicit reciprocity (labor for pay) should I give up my knowledge to the organization, with no articulation of the terms of the exchange, when doing so may reduce my position of relative advantage?

Joining forces

To me, the answer must lie in organizational culture – only there does an organization lay the groundwork for trust, for collective, collaborative enterprise that produces clear benefits for everyone, and not just the corporate engine.

You can put the tools in place. They might be databases or CMSs or social media tools. But organizational culture will ultimately determine whether anyone plays.

-Carolyn

In previous posts we’ve discussed the significance of KM to organizations and listed the barriers that affect employees’ participation in KM initiatives. An additional barrier may emerge when employees ask what organizations actually do with their employees’ knowledge. The assumption is the org will use it to its own ends.

But when the organization is a multinational with profits in the billions, is it within employees’ purview to question whether their knowledge should be used simply to create shareholder profit or to serve some greater end, such as corporate and social responsibility programs that ensure the org gives back a significant share of its profits to those in need. Can employees use what they know as leverage for organizations to behave more responsibly?

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

Threatening a professor with a lawsuit if he tries to translate the results of a report about a dam threatening to displace several tribes and flooding thousands of hectares in the Mapuche land in Chile, or suppressing the findings of this report from investors and stakeholders are activities authorized by the World Bank. To hide its blunders and obtain more loans, the World Bank has been censoring knowledge coming from within the organization as well as from independent sources.

How can you stop the censorship or face a multibillion-dollar organization? I have pondered this question and think the better way to ask it is CAN you stop an organization such as the World Bank from steering its knowledge in the way the administration sees fit?

A light at the end of the tunnel

Some may argue that organizations in a position to censor knowledge that may have profound public impacts should be monitored by public agencies. Yet, who sets the rules for a “proper” and independent supervision? An independent committee, maybe. Having a committee that monitors the World Bank’s activities and produces independent reports for stakeholders can help. However, it is a tricky decision to make especially if this committee was in a position to be manipulated by investors or pressured by other interests.

For more information, please visit these websites:

http://www.mapuche-nation.org/english/html/news/pr-39.htm

http://www.brettonwoodsproject.org/art-4385

~asia

What 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

With its 10,000 employees scattered all over the world, the World Bank faces a challenge — building a knowledge management program that works. Realizing that this system is vital in helping its clients fight poverty, the World Bank invested around 53 million dollars in its knowledge management initiative by upgrading its technological capabilities and launching its employee training program. Yet the process is not easy and the obstacles are numerous. One issue is developing soft and hard knowledge. Can they harmoniously co-exist after the rebirth process takes place?

What academics say
Jasimuddin (2008) conducted a study that covered several British companies and included 100,000 employees. The goal of the study was to determine which is better for organizations — soft knowledge or hard knowledge? Though some employees believed that staff expertise is indispensible for any knowledge sharing process, others argued that without technological infrastructure, knowledge management is unachievable. However, all employees agreed that soft and hard knowledge should be used according to the situation.

On the other hand examining the various factors that impact knowledge sharing through soft or hard systems can help the organization choose which one to capitalize on to reach its goals for a particular period. For instance, the human factor–with all its internal complexities, such as fear of humiliation, ambition, and greed, or the external complexities, such as culture and traditions–can dramatically affect one’s decision to participate in the knowledge sharing process through either system. Conversely, technology can facilitate knowledge transfer, but it can not monitor the quality of this knowledge or its credibility, according to Edwards, Shaw, and Collier (2005). Trying to “push” any technological tool that stores predetermined knowledge to employees can lead to failure of the whole process, according to Malhotra (2005).

The World Bank experience

Because it’s a multicultural organization, the World Bank had no option but to create a knowledge management system that promotes the use of both processes — the soft and the hard.

What the World Bank did (check out baselinemag.com for more information on how the World Bank developed its knowledge management system):
­ –Create an infrastructure that allows people in developing countries to make a videoconference with World Bank employees
­ –Translate documents and reports into different languages and make them available for its clients
­ –Train employees to use the newly installed technological tools
­ –Meet with employees to promote the knowledge management initiative
­ –Enhance its internet potential

Results

Suffice it to say that a doctor in Zaire can access the World Bank website or its affiliates, such as CDC, to take a look at the treatments available for Malaria or HIV and take the necessary measures to protect human life.

-Asia

-Carolyn

Kmcafe Podcast Transcription 1

Forgetting Is Only Acceptable for Charming Little Puppets

My grandmother used to say to me that I’ve forgotten more than she’d ever known. (She was just trying to be kind, boost my confidence. ) What’s curious from a KM perspective is that that statement – that one may forget more than another ever knows – isn’t just applicable to much-loved grandchildren… but, of course, to organizations.

Over 5 years ago, Andy Seidl (2004) wrote a great blog post about corporate amnesia – or organizational memory leak – which he argued was the result of “numerous, seemingly insignificant, day-to-day forgetting events”. The act of forgetting is a critical issue for KM in large organizations in particular, especially those with higher turnover rates.

What happens when knowledge walks out the door for the last time? What steps can an org take to avoid organizational memory leak?

I guess the bigger question is, Why would knowledge walk out the door for the last time in an enterprise-sized organization? In a small one with a few employees, sure – but in a large corporation with 250+ employees, there must be one or two who have similar jobs, use the same databases or shared drives, etc. No? So why then might an enterprise suffer from corporate amnesia?

Recent job cuts are a problem – especially when a corporation decides to cut a whole group, such as engineering/development, HR or Creative Services, in favour of outsourcing.

But what’s more interesting than that (because I’m sooooo tired of hearing about the tough economy) is the idea of social capital and tie-formation. More specifically, the idea that strong and weak ties can help people share knowledge across organizational boundaries. Check out this great article (1999) by Morten T. Hansen for more about search-transfer and weak ties The short story is that creating opportunities for people to network within an organization – for the third floor to mingle with the second – can actually help to prevent corporate memory loss.

Can technology help to avoid the loss of at least some organizational knowledge?

Seidl made a decent case for knowledge capture by means of internal blogging and fitting those intra-blogs into a federation of blogs (which he called a channel). He also offered an example of the success that this sort of knowledge capture achieved at a certain unnamed company, where the CEO insisted that everyone get involved in the “project blogsite”.

Today (yes, I know it’s just 5 years later), I think a lot of KM folks & employees alike would argue that being forced to contribute to a blog is… just… not… going… to… work. Further, with failed intra-blogging attempts abounding and the ongoing rhetoric of blogs as time-wasters doomed to failure, you’d be hard-pressed to find an enterprise-sized organization with a strong blogging community — a blogging community that’s able to effectively capture knowledge and a blogging culture that’s willing to visit said blogs to ascertain knowledge.

It seems there’s no affirmative response to the KM question: Can technology effectively capture both implicit & explicit knowledge? (Urgh! I so wish someone could build an app that would actually do this!)

But what, then, can we do about memory leak, about knowledge walking out the door? Pei-Wen Huang (n.d.) suggested a few solutions:

• Create more apprenticeship programs
• Debrief at the end of a project so people in & out of the project are brought into the loop about wins, failures, etc.
• Establish a “corporate history”
• Build “knowledge profiles” so you know whom to go to in an org for certain subjects

Apprenticeship programs are, of course, potentially expensive (but more expensive than losing a seasoned employee with high institutional knowledge?). The others seem simply time-consuming.

…There’s always an excuse, isn’t there? But I’m pretty sure shareholders wouldn’t want to hear that the corps they’ve invested in are “unable to commit the time” to holding 30-minute power-debriefs at the end of projects to avoid repeating mistakes & wasting money………

Well, if anyone has a better idea or wants to chime in on the above ideas – or simply wants to post a link to a blog on the topic – feel free. Looking forward to it…

~joanna

I’ve always wondered how enterprise-level organizations know when they have “arrived” or “achieved” their KM initiatives. Is it even possible to get a handle on KM? Is there some gold standard that everyone is aiming for? Or are each organization’s KM goals specific to them?

As well, I wonder what is to be done about the poor organization that has failed at its KM initiatives. Does their failure mean that the organization should not try KM at another time? How can an enterprise-level organization get back on the KM bandwagon confidently and effectively?

Your thoughts?

~Sarah

Speaker : Mr Michael Sampson
Venue : Civil Service College, Rm 2.6 Level 2, North Buona Vista Road
Time : 6.30pm – 9.00pm

Michael Sampson is a Collaboration Strategist. He helps end-user organizations in New Zealand, Australia, the United States, Europe and other places around the world improve the performance of distributed teams. He is also author of 2 best-selling books on SharePoint collaboration.

In this evening talk, Michael will share his insights into the shape of knowledge and collaboration set ups in organizations today and what we can expect moving forward. This event is free for members and non-members will be charged SGD30.00. Light refreshment will be provided from 6.30pm. For registration, please contact Ng Wai Kong by 3 Nov 09.

(2) ICKM Conference 2009: Hong Kong, 3-4 December 2009

The International Conference on Knowledge Management (ICKM) provides top researchers and practitioners from all over the world in Knowledge Management a forum for discussion and exchange. Its sixth conference will be held in Hong Kong on 3-4 December 2009.

Themed “Managing Knowledge for Global and Collaborative Innovations”, ICKM 2009 will feature invited keynote presentations, panels on topical issues (e.g. management, technology, business, and public policy), refereed paper presentations on emerging and continuing business and research issues, and workshops on new areas of knowledge management.

For more details please refer to www.ickm2009.org

(3) 1-day Masterclass In Sharepoint Collaboration with Michael Sampson

When: Thursday, 5th Nov 2009, 9:00am to 5:00pm
Where: Grand Hyatt Singapore, 10 Scotts Road, Singapore 228211
Fees: $500 per attendee
Early bird special of $420 if you register before 20th Oct 2009.
Every participant will get a copy of Michael’s two books:

• Seamless Teamwork: Using SharePoint for collaboration (MicrosoftPress, $39.00)
• SharePoint Roadmap for collaboration (published by Michael Sampson, $35.00)

In this masterclass, collaboration and SharePoint guru Michael Sampson will take you through the steps required to make collaboration a success inside your organization.

Michael Sampson is a Collaboration Strategist. He helps end-user organizations in New Zealand, Australia, the United States, Europe and other places around the world improve the performance of distributed teams. He is also author of 2 best-selling books on SharePoint collaboration.

PebbleRoad Pte Ltd and To The Point Pte Ltd are jointly organizing this seminar. A 10% discount is offered to iKMS members. Find out more about the seminar and registration details at:  http://www.pebbleroad.com/events/view/masterclass-in-sharepoint-collaboration/

We are at war!

What if KM is not dead but merely mobilizing its troops for battle? And who is this dreaded enemy? The economic downturn? The naysayers of KM? No, the enemy is none other than social media (SM)! Yes, my friends, KM is embroiled in a full-on war, a generational war in which the Boomers battle the Millennials for the future of KM.

What is this war about?

Venkatesh Rao is the perceptive guy who first noticed the war. His full findings can be found in his blog post. Rao believes that we are in the middle of a hidden KM-SM war. The real cause of the war is a generational thing. KM was conceived as a top-down Boomer (b. 1946–1962) management effort, created by this generation just as it was moving into leadership positions. Social media, is a Millennial and Gen Y (b. 1980–) movement. This overall generational and cultural divide has shaped the ongoing corporate cultural war.

Rao goes on to conclude that the war will end when the Boomers retire and the Millenials win by default. KM will quietly die and SM will win the soul of Enterprise 2.0. The new leadership will quietly slip the best of KM ideas into SM without anyone knowing.

What do others think about the war?

David Snowden commented directly to Rao’s blog post noting that Boomers are actually amongst the highest adopters of social computing and that people do not have ideas and attitudes by age group. Andrew McAfee further cautions Rao about ageism in his blog post.

Regardless of whether we believe the so-called “KM-SM war”, it is encouraging to see the significance of the human element in generating a knowledge system that works. Davenport (2005) in his interviews with academics and professionals found that characteristics of a good KM system are ownership of knowledge by users and commitment from the organization to foster knowledge. Technology on its own cannot produce, though it may contribute to, an effective KM system.

While the “KM-SM war” rages on – mind you it seems to be completely undetected by most KM practitioners – there appears to be many organizations which have thankfully found ways to avoid casualties. Lamont (2008) supports the idea that social networking should be added to traditional KM offerings. Moreover, next-generation workers are not only accepting, but demanding increased interactivity. People have a natural tendency to share, but the rigidity of KM systems actually discourages them from doing so. Lamont (2008) goes on to mention several vendors of KM products who have implemented social networking including Vignette, Mzinga and Ektron.

What we can take away

• We are in a battle between KM and SM
• SM is organic and energetic while KM is mechanical and structured
• KM will die a slow death as the Boomers retire and SM will win the war
• Regardless of the war, the human element is becoming an important factor in KM

IMHO, the so-called “KM-SM war” is a great marketing gimmick to bring some much-needed attention to KM. Just as a war typically stimulates the economy and creates jobs, applying the term “war” to KM brings a little excitement to the topic. However, I believe we can combine KM and SM quite effortless and hopefully without any ammunition!

~ Sarah

Read more at…

Davenport, R. (2005). Why does knowledge management still matter? Training and Development 59(2), 18-25. Retrieved September 26, 2009 from ABI/INFORM Global.

Lamont, J. (2008, June). Social networking: KM and beyond. KM World, 17(6), 12-13. Retrieved September 27, 2009,from Academic Search Complete database.

Rao, V. (20008, September 28). Social media vs. knowledge management: A generational war. Blog post from http://enterprise2blog.com/2008/09/social-media-vs-knowledge-management-a-generational-war/

In 2005, Bain & Co. asked 960 executives to rank the effectiveness of 25 management tools.
KM ranked near the bottom (Thurm, 2006).

Is KM a fad? Has KM had its day? …Exactly where is KM today?

In the oft-referenced July 2008 video that introduces this blog post, Patrick Lambe invites KM thought leaders Larry Prusak and David Snowden to answer the 3 short questions (posed above) with their characteristically thoughtful insights – peppered with soundbites like Snowden’s, “Once the government adopts something, you know it has died” (5:35) but mostly centred around the cyclical nature of interest in or enthusiasm for KM in organizations (large enterprises included).

But let’s back up a step or two. Since when did KM die? For those of us who are fairly new to KM – or who haven’t spent the past 15+ years theorizing about it – it’s a bit of a shock to hear that this interesting ‘new’ subject KM may already be dead. Isn’t KM just organizational learning and collaboration, after all? How could that die? (…Or what could kill it?)

The Moments Leading Up To The “Death” of KM

The suggestion that KM is dead does not seem to be some sort of periodic angst but rather a growing idea in literature as well as in organizations. Recent articles on the subject include:

1. KM leads to corporate espionage! Lee & Rosenbaum (2003) argued that spies and competitors can easily penetrate KM’s most common components – and that, in turn, every KM system is also an anti-KM system.
2. Davenport, Prusak & Strong (2008) showed how KM efforts went wrong at organizations like Nokia and Intel — and suggested that a new approach to KM is required to transform it into a more “pragmatic discipline”.
3. Chua (2007) reported on three cases in Asia and Europe where initial successes with KM ultimately resulted in “dysfunctional” outcomes.
4. An anonymously written article in Knowledge Management Review recently suggested that sharing knowledge within an enterprise can result in multi-billion dollar losses in productivity (Anonymous, 2008).
5. Wilson (2002) argued that KM was the “fashionable name” applied to help IT mend its reputation for delivering tools not solutions, to let management sleep at night in the knowledge that their spreadsheets are all safely managed… and to give out-of-work consultants a new umbrella to work under.

Who Killed KM? Norm[ative Behavior]

Sure, I know about as much about psychology as I do KM (not a lot, but always learning!) — but in psychology, or specifically in studies of human decision-making, the concept of “normative behavior” describes how suggesting that an act is appropriate or ‘the norm’ can help people passively ‘decide’ to do something.

For example, a roadside sign that reads “Caution: Theft from Cars Is a Problem in This Area” can actually increase incidents of theft from cars. Why? Because people read that as an affirmation of a behavior that is accepted or normal in the area. If that same sign read instead “This Neighborhood Values Safety & Kindness Towards Others”, theft from cars would be much less likely to increase because people believe that the norm is to be good to others.

Now back to killing KM….

A Google search of “Is KM dead?” brings up a full page of results with that exact keyword phrase… and dozens more pages. “KM is dead” does the same. (If you’ve ever worked in SEO, you’ll know that that’s significant.) Nunes, Annansingh, Eaglestone & Wakefield (2006) also wrote that there has been an increase in the number of popular business media articles stating that KM is dead.

People are talking – and talking and talking – about the death of KM. In doing so, we’re actually killing KM by making it the new norm.

So, Then, Is KM Really Dead?

As Snowden and Prusak discussed in the video, there are practices all over management that are dead yet still walking — and that has a lot to do with how those practices are sold to management rather than their true value (15:00). They are careful to underline the point that there have been — and are? — generations of KM… which we can then extend to mean that this “falling out of favour” that KM is experiencing is part of the KM lifeline rather than the end of it. Prusak also notes that KM-related ideas that are dead include:

• That knowledge is a technology (later echoed by Snowden’s comment that complexity and systems thinking cannot meet and live together amicably)
• That repositories of documents are knowledge
• That KM can breath under the weight of bureaucracy
  
• That people and their knowledge can be separated
• That you can measure knowledge

Prusak, Lambe and Snowden do not explicitly say that KM is indeed dead. (Although, Snowden says it’s dead and we should “live with it” in this article and that it’s just reached the long tail in this article) But Snowden does state that the senior-level role of the Knowledge Manager will NOT exist in 5 years, and Prusak takes Snowden’s point further to argue that the closest we will find to knowledge managers in organizations will be “practice coordinators” (39:45). What does that mean for KM as a practice? When Snowden and Prusak foresee the demise of KM leaders in organizations, it’s akin to driving the last nails in the coffin. But others are still optimistic

IMHO, it just feels like everyone’s being a touch impatient with KM. We let a bottle of $80 wine age to reach optimum flavour, body, etc. longer than we let a huge investment like KM age to reach its peak.

~joanna

Anonymous. (2008). Is collaboration a multi-billion-dollar distraction? Knowledge Management Review 11(1), 6. Retrieved 26 September 2009 from ABI/INFORM Global.

Chua, A.  (2007, April 28). Business Insight (A Special Report); The curse of success: Knowledge-management projects often look good in the beginning; But then problems arise. Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition),  p. R.8.  Retrieved September 27, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1261787511).

Davenport, T., Prusak, L., & Strong, B. (2008, March 10). Business Insight (A Special Report): Organization; Putting ideas to work: Knowledge management can make a difference — but it needs to be more pragmatic. Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition), p. R.11.  Retrieved September 27, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1442818651).

“Is KM Dead?” Retrieved October 15, 2009 from http://blip.tv/file/1048981/

Lee, J. & Rosenbaum, A. (2003). Knowledge management: Portal for corporate espionage? Retrieved 26 September 2009 from www.kmworld.com

Nunes, M., Annansingh, F., Eaglestone, B., & Wakefield, R. (2006, January). Knowledge management issues in knowledge-intensive SMEs. Journal of Documentation, 62(1), 101-119. Retrieved September 25, 2009, doi:10.1108/00220410010642075.

Thurm, S. (2006, January 23). Companies struggle to pass on knowledge that workers acquire. Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition),  p. B.1.  Retrieved September 27, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 974292421).

Vinson, K. (2008, July 24). Dead KM talking – sound bites. Knowledge Jolt with Jack. Retrieved October 14, 2009 from http://blog.jackvinson.com/archives/2008/07/24/dead_km_talking_sound_bites.html

Wilson, T. (2002, October). The nonsense of ‘knowledge management’. Information Research, 8(1). Retrieved September 26, 2009, from Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text database.

Zuckerman, A., & Buell, H. (1998). Is the world ready for knowledge management? Quality Progress, 31(6), 81-84.  Retrieved September 23, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 30008695).