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 KMin 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 therole of CKO ought to be more horizontalby 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?
This week at the café we talked with KM expert Neil MacAlpine, who brings a wealth of experience and understanding to the topic of KM implementation in organizations. As one of two people in charge of the first knowledge coaching function in the Government of Alberta, Neil developed his expertise alongside the emergence of KM as a discipline. He is now a KM consultant for some of Canada’s largest corporations and shares with us his many ideas about what KM should and shouldn’t be! So grabba latte and listen to our November podcast. If you are more of a reader, grabba a latte and enjoy the podcast transcript.
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
Loading ...
Read more at…
Davenport, R. (2005).Why does knowledge management still matter? Training and Development59(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.
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:
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.
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”.
Chua (2007) reported on three cases in Asia and Europe where initial successes with KM ultimately resulted in “dysfunctional” outcomes.
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).
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).
…But what do you do when the solution is called “knowledge management” (KM)… and you know nothing about that?
In 1999, when Frito-Lay first considered KM as a solution to its core productivity challenges, KM was still a relatively new concept in business. The Harvard Business Review had only recently published its review on knowledge management, and the Complete Idiot’s Guide to Knowledge Management (not necessarily a great work, but an indicator that “you’ve arrived”) was not yet published. Neither David Snowden nor Mark Koenig had yet published their seminal works on the three theories of change in KM. Suffice it to say, in 1999, the concept of KM was decidedly esoteric.
So, What Is KM?
Simply put, knowledge management is about knowing what you know… and making money from it. You can also understand KM as:
A business strategy that enables new insights & experiences by identifying, creating, representing, organizing and distributing knowledge assets
Practices of managing data/explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge, usually by means of a technology
A synergy of information technologies and human innovation
Knowledge management is a new branch of management for achieving breakthrough business performance through the synergy of people, processes, and technology. Its focus is on the management of change, uncertainty, and complexity.
Proponents of knowledge management argue that KM works best when it aligns with business strategies and that it can lead to such results as improved productivity, improved financial growth, cost reductions, and increased customer satisfaction (Ekionea & Swain, 2008). Over the course of the next several weeks, this blog will expand on that list of results – and offer counter-arguments from those who suggest that KM is not only poor for employee productivity in enterprises but that it “is dead”.
From Dollars Down the Drain to Improved Productivity: KM in Enterprises
Enterprises as large as Frito-Lay are often geographically dispersed, with different tech systems for different internal business units and, in turn, significant challenges sharing & managing knowledge effectively. Frito-Lay experienced such knowledge-related challenges as (Shien, 2001):
Multiple salespeople contacting staff in various groups (e.g., corporate sales, marketing, operations) for the same data… again & again
Support staff performing the same searches and sending out the same communications… again & again
Inconsistent methods of capturing & formatting information among individuals
Staff storing valuable knowledge on their desktops rather than in a central, accessible spaces
“Silos” preventing sharing of knowledge and cross-team collaboration
The solution for Frito-Lay was a knowledge management portal housed on the corporate intranet, allowing personalized access for all employees & protection of intellectual property behind the corporate firewall. To offer the KM solution a better chance of success, the team at Frito-Lay and their consultancy set 3 goals for the portal:
To streamline knowledge across the business units
To understand, share & use customer-specific data
To facilitate & encourage team collaboration in spite of geography
The results of the portal speak for themselves: Sales nearly doubled for the sales team using the portal and accessing the stores of information they could use to persuade their clients to buy. Travel between the 10 different cities that members of the sales team called home was cut – leading to savings for the business. Employee retention improved, as did productivity. And surprising extra benefits, like fewer faxes, added up to further savings.
What We Can Take Away
The Frito-Lay KM initiative took place a decade ago – which nearly spans the entire timeline of enterprise KM. So there are definitely differences we can see between their KM approach and what might happen today. For example, a small team at Frito-Lay populated the portal with employee details, including their areas of expertise; today, with social networking and user-generated content, it’s likely that both leadership & employees would opt to encourage each employee to describe his/her own job duties & areas of expertise. Simply, the knowledge transfer process would (or so I idealistically believe) be more collaborative.
We can also see the shapings of a KM maturity process in the Frito-Lay case study. Frito-Lay started in what Hsieh (2009) would describe as a “knowledge chaotic” stage with no formal KM processes and moved rapidly to knowledge management, complete with formal, stable and practiced KM programs, to full knowledge management integration – where the culture changed so dramatically that, on seeing the results at Frito-Lay, all of PepsiCo adopted the knowledge portal (Shein, 2001).
~joanna
Read more about KM and the Frito-Lay case study…
Ekionea, J., & Swain, D. (2008, January). Developing and aligning a knowledge management strategy: Towards a taxonomy and a framework. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(1), 29-45. Retrieved September 23, 2009, from Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text database.
Hsieh, P. (2009, May). A knowledge navigator model (KNMR) to navigate the knowledge management implementation journey. Proceedings of World Academy of Science: Engineering & Technology, 41, 1202-1221. Retrieved September 25, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database.
Shein, E. (2001, May). Case study: Frito-Lay sales force sells more through information collaboration. CIO. Retrieved October 7, 2009 from http://www.cio.com/article/30167/Case_Study_Frito_Lay_Sales_Force_Sells_More_Through_Information_Collaboration.
we discuss knowledge management (KM) in large organizations. In addition to leveraging case studies and academic scholarship on this issue, we invite conversations with KM practitioners, consultants, managers, executives and anyone who would like to share experiences, research, links and findings. Please join the conversation!
What type of organizational structure is ideal for KM initiatives to succeed? 
Loading ...
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.
