What does standing in curiosity have to do with knowledge transfer?

'Standing in curiosity' is a term I use often, especially when working with clients around knowledge transfer.  Let me explain first what I mean when I use that term and then why that is a critical component to knowledge transfer.

First, let’s talk about curiosity.  To me, the word invokes a sense of wonder, of non-judgmental exploration, of a mind open to new ideas, of being willing to not know while wanting to learn.  Curiosity means that you do not need to think you know everything, instead that you would like to find out more, to see new things and that you are open to possibilities.

Being curious then means that you are ready and willing to learn and explore and that your mind is open to new possibilities. What an incredible place from what to learn and gain knowledge.

Why do I say that we need to stand in curiosity? I intentionally use the word ‘stand’ to evoke the sensation that your body is involved, not just your mind. I use the word to create imagery that lets you feel present, that curiosity is all around you, that you are standing IN it. Now not only is your mind open, but your somatic self, your entire self, is also involved.  Standing in curiosity means you are as open as you can be to learning.

Now why is that so critical to knowledge transfer?

Let’s think about what is happening when we are transferring knowledge. First, there is the holder of the knowledge with their experiences, their background, with years of building up their expertise from all of the accumulated decisions, actions and observations. Let’s call them the expert.

The learner is often someone with their own experience in the area, their own background and years of learning—it does not matter if that learner is young or older, they bring their own level of understanding to the experience.
It could be very possible for the learner then to judge what they are hearing or learning or observing from the expert through their previous experience BEFORE they are able to try it out, to ponder it, to assimilate it.  The learner may dismiss new ideas or ideas they might build upon because they are not open or curious but rather letting their own experience close their mind to the possibility that there is more to learn from what is being transferred.  They may say to themselves “that’s not how it really works” or “I don’t do it that way” or “I’ll let them talk but I know better”.

A learner who stands in curiosity does not take everything that is being told them or transferred to them as absolute or true without question. Instead they are listening, pondering, finding out how it all works together and listening to the whole story, the context, the background and rationale.  They are turning it all over in their mind and taking out what works for them, what the nuggets are to build upon, adding to their own repertoire and understanding.  They are open to the possibility that there is something new, some novel approach or idea, some helpful background for them in what they are learning.

For the expert, having a curious learner makes sharing knowledge much more fun, more of a give and take, a more engaging experience.  The quality of the experience can be enhanced and what’s more, the outcome can be a shared learning, a bigger aha.
Standing in curiosity takes nothing more than an attitude shift, costs nothing to the learner and creates an experience more valuable for expert, learner and the organization

Is Disagreement a Form of Knowledge Sharing?

Many of you will be familiar with 'TED Talks,' which is such a great way to share ideas, insights, viewpoints and learning virtually. As with everything, quality varies and the measurement of what is interesting is a subjective thing.

http://www.ted.com/talks

Another vehicle used in the ‘TED’ series are the TED Conversations, allowing people to post questions and have others respond, similar to what LinkedIn allows. Usually however, these comments on 'Ted Conversations' are thoughtful and provocative, meant to add value not necessarily add to one’s popularity, as can happen with LinkedIn.

Gowtham Reddy of Hyderbad India posted an interesting question: “In what ways may disagreement aid the pursuit of knowledge in the natural and human sciences?”

Gowtham's question on 'TED Conversations'

I love this because I believe discourse is a way to build on what you are learning. No one can learn from simple and continual agreement, no one stretches in that way. But honest and respectful disagreement, dialogue, discussion, now that is where you start to build, to uncover context for people’s viewpoints, to integrate new ideas. Honest and respectful—those are key terms.

That doesn’t mean the exchange can’t get a bit heated, emotional or passionate. None of those words has to rule out being respectful. Passion is a good thing, where dominance or disrespect are not useful and can be quite hurtful.

Of the 26 responses Gowtham received, many stated that they thought it critical to have disagreements and that disagreements can build knowledge, but only if open communication and open-minded attitudes are present.
Why then are we so afraid in many of our organizations to disagree? If an organization wants to thrive, to be the best it can be, to move forward quickly and intelligently, there must be enough variations of opinion to ensure all avenues of knowledge and information are considered.  If you must agree, there are no checks and balances and you can be assured missteps and mistakes will be repeated. No organization can afford that. And yet, people in many companies feel disagreement puts them at risk.
As a consultant I have witnessed this first hand. I have seen people allow research projects to continue even when they know they are not going to succeed because they are afraid to disagree. I have seen money spent needlessly on decisions that are not effective because people thought their jobs might be at risk if they brought forward another viewpoint.

Shouldn’t it be just the opposite? Shouldn’t people who do not bring forth another well considered respectful opinion when they have it, be fired for not speaking up?

And why should this even be a consideration? Time. That is what I have heard from leaders—we don’t have time to disagree.
Can you imagine? You have time to redo, you have time to start over, but no time to disagree.
What that tells me is that people do not know how to respectfully and concisely disagree, have a dialogue about the problem they are trying to solve, express the various viewpoints and make a good solid decision. They don’t know how to do that efficiently and effectively, so they fear that disagreement and decision making take time.
Sometimes when we are off path, it can be so obvious from the outside and so consuming when you are in the middle of it.

For knowledge to be shared fully and completely, we must be allowed to disagree. We should be expected to have varied opinions. We must be each other’s check and balance.

To express disagreement effectively and respectfully we must know how to present our arguments and how to determine what factors are critical in decision making.
Yes, knowledge sharing happens during respectful, honest and concise disagreement. And building the competencies to get there can only help an organization thrive

The Impact of Social Media and Enterprise 2.0

The Hynes Convention Center in Boston will be buzzing June 18-21 with new technology, new contacts and hopefully lots of new ideas. Enterprise 2.0 is coming and I am looking forward to it.

What will we see this year to change the way we work or even-- one can be optimistic-- the way we think? Social Media is changing fast and the impact on the world around us is immense. We are more connected (and in ways less connected), more aware (and in ways less aware) and more savvy (well...?).

We are more connected in that we see so much of life around the world-- we meet people virtually, we share ideas and immediate stories, even in 140 characters. We can and do use social media to create change. We share private information faster then ever but do we really, truly share ourselves? Are we connecting and reflecting or just connecting? Are we really aware of the lives of those we meet virtually or do the few characters and quick communications simply a way for us to keep our assumptions basically intact while we can say we know people around the globe? Are we wiser, more savvy or just more networked? Do we use that network to build our experience and our deep knowledge, honestly?

I look forward to Enterprise 2.0, as I look forward to all opportunities to learn, to explore, and hopefully, to connect and change. I'll keep you posted!

How do you bring new Senior Leaders up to speed quickly?

There are some very unique aspects of knowledge transfer when you are dealing with Senior Leaders-- especially those with long tenure or deep expertise.

New Leaders, as we have discussed before, are given less time then ever to have impact in the organization. 90 days is the current estimate. A daunting task. And not all Senior Leaders are skilled at sharing their knowledge with those moving in to their roles. There is more then knowledge involved-- there is also pride and sometimes their own sense of identity. Everything we do in knowledge transfer must be done with respect.

With Senior Leadership transition, it is critical for the new person to understand the background and history of how things have happened in the organization-- NOT to be stuck in the same old, same old. On the contrary. Often when Senior Leaders retire you are bringing in new blood or promoting to help bring fresh perspectives and new ideas to the Leadership Team.

But to ensure new Leaders are heard, build credibility, and are able to influence in a way that is effective, new Leaders must have some understanding of what has gone on before, what works or what does not in the team, in the role, in the organization. Even to shake things up, it helps to know what it is they are trying to change-or not, and how that might be done in the most  beneficial and successful way.

Joining a Leadership Team or heading one is somewhat like joining a family. A family has history, stories, myths, realities, past experiences that exist and those experiences have helped to form how the family now works together. The Leadership Team also has shared experiences and a way of working (or not working) together and to make great change it takes not only a good mind and great courage, but also depth of understanding.

When I am doing knowledge transfer for Senior Leaders, my focus is on getting new people up to speed quickly with as much critical knowledge as possible to help them build credibility. I not only interview peers and close working colleagues but go a bit broader. The interviews are confidential, and having an external person do them is helpful-- I have no political skin in the game and my focus and goals are clear.  From the interviews, I build questions for the outgoing Leader to help create rich and targeted dialogue between the new and outgoing Leaders. This dialogue leads into topics critical for a new Leader--topics range from personnel strategy to anticipation of future trends/risks/opportunities, and budgetary challenges to the role played by the outgoing Leader on the Leadership Team.
Although these discussions may happen without such facilitation and rigor, in my many years of experience, they do not happen as deeply and completely if there is not another person present keeping a focus and ensuring the questions are fully answered.

The process does not take a long time, scheduling is often the biggest challenge, but the outcomes are incredibly valuable. I also develop for the new Leader, a learning plan or on-boarding to help them use their time in the new role to effectively gain the knowledge, skills and experience that has been recommended.

As one Minneapolis based Senior Leader said recently:

"I wish I had done this in my previous role as well, I have a full picture of what I need to know to make decisions quickly in my new role."

There you go, that's what makes this work fascinating and rewarding-- you can see the impact almost immediately.
Consider this for your own organization-- how can you make a new person effective as quickly as possible within the culture that exists now. 

Outsourcing, Knowledge and Competitive Advantage

Outsourcing figures vary widely as you review conflicting media reports. And in the last few months the number of stories of companies now…ok, wait for it…in-shoring, is growing. What does that mean? They have taken the work done via off-shore outsourcing back to the U.S.

Yes, this seems confusing but was it that hard to spot the trend upcoming? Companies under tough economic pressures decided it was more profitable to use resources outside of the U.S. to build products, service customers, even to create new ideas. And they created strategies to move work from the U.S. to locations with lower costs, like India or China. That trend has not stopped, but it is shifting. Now the work is less profitable off-shore as wages rise in step with the increased labor demand, and companies are feeling the effects of less-than-satisfied customers.

One of the difficulties in moving work was that to retain excellence, they also had to move deeply-held organizational knowledge. Even those companies not good at identifying and transferring knowledge in one country now needed to transfer very critical knowledge (for example, how to speak with and service their customers) to another country with a different culture, language and traditions.

Were the outsourcing companies always successful at training and sharing knowledge with their new international colleagues? No. We all have examples of miscommunications and understanding when asking how to fix a technical issue or work out a charge on a credit card. Nonetheless, as the new colleagues gained experience, they began also to gain their own critical knowledge, to hear what the customers thought or wanted, and to therefore gather business
- critical learning.

We lacked in creating effective processes for sharing the deep nuances of the products, the customers or the culture with the new outsourcing partners. But we also lacked in creating processes to collect their learning and bring it back to the heart of the organization.  Companies were increasingly out of touch with the front line of what was happening with customers and products.  That front line often creates competitive advantage by allowing companies to hear their customers wants, needs, concerns and quickly address them, beating out slower moving competitors.

In short, all of the out-sourcing, off shoring, in-sourcing, on-shoring, in-shoring has simply taxed our already less than stellar skills at transferring knowledge. Few companies do this very well, and the additional burden of needing to quickly move the knowledge already not flowing in the organizational caused less than adequate processes to break down.

What is the learning? That the knowledge held by the companies about its products, processes, customers, supply chain, distribution channels—all of that knowledge is key to profitability and sustained success. Treat knowledge like the asset it is. Tend to it, share it wisely but share it well. And never underestimate the power of a well-informed, experienced employee.

What Knowledge Is Critical to Your Organization?

There are a number of reasons why it is both urgent and critical to understand where the critical tacit knowledge in your organization lives. Is it held in the heads of your senior people, in the heads of bench scientists, or in the heads of those who deal with your customers on a daily basis?

You want to ensure you retain the knowledge, share it more broadly through the organization, and build the internal bench strength and competencies around that knowledge.

But the first question I ask is, “Are you certain you know what knowledge, expertise, and experience is critical for your organization’s success?

You need to ask “What is the knowledge and experience that, in losing, would cost productivity, increase risk, decrease profits?”
In other words, what is the knowledge, experience, expertise critical for your organization to not only survive but thrive?

If you can’t answer this, you are not alone. Many organizations cannot answer that question. Honestly. Large and small organizations, public and private, for- and not-for-profit organizations… few can answer the question. And, if they do, their information might be outdated or based on assumption.

What knowledge is critical to the survival and sustained success of your organization? Is it the knowledge your employees hold around new product development? Is it how they use internal processes to develop products quickly; knowledge about the materials needed, the new designs or technology available? That knowledge may well be based on knowledge about what products are critical to your customers.  And, what is critical to customers will change over time, so there must be an ability to forecast, to predict and to prepare for the future.

Perhaps your critical knowledge is around the ability to effectively leverage your supply chain, to get products or services to those who need them quickly, accurately, cheaply and with little error.  Or perhaps it is in how you service and work with your clients, more than it is how you develop new products. It might be that your organization builds loyalty like no other but do you know why and are you certain, absolutely certain, you can retain that for your future customers? Do you know who your future customers are and what they will want or need, much less what they will pay?

Knowledge about your core competency must be retained, enhanced, reused….but first it must be identified.  And not necessarily by YOU. It must be identified by the clients, the customers, those who purchase whatever it is you have to sell—be it a service, a product or somewhere in between.  It must be identified without emotion or assumption, but as an honest assessment as to what sets you apart from your competitors now and in the future.

There is no substitute, no golden bullet, and no way to ensure your organization’s continued success unless you are certain you know what that success is built on.  There are few more important questions then “What is the knowledge/experience/expertise that you must have for continued, sustained success.”

Vulnerability, Shame, Courage and Knowledge Sharing

Profound, life changing information and wisdom can come from unlikely sources. When that happens, the impact is often much greater then when such information comes from a talking head on TV, or an expert from on high.

Researcher Dr Brene Brown is such an unlikely source. Yes, you expect her research to be excellent, as her credentials would suggest that. You might expect her data be to provocative given the subject matter of her work is shame and vulnerability. However when you listen to her talk, as she does in the TED series, she is quiet, humble and incredibly powerful. It is like the girl next door takes on the mythological beast and in front of our eyes, slays it...all the while saying "oh my goodness, I can't believe I'm doing this and in public".

If you want to increase innovation, creativity and productivity in your organization or increase the quality of your life, this is a must see video. Does that sound like hyperbole? Not in my opinion. No one likes to talk about shame or vulnerability, most especially in business. And yet, as Dr Brown states, "vulnerability is the great measure of courage", and do we not all need and want courage in business? And, think about those people you find the most deeply inspiring. Is it not true that part of why they are so inspiring is their vulnerability and perseverance?

Dr Brown talks about failure, the need for it, the perceived  shame of it, and the fact that without it, there is little success. Just trust me. See the video, let me know what you think. The link is below.

The first time I talked to Brene Brown was after she did a video with my colleague Jen Loudon a year or two ago. I was so impressed that I wrote Brene and she responded immediately, in her personable, down to earth manner. I so enjoyed the conversation and we both acknowledge that vulnerability and shame are interesting components of knowledge sharing. What rich opportunities exist for those of us with the courage to name it, discuss it, harness the outcomes..... 

See the video. Let's talk. Here's the link and her earlier talks can also be found via YouTube. Brene Brown TED Talk March 2012

The Leader As Role Model for KM

I've been working in the field of Knowledge Management for a long time. I started doing this work back when PCs were not on every desk and hand held devices were mobile telephones as big as a good sized brick.

There are a few things about managing knowledge, or work in general, that do not change. Let me give you a few:

• Knowledge Management takes discipline
• Knowledge Management is ever evolving as the organization evolves and is never completely done
• Leadership must role model the behaviors they wish others to follow

One of the truths about this work is that no matter what you say to your employees or how often you say it, they will do as they see you, the leadership, do.

If you tell them how critical it is to manage knowledge, to share, to document and do not, as a leader or leadership team, share and document your own knowledge, the behavior for them will not stick. If you do not actively participate in endeavors you tell others are critical, the message is not only confusing, but also demotivating for the employees and will have an opposite effect.

It is common sense, really. You look to your leaders to lead, to show the way, to be what is aspired to, and to be the walking role model of what the organization stands for.

When employees can witness leaders not sharing knowledge with their peers, missing meetings, showing up late, or as I saw in a meeting today --falling asleep, the message is clear. Leaders might tell you to do something, to participate,but if they do not believe it, everyone loses.

Leaders who are not authentic are giving very loud messages to their employees, peers and vendors. Trust becomes a major issue. They hurt the organization and themselves.

Now instead, consider the leader who is openly curious, interested and actively participates in the very things they say are critical. They give honest, respectful feedback with the visible intent to improve the work or the endeavor. Their messages are always clear and they stand up for what they believe to be important. They show that knowledge is an asset to be built, respected, re-applied and the people who hold or share that knowledge are to be respected as well.

When leadership work the knowledge management practices they espouse, dialogue openly about the opportunities and the challenges they experience in managing knowledge, participate in the projects, meetings, and the activities required to get the KM ball rolling, the impact is astounding. Leadership role modeling can create a step change in the culture, the behaviors and the abilities to manage knowledge. There is no greater jumpstart to any change initiative then a proactive, involved, authentic leader. That truth will never change.

That type of leadership is what is needed to have knowledge management stick. It is the type of leadership that a great organization requires for all they do. They are not defensive about any one group or tool or project but role model openness, active listening, and learning from those around them. They think their job is about continually improving because they think the company is about continual learning.

There is no consultant who can replace the value and the impact of an authentic, engaged leader willing to role model KM and the behaviors needed to do that.

Now be honest, are you really working globally?

Many, actually nearly all, of the clients that I work with have locations in more than one country. Notice that I did not say that nearly all of my clients are global. To me, there is a huge difference.

Companies locate in various countries for many reasons: merger, economics of manufacturing, tax laws, customer reach, new market expansion, the list goes on.

Working across locations does not necessarily mean they are skilled at working globally.

Companies working effectively on a global basis are dealing head-on with the challenges of cross-cultural communications, time zone issues, language barriers, and the need to collaborate across all types of boundaries. There is much more to working globally then simply having multiple international locations.

I remember these same topics discussed in boardrooms in the mid 90’s, when expansion was the name of the game and money flowed freely. We may have missed some valuable opportunities to create the processes, cultural understanding and infrastructure that would have facilitated global success. Perhaps we were running too fast after the short-term opportunities and forgetting the long-term needs and benefits. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

The need to work effectively globally will not go away, but will instead be enhanced as US-based companies put even greater emphasis on emerging markets. It may suddenly become apparent to those working in the US that they are the minority in their organizations and most of their colleagues are located across an ocean or at least across a border. I believe that preparation now will be the key to competitive advantage in the future. How will you communicate and share critical learning in lightning speed across geographic and cultural gaps? How will you ensure that everyone in the organization, no matter the location, is as fast, bright, well prepared, and knowledgeable as your best people? There is no time like the present to begin that journey. Or, do we want to continue to work in multiple international locations? Working globally makes a great deal more business sense.

Sustainable Knowledge: A Story

Let me tell you a story. A cautionary tale, actually. Once upon a time there was a Knowledge Management Consulting group doing some client work in a terrific, intelligent, innovative organization. The objectives were clear-- help the organization learn how to identify, transfer, reuse and develop new knowledge, innovation, ideas and learning. However, no one had set the objective for sustainability. (And there, my friends, lies the caution).

Along the journey, many roadblocks were met and most, through the hard work and dedication of the team, were handled. Pilot projects were identified, processes put in place, employees and sponsors alike understood what was involved, the business benefits and the need to transfer experiences, insights and expertise. People were willing and certainly the organization and those who worked there held a great deal of critical knowledge.

As the work continued, it became more clear that though the innovation and the experiential part of knowledge transfer was interesting, even intriguing to the organization, what was not so interesting was the work it takes to sustain and continue to keep the knowledge alive and refreshed. The creation and  implementation of a sustainability plan-- creating and editing the documentation or other vehicles to capture knowledge, keeping the Wiki's up to date, ensuring videos were edited and, most difficult, creating the architecture plan for where the various pieces and types of knowledge would live-- was not the fun part for these intelligent, fast paced learners. Remembering to communicate that new content, in whatever form, was available seemed to be a bother rather than a show of pride. They had done the work to identify and transfer, but capture and compilation, along with labeling and meta data creation, was not where they wanted to spend time.

And so, eventually the good work the team had done was lost in and amongst the other data stored in various document management systems, in SharePoint sites and shared drives. Sometimes it even languished on hard drives.

The Knowledge Management consultant moved on to a new role elsewhere. But the organization's knowledge transfer was not sustained. There had been a great deal of work, even some culture change, but the next generation of employees were still left to spend their valuable time searching, sometimes in vain, to find the internal knowledge around their projects. Most simply stopped trying and used the external web to find information rather than reuse the hard won, expensive, time consuming and critical internal intellectual capital.

The moral of the story: Do not start what you can not sustain. Discipline is a GOOD thing. If an organization is not disciplined about their documentation, they will not be disciplined in the long run about their tacit knowledge. Start with the end in mind. And make sure everyone is willing and able to stick through the long term work of sustainable knowledge transfer. It might not look as sexy as the knowledge gathering, but the end game is much, much more valuable.

Knowledge Transfer for Senior Leaders in Life Science Leader Magazine

In this month's issue of Life Science Leader, Susan Larish and I have an article about the need to bring new leaders up to speed as quickly as possible, and how knowledge transfer expedites that process.

http://tinyurl.com/klh-article10


Knowledge Transfer for senior leader transition is a critical tool in a world where knowledge is complex, critical but fragile and highly specialized. We give our new leaders scant time to make changes, to have an impact and yet consider all they need to know to do so effectively.

What do they need to know? They are, after all, seasoned managers, are they not? Let's consider this.

They need to understand the relationships held by their predecessors and others in the organizations-- not just who they worked with internally but who they worked with externally and how those relationships were most effective.
They need to understand how the organization works to avoid making decisions that set them back rather than moving them forward.
New leaders need to understand the rationale behind the technical and scientific decisions made in the past that profoundly impacted the organization. Why? To ensure they do not create redundant work or worse yet make redundant errors.
And they need to be aware of the trends and patterns those with years of experience observe which help them anticipate and prepare for in the future. How long do we give new leaders to gain all of this complex and specialized knowledge transfer? 90 days. A heartbeat of time.

All of this in addition to the budget, the competitors, the regulators, the consumer trends and upcoming needs....

Yet clients ask "why do we need to transfer knowledge, we never did it before?" Instead perhaps the question should be "Why didn't we do this a long time ago!"



Life Science Leader

Common Language:Simple, Critical, But Why So Rare?

I've been using Twitter. The ideas flow fast and furious. This is part of the new information overload, and it is important to determine what is most important and what is not. Today, through twitter, I found a blog post that I must recommend. Michael Schrage of Havard Business Review writes about the need to translate your language to that of the audience (think client, colleague, boss, employee, customer, vendor...) to be able to be heard, understood and add value. Ok, I said the add value piece but that is the essence of what I read in his blog. I've linked to his site at the bottom of the post.

This is also the essence of what I have been writing about the last few posts. As consultants, we don't realize how much jargon, how many buzz words and catch phrases we use until the CLIENT rewrites our stuff to explain it to their colleagues. Once you experience that clients may like what you do but they do not talk about it in the same way you do, you realize the work is in jeopardy-- you may not be able to have the positive impact you wish to. Eventually, if people must translate, it is simply too much work.

That is also true from client group to client group, colleague to colleague. No one has time to translate and therefore even the best ideas can be lost.

My suggestion: Apply your facilitation skills to take time to quickly check assumptions and language during conversations or meetings. Don't make it boring or painful, make it fun.  Ask people to translate a term they just heard-- ask them to tell you what it means to them. The answers will surprise you but they will also lead to rich, provocative and helpful discussions among the group. Suddenly people are aware of why communication goes awry. As you lead them through this you are role modeling for them the skills and behaviors needed to stand in curiosity, ask questions, let go of assumptions and deeply communicate. This is one of those examples of the need to slow down to speed up communications later.  Checking language and assumptions early makes it less likely you'll have mistakes in the product, the quality, the expectations later on when it's more costly.

The theme continues. Keep it simple, straightforward, practice respect and common sense. A great place to start.

http://blogs.hbr.org/schrage/2011/02/getting-your-innovative-ideas.html

Knowledge Transfer for the sake of what?

Businesses large and small are talking about Knowledge Transfer. However, as some twittering types have stated lately, there are those who loudly state that Knowledge Transfer sounds like filling a bucket, not sparking new ideas. Fair enough. The term may be less than accurate. Though  the discussions did not involve me, I will state that in my view it is a term I embrace and will gladly use. It is not the only term I employ. It depends on the work.

The context free debate surprised me however. 140 characters does not give much, if any, space to provide contextual understanding. Yet, I see many folks can be up in arms about the term employed. In 140 characters. No one asked any questions about intention for the term.

 We have to be clear this argument is not new nor is it going away anytime soon. I would rather we all stand in curiosity rather than spend energy debating the terminology. As with many complex discussions, it started some time ago, stems from many sources and  from not being clear on what we wanted to achieve.

It has never been easy for practitioners to accurately name the activities around any type of Knowledge Management. In the early 90's (and yes, I'm dating myself here) many of us had no concept of the term Knowledge Management. We were, in fact, grappling with information overload which was the outcome of the acceptance and excitement around new uses for computing (of all types), new ways of using media....more information then we knew how to effectively or efficiently leverage. The consulting industry, bolstered by forecasts from Gartner and others, decided Knowledge Management was the next big wave and jumped in. However that resulted (and still does I'm afraid) in the confusion around the definition of knowledge management. Was it process, people, document management, knowledge management, information management, information architecture, content management, ERP systems, Decision Support, Business Intelligence...  20 years later that same discussion lingers.

Frankly, I am tired of that same question. I would rather just get on with it and that is what we and others have done.

Knowledge Transfer is the same debate. 

To me and to my firm, purpose is key. We continually ask: For the sake of what?
That is and should be the major over riding question for all of our work, and Knowledge Transfer by any name is no different. If you answer for the sake of what, you will get to the definition of the work be able to ascertain if the work is being done most effectively to reach your goals.

Knowledge Transfer is often more accurate than Knowledge Management, for the work that we do.

Knowledge transfer includes, in my view, the exchange of knowledge. It is not a one way dump of insights and tidbits. The transfer of knowledge can and does happen from the expert, the learner, external influences...whatever is appropriate.

Knowledge Exchange is the term we employed when working with an American firm divesting their operations in the Netherlands. We taught those involved from all locations to work with respect and care, and consider what they were trying to achieve, as well as consider those who benefited from the knowledge transfer---the customers and clients. Specifically as this was in the Medical Device industry, it was to be the patients who benefited. So we ensured the Knowledge Transfer was a Knowledge Exchange, named it that, and were very clear about  'for the sake of what'. The results were excellent and even in the midst of a location shutting down, everyone acted with respect and care and the knowledge was exchanged effeciently, effectively and completely.

At other times however, Knowledge Transfer is dialogue, sometimes during a community of practice, sometimes during a lessons learned session, an active learning session, a peer to peer review....the list goes on. We tell stories, we do case studies and all the time we are transferring knowledge.

Before we jump on each others' language and terms, can we not simply ask what the intended result is, what the for the sake of what is, and understand the terms may not be absolutely correct. The intention is what matters. The words are powerful and critical, but perhaps we can also give each other a bit of a break, and get on with it. Let's just do good work, together, We all have much to gain from learning together.

Instead of debating terms, let's ask each other what the result of the work was, and was it valuable to the client. Now there is a debate worth having!

Shared Mind Maps for Personal KM

Mind mapping is an interesting technique to help organize and visualize your thoughts. I recently heard a mind map 'expert' say that a mind map exactly represents what goes on in your brain. No, I do not buy that, not even close. I should hope our brains are much less simplistic than the brightly colored diagrams set on flip charts or butcher paper. The statement was a bit of a surprise.

Without being flip, there is a lot of value to mind mapping and for those who have no other recourse in getting their networks and areas of influence down on paper, and who need to separate the wheat from the chaff as far as what knowledge is critical to share, it's a decent place to start.

What would be even better however is to do this with those around you, those with whom you work on a daily basis. Look for overlaps and notice the gaps between the maps. You may well see where knowledge is held in common, and that may give you one piece of information, and you may well see what knowledge is held by only one, and that may give you  a different piece of information.

At the very least, the exercise may well help generate excellent and insightful conversations between you and your colleagues around what knowledge you each hold, what is critical and how that impacts your work.

My caveat here is to be careful how you assess the information. Think about the filter you are using and make sure you are wisely leveraging this very interesting tool. Trends and patterns provide critical information when you analyze carefully.

Maybe you can map how you think about mind mapping.

How fast can a leader learn?

90 days. 3 months. A heartbeat of time. That is how long we give leaders to learn.

Even the President of the United States gets 100 days to get up to speed. Or, at least that is what we say. But if we are honest, we are looking for immediate changes.

Think of what we are asking. The leader needs to be in place, understand the organization, the business, the customers, the stockholders, investors, leadership team, regulators, the competition, the global marketplace...AND make noticeable positive changes. All in 90 days. And if not, we, as share holders or employees or colleagues, get impatient and wonder if we made the right decision to put that leader in place.

What are we asking? Once we ask such a thing do we give that person the tools they need? No. Usually not. We say we do with succession planning...but does that provide the person with the in-depth knowledge, the experiential, contextual background to deeply understand the rationale of the past to avoid making similar mistakes for the future? No. Not because we don't want to but most of the time because we don't know how. Or we simply use magical thinking to say it is all in who we choose. Really. They don't need help because they can pick it up fast, they are smart.

And then we wonder why leaders stay approx 5 years in their top jobs and why they make decisions with such short term gain. You have to wonder whose fault that really is. We set unrealistic expectations and then we reward the wrong behavior.

I have seen time and again the gains made by using a process to illuminate and transfer the deeply held, experiential knowledge held either by the previous leader or within the organization. Not to keep people stuck in the past but to move them forward with the background to make better decisions, good decisions consistently. This work is no longer a luxury, it is a necessity in this fast paced and complex world. Do you want to take a highly visible leadership role without an understanding of the relational or organizational knowledge needed? The cost of doing nothing or the same thing over and over is too high. It is time Knowledge Transfer is seen as the critical business tool that it is.

Why Do We Complicate Knowledge Transfer?

I often say to my clients that if people practiced common sense, talked to each other often, openly and honestly and did not make assumptions, I would have much less work. Yes, that is overly simplified but we so often make knowledge transfer overly complicated.

Again today I was reminded of this as I read the blog posting from Mike Myatt at N2Growth. Mike writes about leadership and communication and this posting spoke to the need to carefully choose your words, the order in which you say them and the respectful way in which you speak. Again, this is not complicated yet the impact is profound.     
http://www.n2growth.com/blog/5-communication-tips-for-leaders/

Why is this new news? Why must organizations pay to have external consultants remind them how to communicate, collaborate and team? Somewhere along the line we've lost the plot and we've made it more complicated.

There is no doubt Knowledge Transfer is an asset to a company. We just completed a project with deep business value. Using the Knowledge Transfer principals we facilitated the transfer of manufacturing knowledge between sites around the world resulting in a measurable increase in both capacity and quality in each site. The practices and processes for Knowledge Transfer were essential in this work. However two of the big first wins were the creation of a 'knowledge holders list' to identify those people across all sites with experience and knowledge in the specific manufacturing process, and the creation of a list of system components and parameters to ensure all participants began with the same data on the various manufacturing systems. These two pieces connected people to those they needed across the globe and took away assumptions about the systems they worked with.  Those two pieces required work but it they were not complicated. The clients loved them.

The same can be said for transferring tacit knowledge between people. Again, the standardized processes we bring are critical but it all begins with respectful communication, asking questions from a stance of curiosity not judgement, and listening completely without assumption. Begin there--- begin with respect and a lot of interest and curiosity and you will see the difference.

Of course we enjoy having the work. More than that, we are energized by making a difference. So, let's make a difference by asking real questions, by listening openly and by communicating with respect often. Let's think about how to let others know what we have learned. At  then end of meetings, let's ask what our biggest learning was, who else needs to know and how will we tell them. Let's not make it overly complicated.

A Framework for Knowledge Transfer

Today I had an interesting exchange in the 'Knowledge Managers' group on LinkedIn. I enjoy reviewing questions posed by the various groups I participate in on LinkedIn but found this one quite interesting. www.linkedin.com
The subject was on the transfer of tacit knowledge and goodness knows I have a few opinions about that.

I posted that frameworks help organize the deeply held knowledge to be transferred from experts, to help make the knowledge applicable and actionable. Again I thought of the complexities of knowledge and the importance of organizing what has been accumulated over years and years of experiences, decisions, missteps and successes. We do struggle to identify what needs to be transferred and what does not. Not only do we need a framework to organize but we need to discern in some objective way, which areas of knowledge should be the focus to apply the framework on. Let's start there.

Unique, relevant and critical are the three terms I use to begin to determine if what someone knows needs to be transferred to the successor or the organization. Why? Because if many people hold the knowledge, is it necessary to transfer? No. It's a commodity.  What if it is unique but not relevant for the future? The expert may know something fascinating about the history or background of the product or company, and that knowledge might appeal to the KM practioner. But does it have an impact, will it matter in the future? Much of the historical knowledge held will matter, it may well provide context behind decisions, structures, processes. But not all of it is relevant and we must discern (with verification) if it is relevant. And then there is the issue of what I call critical. Is this knowledge crucial? One way to consider this is to imagine what might change if the knowledge is lost. Will things slow down, will quality fail, will products be more difficult to produce? Will relationships falter?

Are these criteria for discernment scientific? No. But do they work? My 16 years of experience says yes. I have applied these criteria in many situations and, like the framework, they have yet to fail me. It is less about the criteria being perfect and more that they are practical. Applicable. They are relevant.

Get to the point, what do you want from KM?

Ever experienced this? You have a major issue with a product or process and you need fast answers. You ask the folks near you, and they give you the names of people they think may have some expertise to offer. Two of the three have retired. hmmm...

Ok, so you find the one that's still in the organization and find that she is on vacation. In Bali. No cell phone with her. hmm....

You turn to online search within the company portal. You try search term after search term and you get document after document with titles that seem not to make any sense, and nothing quite on point. Or maybe they are but it will take you hours to weed through to find out for sure.

Now what. You think, "Hey, I know, I'll try Google!". So you look outside your own company to answer a critical issue by using information that you can not verify from sources who may well either be competitors or vendors, reliable or not. What is wrong with this picture?

And yet, when you are asked to participate in knowledge management initiatives, what answer do you give?
"I don't have time." Really. You don't have time? Just how many hours per week or per month do you spend looking for answers to critical questions and not being able to locate what you need?

This is so very common in our organizations today. We have time to spend two hours trying to locate someone who has expertise in the area we are working on, only to find they have moved on or they aren't the ones to answer us, and then an hour or two trying to find the relevant documents only to be frustrated enough to turn to the external searches like Google where we do not utilize the learning of our own organization but turn to information we must then (and hopefully do) validate. Is there not some logic missing in this picture?

What would be logical is to solve the challenge of not being able to use the expertise, experience, information and knowledge your company holds because you can not locate it.

Many companies have some type of knowledge management initiatives they are working on. What is the purpose of the knowledge management initiatives you are asked to participate in? If it is not to meet your business needs, then tell the folks offering them up that they are on the wrong path. Tell them, respectfully, what you really need from KM. And then be prepared to spend the time to make it worthwhile. Do not expect a silver bullet but know that it takes time to identify critical knowledge and experts, and make that available, it takes time to develop the right processes and tools and more than that, it takes time and role modeling to change the behaviors that got the organization into the shape it is now in.  A focus on business value and time to make it work is crucial to making KM effective. Make sure you get what you want from managing knowledge and that you take the time and the responsibility to put your shoulder to the wheel to make it work.

Get what you need from the KM effort by getting to the point. Think of the great work you can do with the hours you would have been spending looking for things you need but can not find. That is where you can get to but not overnight. However, as more people transition from the organization or within it, the problem of finding the expertise will be worse not better without the extra effort. Go for it. You'll be glad you did.

The Answer to every problem is community

The quote that is the title of this post is from Meg Wheatley. I heard it today as I listened to a recorded call from the Global Sufficiency Network called "Sufficiency: the Power of Enough".  As I listened to the various presenters I could not help but think how our work, the transfer of knowledge, is impacted by and impacts both the concepts of community and sufficiency or abundance in the organizations in which we serve.
 http://globalsufficiency.org/

Much of the work that our firm is doing now is around helping companies transfer deeply held knowledge from their long tenured experts or leaders back to the organization. The knowledge they hold is critical and yet so often we hear: who is the next expert to take this person's place. The next expert? I think the radical but honestly much more powerful question should be: who is the community that will take this person's place.

It takes a community mindset to run a business-- it takes partnering, sharing, vulnerability, giving, receiving, assisting, being of service, mindful leadership.--- all pieces of a community mindset. Command and control has not gotten us far enough, or maybe has put us into some dangerous and unsustainable territory. Asking the question 'Who is the community' would require thinking that we have enough time to learn, to teach, to help, to change as well as to produce. How radical is that? Does having time in the organization to teach each other, learn from each other, communicate and collaborate like a community sound like a warm, fuzzy, non-achievable, unpractical or unrealistic goal?

So what will happen if we do not act as a community in business? What will be the impact if we simply continue to work as we are and expect somehow, by some miracle, things will get better on their own?

What is the consequence if organizations continue to ask more from people and provide less resources to accomplish it, and people continue to work harder, to burn out, to not feel they have time to learn much less time or freedom to make a mistake? What will be the impact if people continue to feel the burden of work like a load of stones to carry rather than the excitement of knowing you have the time and resources to do an excellent job, to go above and beyond and to truly contribute to the success and the ability of the organization to thrive, not just for a short term survive?

I do not see clients thriving at the moment. Perhaps, in pockets there may be a sense of real contribution and collaboration but for the most part, I see clients feeling they can not take time to learn. They want a silver bullet -- they literally want a tool for people to share knowledge and never have to be trained on them. They are not asking about how to shift the mindset and change the culture as the necessary backdrop to increase the competencies around collaboration or communication....or learning. Instead they want a stand alone, drop this in type of tool and do not want to talk to the organization, do not want to take the time or see the need to reach out and provide the leadership to say-- we expect you to communicate with each other and share your learning, share your knowledge and here is what that looks like, here is what that means and how it will support our organization's future. They are not building community. Nor are they setting expectations for what they want to achieve by sharing knowledge. They want an instant fix to a much bigger problem.

I believe this is not ill intended but it is the result of the hamster wheel of having to continually do more with less, and the result of an  increase in workload without an increase in competencies. They are worried, frustrated, and feel that they have to run fast, not stop, just get it done. Community looks like a time waster. If they only knew that anything less does not support a sustained organization. Anything less is a short term road to long term failure.

Take time to look at the Global Sufficiency Network. Choose the nuggets that work for you. They offer many ideas about what community looks like, and the actions involved. We need to have the courage to make the changes that will keep us all thriving.

If you'd like more from Meg, you'll find her work here: www.margaretwheatley.com/

Trust and Impact are Critical to Sustained Success

I had the opportunity this week to work with an amazing client group. This is a group of dedicated folks who take tremendous pride in the work they do, and want to make continual improvements to the products they make. They work hard and they pull together.

There is a deep level of expertise in the group, which each individual calls upon. For the most part, they trust the expertise that lives with key individuals. Leadership also trusts that expertise.

The question being answered was quite simple: Is this the right model to make this organization as efficient and effective as possible? Is there a better way and how do we make that happen? The question should be asked by every organization with long tenured employees.

What might change if the expertise is more broadly shared and all of the individuals knew how they impacted the entire system? What shift would occur if they knew their value to the broader process-- if they understood how what they did would impact the down stream process. How might shared knowledge about their own areas and those around them help them to more quickly recognize and solve problems, knowing that they would be helping those in the downstream processes by addressing issues now? In my opinion, people with great pride in their work and teams would embrace such ability to better understand how they work together. They were ready and we made great strides.

Often, when I approach clients with the idea of sharing the evolution of how their processes or systems came to be and the broader view of the process or system, Leadership believes there is not time to 'dwell' on the past or share stories that are not relevant. I take that as a sign that I have not yet explained the value of knowing why things are as they are, so changes made can be both powerful and mindful. We must be mindful of what went before so we do not simply make a matter worse, or remake a mistake of the past. That mindfulness provides the powerful ability to make very good decisions when systems or process changes are made, when issues are addressed, when innovative ideas are called for.

Having a shared understanding of how things evolved and where you fit in the large scheme of the process or system allows you to be more innovative in problem solving, more engaged in outcomes and have a well placed and increased sense of pride in what you do-- because you understand that you play a critical role in creating the end product and you understand how your decisions will or will not impact the entire system. You can make better, more well informed choices.

We should trust our experts when that trust is well founded. In this organization, the trust is very well founded. And, we should also share that expertise to help others increase their capabilities and competencies, their sense of value and their ability to make a positive impact in continual improvement and problem solving. We need to trust that spending time making people competent, building capabilities, pays off in the end big time. We may great strides to share knowledge in this amazing organization next week. I felt proud working with such a group of people and believe their pride will only increase as they see how they impact their processes and product.