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!

Just the Facts, Nothing But the Facts

As mentioned, I've been working to transfer my knowledge about knowledge transfer to new colleagues. To do this, I'm using my own processes.

My first question to myself? What about what I know is unique, relevant and critical. Those are the three magic terms that help me separate the knowledge which MUST be transferred from all of the other areas of knowledge (Abba lyrics perhaps?) which we hold and do not need to transfer. Some readers may argue that Songs like SOS must be kept alive. True, but not by me. That knowledge is not unique to me-- it's held by many others who can retrieve it much faster (and more accurately) then I. It is also not critical (my business is much more likely to survive and thrive if I do not sing to my clients) nor relevant.

My experiences and stories however are.

This is not meant to be about ego, but about sharing what I am learning, or I should say what I am re-learning.

Often when we are transferring knowledge to others, we believe the most important areas to focus on are the factual aspects or the technical information. Yes, the facts are critical but without context, without an understanding of how the knowledge was applied, the situation it was used in, the influencers and intended outcomes, there is less relevance.

More so, the knowledge will not be retained and will be tough to reuse.

Stories put things into perspective and context. Stories are how we transfer behaviors and beliefs. Stories allow us to provide the whole picture. And, stories are what we remember.

I have a lot of stories. As I transfer knowledge about knowledge transfer, I am able to say why I did what I did, what else I considered, what I intended as the outcome, what the actual outcome was and what I learned from that. I can talk about things that worked beautifully and things that did not, and what I would now do differently. Like the experts with whom I often work, I am finding the telling of stories rewarding as I remember the details, the people, the work.

Stories give us a sense of our own growth and learning, just as they provide context for the listener.

Next time you are transferring knowledge and you want to go to the facts, keep in mind that providing the richness and color of the surrounding stories will make those facts come to life for the learner.

The Stories We Tell Ourselves

I did something I have not done before, this last week. As I drove through Nebraska, from Kearney up through the Sandhills, through the rolling hills, valleys and plains of Eastern South Dakota, back into Minnesota, I stopped at every historical marker I saw. Why, you ask (with good reason) would you do this?

Well, for those who are efficiency minded, it did add time to the trip. A good amount of time. But it also added context. I was driving across territory I had never before seen and I wanted to understand the land, the history, the context of the vast territory upon which I was driving. I wanted to learn, to understand what knowledge and wisdom was to be shared with me, from the past.

What I learned, one more time, is that everything is contextual and is portrayed through the lens of one view. I was amazed, actually, and saddened.

I stopped at historical markers all along the way that spoke of the conflict between the Native American and the soldiers who were assisting in the 'settling' of the land back in the 1860s. Each told a 'story'. I soon came to understand the voice, the view, the point of truth of that story depended completely on who erected the monument, who wrote the inscription, who paid for the piece. And who won the war.

I read continually about the bravery of the soldiers, but little about the plight of the Native Americans. There was little context behind the conflict except that this was a 'wild' land and that the soldiers bravely fought to ensure the settlers were safe. I will admit that I may have missed something along the way, but I found no markers that described how the world of the Native American was ripped apart, changed, without any understanding of why or to what.

One of the places which most impacted me on this trip was called Fort Release. There were two markers designating 'Fort Release'. One, a large obelisk in the middle of a circular drive, described the release of 269 hostages, held by 'hostile Sioux', to General Henry H. Sibley after a 'signal victory' at Wood Lake.

The second marker, a black and bronze sign standing by itself just across the driveway, talked about a Dakota peace faction that kept watch over the hostages, risking their own lives to keep the hostages alive. This marker described how the Dakota peace faction saved the lives of the hostages.

These two markers were not more than 20 feet from each other and told different stories of the same event. My guess is that the truth does not fully lie in either marker.

We must be aware of the issue of point of view in all of our work in managing and sharing knowledge. The truth does not lie in the view of one person, it lies in the mixture of many, and the context of each. You might think this makes sharing knowledge impossible. No, not at all. But it does mean there is a deep responsibility for those of us in the field to check our assumptions and the assumptions of those around us. We must check facts, stand in curiosity and not in ego. We need to remember there are reasons why things happen. Be curious, be mindful and be respectful of what is being shared to whom.

I know we can do this well. I have seen it done, experienced it myself and worked to build processes to assist others share knowledge authentically. But I know it takes thought. It should. That is the responsiblity that comes with our work. We must hope none of us are responsible for two markers, so close together, telling two totally different stories.

Abandoned But Not Forgotten

How often in our work as Knowledge Managers do we hear people say they are afraid the context or stories of what truly happened in the organization are at risk of being lost?

When we do lose the context or rationale behind decisions or actions, we usually make up stories to fill in the gaps. Often without meaning to do so. Somehow people feel uncomfortable simply 'not knowing,' and so we make something up. We create a myth.

An illustration of this is a site I've just found called 'Abandoned But Not Forgotten'. This site provides pictures of places around the world, sometimes even entire villages, which are abandoned. One interesting example is a village in Italy, completely abandoned.

So, how do we come to understand the context behind villages, dams, factories, and so forth now completely abandoned. We make up stories. Yet the context, the actual decisions and rationale behind these pictures would be fascinating. I believe there are other sites such as this as well, though I've not yet visited them. The pictures do help you think about the stories lost, the stories made up, and the aftermath. Myth can become reality simply by telling it over and over.