The Time It Takes To Manage Knowledge

I've written in this blog before about the desire in organizations to have a silver bullet to address knowledge management. Some organizations simply think there should be one process to handle all of the challenges of sharing what they know across the organization. What's more, that one process should also get them to work well together across boundaries, collaborate openly and hold hands while singing kumbaya. Right.

In that same vein, organizations will say they want that one process to take an hour because they are simply too busy. Too busy to learn? As though 20 years of accummulated technical or scientific knowledge combined with a depth of understanding of the organization, the industry, or the regulators, can be transferred back to the organization in two hours.

If it was that fast and that easy, it would have been done. And often what keeps the organization so busy is rework from redundant mistakes which could have been prevented by taking the time to learn.

To me, this is a matter of the organization not taking responsiblity for it's own issues. For example, sharing knowledge is not just about creating a process, it is about creating a culture in which knowledge sharing is valued. The culture must allow and facilite honest talk, to learn from both the successes and mistakes made. We, as consultants, can not give an organization time if they do not make the time. We can not create a process to faciliate learning if the organization will not take the time to learn. At some point the organization must stop and take accountablity for their own issues. Do they value the experience and learning held by each employee, or do they not? They must be honest. Learning requires honesty, courage and openness. There is not a process in the world that can replace those traits. A well crafted process can have some limited effect, and can begin to change the culture, but that will not last if the organization squealches learning.

If an expert is willing to share what they have learned over years of experience, but are told that they can only have 2 hours of time to identify and share the knowledge, is that not an insult to them? And add to that only a few people will be given the time to learn and if the expert speaks of mistakes it might hurt their career. Why would they bother? It sounds more harmful then helpful.

Where did we stop taking responsiblity for ourselves in organizations? When can we step up to the plate and know that for an organization to succeed in the long term, we must each develop the willingness to look at ourselves, our work, our outcomes honestly and determine what is working, what is not, and how to fix it. We need to know what role we play in the success of the organization and not be timidly deciding that we can not rock the boat or make waves (or mix metaphors). We must take the time it takes to share knowledge, to learn from each other, to have the conversations and dialogue needed to be innovative and continually improving. Less than that simply provides only a short term illusion of success.

Digital Data Crisis

There is a fascinating and terrifying story on the BBC News website that is well worth the time to read. In essence the reporter tells us that the chief executive of the UK National Archives warns there is a "ticking time bomb" in our problem of accessing old digital file formats.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6265976.stm

Scary but it makes a great deal of sense. The thought of losing years worth of critical knowledge because we can no longer access old file formats is not new to those of us who may have archived an old computer without removing all of the data.
Doing so now, years later, would be quite difficult if we had forgotten things such as passwords or types of software.

In this story, Gordan Frazer, the UK head of Microsoft, warned of a "digital dark age."

Identifying, capturing and re-using critical knowledge is a foundational concept of knowledge management. Technology has long been thought to be not only an enabler, but to some it is the most important tool. Now, it seems, technology becomes the biggest challenge if we do not ensure data access.

And do we care? Remembering the stories from David DeLong's Book, 'Lost Knowledge', you bet we care. Do we have the time, the resources or the patience to re-learn what has already been learned? Is it not arrogant of us to think we need not build off of past knowledge as we create new products, ideas, concepts?

It seems we could face, on a much larger scale, the issues we face in our organizations each day-- determining if we have time and desire to learn from the past. I have written about this often and experience it with almost every client. And we have terabytes of data at risk in this brave new world.

Is it not worth the time for us to consider how we can mitigate the risk of not being able to utilize data, information and knowledge created in the past few years or the past many years? Are we shortsighted enough as a society that we believe we can simply let all of our past learnings go?

Would we be willing to do that as individuals? What if we had to let go of every lesson we had learned in our lives, save those in the past few years, unless they were embedded in us. In addition, we could not pass the old lessons on to our offspring because we had lost it. Does that make sense on a personal level? Does it make more sense on a professional level?

KM Structure

Having internal resources to put Knowledge Management into place is almost always the biggest issue faced by my client companies. In our current business or economic environment, it is difficult to get the resources you need for project work, let alone staff KM. One part of this puzzle is to ensure KM shows business value and is seen as an impactful, important initiative. In any organization, profit or not-for-profit, there is no substitute for showing measurable value.

Another piece of this issue how we think of Knowledge Management. Is it a discipline or function such as finance or Human Resources? Or is it a transitory discipline which will, eventually, become a way of being or a way of working?

The latter is what we strive for.

I have seen powerful success (and I use the word powerful deliberately) when companies have carefully chosen a group to lead the KM work for the first two years. Yes, they do retain some portion of their day jobs, but portion is the operative word. This group is given the visible support of the leadership team (another key element) and allowed to implement KM pilots, using internal volunteers (and small amount of external help as needed). They do the pilots one at a time, and as the outcomes are created, there is room for honesty about successes, challenges, learnings and so forth. Communication is key and the organization learns from mistakes as well as failures. It is the quality of the effort that is rewarded, not just success.

In this environment it does not take long for others to volunteer to do KM work. As the volunteers emerge, they are trained on the processes which have been created to be replicable and trainable.

This may sound simplistic, but it does have merit. The managing of knowledge of is less about the group designated to do it and more about having the organization pick it up. This helps promote not only cultural uptake but sustainability. No model is wrong, each has pitfalls and positives. This is one which has seen success in the past.

Context is Everything

Joshua Bell, the renowned violinist, recently participated in an experiment sponsored by the Washington Post. Bell,who had just completed a performance at the Library of Congress with the Boston Symphony, played in the NY Subway. Adorned with a baseball hat, the violinist played for the commuters and made a whopping $43. He was not recognized by the passing public, except by one woman who stopped and gave him $20. (She had context for his playing).
In reflection Mr Bell remarked that he thought some people were even offended by his playing.

What is the difference between revering a great artist in one setting and ignoring or even being rude to him in another? Context. And in the world of knowledge management, context is everything as well. Knowledge can be seen and used, or ignored and dismissed, depending on the setting. Often we do not recognize brilliance if it is not in the context in which we would expect to see it.

Standing in curiosity is not always easy, but at least we might recognize the beautiful music in the midst of the noise of daily life.

A Tasty KM Example

From time to time I include in this blog a real life example of knowledge well managed on the web. Recently I have been reviewing sites about health related issues. I found a site which I think epitomizes good knowledge management.

http://www.nutritiondata.com/

This site takes us through the sometimes confusing and seemingly ever-changing world of nutrition, and I think it is a resounding success. The information is well organized, the layout is visually appealing without adding distraction. The content appears to be current and the sources of information quite reliable. The site is now owned by Conde.net after being sold by the couple who founded it a few years back.

Anyone could mimic the archetecture of the site, at least enough to help them consider how to share knowledge via a website: A) target your audience B)target your message C) make it usuable to the audience chosen D) make it easy to navigate, up to date and clean

Basic steps but we all need to consider them. This site is full of knowledge without being full of itself at the same time. Well worth a read and a bookmark.