The collective thoughts of Knowledge Pad on Knowledge Management; it's not just about doing the right thing, it's also about doing the right thing, right!
Tuesday 31 August 2010
Tuesday 24 August 2010
Should Knowledge Management be Mandatory?
In my opinion yes!, and that is not because I am a so-called Knowledge Management Consultant or Practitioner, but more because I can see what KM has to offer and at the simplest level it is ‘Good Business Practice’ (I don’t like the term ‘Best Practice’ because it conjures up ideas that it is best and there is no room for improvement! So why should organizations adopt Knowledge Management?
I have been saying for the last 4 – 5 years that Knowledge Management should be mandatory. I worked for the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) for 23 Years, and been involved in Procurement and Project Management on Defence Equipment for about 11 years, and involved with ‘Knowledge Management’ for about 8 years; and sharing Knowledge for a lot longer, and have experienced the impact of not utilising Knowledge Management.
Purely based on my experience with the MOD, I believe that KM should be mandatory not only within the MOD Procurement Function, but also a contractual requirement on any contractor that wants to supply goods and services to the MOD. You may well ask why?, but if we look at Defence Contractors supplying to the MOD; as the Head of Procurement surely you would ask yourself this question; “Would I place a large Multi-Million (possibly Multi-Billion) contract with a company that wasn't protecting the key Knowledge associated with that contract?”
It sounds stupid doesn't it?,...but it is happening everywhere, and the consequences are disastrous and very costly; look at the US Government - and here I will return to my favourite scare story (sorry but this is just the greatest reason to implement KM); how the US National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) "lost knowledge" and it cost them $69 million - http://www.heraldscotland.com/how-the-us-forgot-how-to-make-trident-missiles-1.826976).
So that’s the outcome of one of the more extreme examples, let’s take a look at a more ‘day-to-day’ scenario and some of the other considerations of not capturing knowledge, and again I ask you “Would you place a contract with a company that wasn’t protecting their key Knowledge?”
Think about the likes of Coca Cola, the Knowledge is in the Formula. The Knowledge was created, and the Knowledge is the exact blend of ingredients that makes Coca Cola…., Coca Cola! What if John Pemberton hadn’t written down the exact ingredients for his drink? What if he forgot the exact ingredients, quantities, etc? There would be no consistency….so the Coke that you had on Monday might be good, and the Coke that you had on Friday might taste awful, or at best different!
Think about that in a Manufacturing perspective; use the Trident example above, the missile that was made for you in the first batch works well and delivers all of your performance requirements, so you accept it. You then need another batch so you go back to the supplier and ask them to build you a second batch, only to be told “Ooops, sorry we have lost the Knowledge to build that!” Would you be pleased?........I wouldn’t.
So they offer to recreate the Knowledge…..at a cost of $69 Million……..Who foots the bill for that? You?, or the Contractor? Lets just assume for the moment that the Knowledge can be recreated; what has it done to the reputation of the Contractor, your confidence in the Contractor, has it delayed the Project/Programme, What other impact has it had?, and these are the good points, assuming the Knowledge can be re-created….but it’s still inefficient; re-inventing the wheel, doing something twice…Is that efficient?
What if the re-invented Knowledge isn’t the same as the knowledge created the first time? What if to get the same yield from the warhead, it took up twice the space? and the physical size of the missile had to increase? or the weight was increased! What if it no longer fitted in the launch tubes of the delivery platform?
And that is still assuming that the Knowledge can be recreated! What happens if the Knowledge can’t be recreated?
So we have used the Loss of Knowledge by the US Government on the Trident Missile programme as an example of the impact of Knowledge Loss, so what do they do about it? With other negative examples of ‘Not sharing Knowledge or good practice’; such as the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, the poor response to the aftermath of ‘Hurricane Katrina’ and the ‘9/11 Terror Attacks on the World Trade Centre’ the US Government made a commitment to make Knowledge Management mandatory in all Government departments and established the US Federal Knowledge Management Working Group http://wiki.nasa.gov/cm/wiki/Federal%20Knowledge%20Management%20Working%20Group%20(KMWG).wiki/home/home.html, headed up by Neil Olonoff http://www.linkedin.com/in/olonoff,
This is based on my experience with the UK Ministry of Defence, and limited experience of how not sharing/capturing Knowledge has impacted on the US Government. I have also witnessed first hand how similar examples have impacted commercial and private organizations.
From a Government perspective Knowledge Management should be treated like ISO 9000, a pre-requirement before a company should be allowed to contract with the Government; demonstrating that the organization has the capability to protect Knowledge and is practicing Knowledge Management.
If a certification type approach was introduced, then it would be easy to recognise the organizations that are protecting knowledge, hence, our decision to work with them becomes more informed.
How would this work?, that’s for another Blogg Post!, for the moment let’s conclude that I believe that KM should be mandatory!
Thursday 19 August 2010
Knowledge Management Is Like Travel Insurance Quote (April 2009) 12th August 2010
Check out this SlideShare Presentation:
Tuesday 17 August 2010
Knowledge Management; Spend to Save or a Return On Investment?
Justifying Knowledge Management To The People Who Make The Decisions!
Having to justify to an organization why they should make a commitment to Knowledge Management (KM) is somewhat of a puzzling exercise. The first question that seems to be on everyones mind is “What is the Return On Investment (ROI)?”. The ROI question has appeared in various Linked-in discussion groups, with questions ranging from recommendations for Return on Investment tools, to how to quantify Return on Investment for KM, etc, etc.
This is like trying to put a tangible output, to something that is almost intangible, you cannot see a unit of KM, you cannot say that I will invest £200,000 and I will achieve KM, it is difficult to quantify and difficult to visualize. Unlike a word processing package, you can’t pop down to your local Computer Store and buy a box of KM; which is why I am so against these ‘so called’ “off the shelf” KM Packages; sure they may offer part of the solution, but KM is a change in the way people work and interact, it is a ‘Change Initiative’, a journey, an aspiration….I liken it to the TQM journey, it is an aspirational state where the organization protects knowledge, shares it and then innovates using the knowledge resources at its’ disposal.
The Justification for Knowledge Management should not be whether it offers an immediate, and quantifiable Return On Investment, but what benefits can KM deliver to my organization, and should be viewed as a Spend to Save measure. KM is like Risk Management, you need to assess firstly what the probability of the risk is, and what impact it will have on the organization. The risk is the loss of ‘Critical Business Knowledge’. So what form could this take? Some one leaving the organization; well we never hear of anyone having an accident do we!, someone being offered a better job!, someone being seriously ill!, someone dying, or even someone winning the lottery….it never happens does it.
If we take the National Lottery, someone wins nearly every week. To illustrate the point and for the sake of argument, lets say that someone does win every week. That’s 52 people every year faced with the dilemma; ‘Do I carry on working?’, and if they decide no, they could take valuable, even key knowledge with them.
So we have a risk, with a probability and then there’s the impact? Here I would like to introduce my favourite scare story; The US National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) "lost knowledge" of how to make a mysterious but very hazardous material codenamed Fogbank. As a result, the warhead refurbishment programme was put back by at least a year, and racked up an extra $69 million (You can read the story at http://www.heraldscotland.com/how-the-us-forgot-how-to-make-trident-missiles-1.826976).
So you need to ask yourself, do I adopt a KM approach within my organization, or do I take a risk that it might not happen?.......,because it might not happen. You may be lucky; there may be no accidents, no illness, and everybody may be blissfully happy and never leave and no lucky sods winning the lottery……….but do you want to take that risk?
Whan I talk to organisations I use an analogy that I came up with; “Knowledge Management is a bit like Travel Insurance - You only wish you had it when it is too late? (O’Neill, 2009)”. Think about it; You go on a skiing holiday and don’t take out travel insurance, that’s fine if nothing happens……but what if you have an accident? You then have to pay your own medical bills….very expensive! In fact £1000’s, compared to the £50.00 - £100.00 for Travel Insurance.
With KM you take a risk and don’t protect your key knowledge – it cost the US Government $69 Million to replace key knowledge; and I can say for certain that it wouldn’t have cost them $69 Million to implement KM. So the question that you must ask yourself is “Is it worth taking the risk?”.
The approach to the decision about adopting KM should be one based on a spend to save basis, spend a little to protect your key knowledge, and you can sleep better at night knowing that the knowledge is not going to disappear and is protected, rather than laying in a hospital bed thinking this is going to cost a fortune “I wish I had taken out an insurance to protect me against this”.
Having to justify to an organization why they should make a commitment to Knowledge Management (KM) is somewhat of a puzzling exercise. The first question that seems to be on everyones mind is “What is the Return On Investment (ROI)?”. The ROI question has appeared in various Linked-in discussion groups, with questions ranging from recommendations for Return on Investment tools, to how to quantify Return on Investment for KM, etc, etc.
This is like trying to put a tangible output, to something that is almost intangible, you cannot see a unit of KM, you cannot say that I will invest £200,000 and I will achieve KM, it is difficult to quantify and difficult to visualize. Unlike a word processing package, you can’t pop down to your local Computer Store and buy a box of KM; which is why I am so against these ‘so called’ “off the shelf” KM Packages; sure they may offer part of the solution, but KM is a change in the way people work and interact, it is a ‘Change Initiative’, a journey, an aspiration….I liken it to the TQM journey, it is an aspirational state where the organization protects knowledge, shares it and then innovates using the knowledge resources at its’ disposal.
The Justification for Knowledge Management should not be whether it offers an immediate, and quantifiable Return On Investment, but what benefits can KM deliver to my organization, and should be viewed as a Spend to Save measure. KM is like Risk Management, you need to assess firstly what the probability of the risk is, and what impact it will have on the organization. The risk is the loss of ‘Critical Business Knowledge’. So what form could this take? Some one leaving the organization; well we never hear of anyone having an accident do we!, someone being offered a better job!, someone being seriously ill!, someone dying, or even someone winning the lottery….it never happens does it.
If we take the National Lottery, someone wins nearly every week. To illustrate the point and for the sake of argument, lets say that someone does win every week. That’s 52 people every year faced with the dilemma; ‘Do I carry on working?’, and if they decide no, they could take valuable, even key knowledge with them.
So we have a risk, with a probability and then there’s the impact? Here I would like to introduce my favourite scare story; The US National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) "lost knowledge" of how to make a mysterious but very hazardous material codenamed Fogbank. As a result, the warhead refurbishment programme was put back by at least a year, and racked up an extra $69 million (You can read the story at http://www.heraldscotland.com/how-the-us-forgot-how-to-make-trident-missiles-1.826976).
So you need to ask yourself, do I adopt a KM approach within my organization, or do I take a risk that it might not happen?.......,because it might not happen. You may be lucky; there may be no accidents, no illness, and everybody may be blissfully happy and never leave and no lucky sods winning the lottery……….but do you want to take that risk?
Whan I talk to organisations I use an analogy that I came up with; “Knowledge Management is a bit like Travel Insurance - You only wish you had it when it is too late? (O’Neill, 2009)”. Think about it; You go on a skiing holiday and don’t take out travel insurance, that’s fine if nothing happens……but what if you have an accident? You then have to pay your own medical bills….very expensive! In fact £1000’s, compared to the £50.00 - £100.00 for Travel Insurance.
With KM you take a risk and don’t protect your key knowledge – it cost the US Government $69 Million to replace key knowledge; and I can say for certain that it wouldn’t have cost them $69 Million to implement KM. So the question that you must ask yourself is “Is it worth taking the risk?”.
The approach to the decision about adopting KM should be one based on a spend to save basis, spend a little to protect your key knowledge, and you can sleep better at night knowing that the knowledge is not going to disappear and is protected, rather than laying in a hospital bed thinking this is going to cost a fortune “I wish I had taken out an insurance to protect me against this”.
Friday 13 August 2010
Learning from Experience or Lessons Captured?
This is an area that I have a particular interest in, coming from a Project Management background, and also because it forms one of the fundamental building blocks of Knowledge Management.
The first thing to clarify is whether it is genuine Learning from Experience, or merely Lessons Captured! In my experience there are many companies who undertake ‘Post Action Reviews’ (Post Project Reviews in Project Management terms), and from this identify valuable knowledge; what went well, what didn’t go so well, key areas for improvement, elements of ‘Good Practice’ to carry forward, all knowledge created during a project or task.
However, in most cases that’s as far as it goes. It is collected, but nothing is done with it; apart from being filed and forgotten about. I have come across organizations that have implemented a very well developed and sophisticated database that is fully searchable. But once the so called lessons have been captured, that is as far as it goes and nobody checks it for Learning Points.
Project Managers are particularly bad in this field, because as soon as one project is complete they want to get onto the next project. But that opens up the possibility to repeat mistakes that have been made previously; and not necessarily just from the last project.
In my view, individuals should be allowed to make a mistake…..once!, as this is how we learn, and ultimately innovate. If we can’t make mistakes we become less willing to take risks, and we stop innovating. However, this isn’t the theme of this post and is a separate subject area in its own right.
So there needs to be a means of ensuring that firstly the Learning points and Knowledge associated with each project are identified and captured, and secondly that once identified and captured they are used to improve future project/task performance, and the only way to effectively achieve this is by establishing appropriate Governance arrangements.
Coming from a Project Management background I would say that the governance needs to be based on the Project Sponsor not signing off the Project as being complete until a Learning from Experience/Lessons Learnt/Post Project Evaluation has taken place.
The next stage is to build in Governance such that the next project/task is not able to start until the Project Manager/Task owner demonstrates that the Learning from Experience/Post Project Evaluation repository has been examined. The Project Initiation Document should then show what lessons have been examined and what the PM is going to do to ensure that 'bad things' or errors are not repeated, and that he is building the 'good things' into the new project/task.
If the task/project owner starts the project having falsely claimed that there are no benefits or bad points to be utilised, and the project/task subsequently fails because of a repeat of something that has previously happened and could have been avoided, then appropriate action should be taken.
Ideally the Reviews should take regularly during the execution of the task/project, particularly on projects with a long duration. I have been working with KM and the approach I advocate is 'Continuous' review, re-baseline; the TQM/Continuous improvement approach.
The critical thing is that lessons lead to change, and if nothing changes, nothing has been learned.
The first thing to clarify is whether it is genuine Learning from Experience, or merely Lessons Captured! In my experience there are many companies who undertake ‘Post Action Reviews’ (Post Project Reviews in Project Management terms), and from this identify valuable knowledge; what went well, what didn’t go so well, key areas for improvement, elements of ‘Good Practice’ to carry forward, all knowledge created during a project or task.
However, in most cases that’s as far as it goes. It is collected, but nothing is done with it; apart from being filed and forgotten about. I have come across organizations that have implemented a very well developed and sophisticated database that is fully searchable. But once the so called lessons have been captured, that is as far as it goes and nobody checks it for Learning Points.
Project Managers are particularly bad in this field, because as soon as one project is complete they want to get onto the next project. But that opens up the possibility to repeat mistakes that have been made previously; and not necessarily just from the last project.
In my view, individuals should be allowed to make a mistake…..once!, as this is how we learn, and ultimately innovate. If we can’t make mistakes we become less willing to take risks, and we stop innovating. However, this isn’t the theme of this post and is a separate subject area in its own right.
So there needs to be a means of ensuring that firstly the Learning points and Knowledge associated with each project are identified and captured, and secondly that once identified and captured they are used to improve future project/task performance, and the only way to effectively achieve this is by establishing appropriate Governance arrangements.
Coming from a Project Management background I would say that the governance needs to be based on the Project Sponsor not signing off the Project as being complete until a Learning from Experience/Lessons Learnt/Post Project Evaluation has taken place.
The next stage is to build in Governance such that the next project/task is not able to start until the Project Manager/Task owner demonstrates that the Learning from Experience/Post Project Evaluation repository has been examined. The Project Initiation Document should then show what lessons have been examined and what the PM is going to do to ensure that 'bad things' or errors are not repeated, and that he is building the 'good things' into the new project/task.
If the task/project owner starts the project having falsely claimed that there are no benefits or bad points to be utilised, and the project/task subsequently fails because of a repeat of something that has previously happened and could have been avoided, then appropriate action should be taken.
Ideally the Reviews should take regularly during the execution of the task/project, particularly on projects with a long duration. I have been working with KM and the approach I advocate is 'Continuous' review, re-baseline; the TQM/Continuous improvement approach.
The critical thing is that lessons lead to change, and if nothing changes, nothing has been learned.
Thursday 12 August 2010
Who Should be practising Knowledge Management?
This is a question that I have been asked many times?, and I usually respond with the question "Who is it that creates Knowledge?"......this is followed by a short silence, followed by the answer "Well I guess everyone creates Knowledge", to which I say "Everyone should be practising Knowledge Management".
I then usually give an example of an IT Technician that I know. He was a one man business. He designed and built websites and provided technical IT Support for a number of organisations.
One day he received a phone call from one of his clients asking him to come and resolve a problem with one of their printers; a HP Printer.....although it could have been any type of printer!
I only mentioned the printer brand because there is actually some deeper relevance to Knowledge Management because HP actually practices Knowledge Management, and one of their Executives once said "If only HP knew, everything that HP Knows".
Anyway, back to the story......he went out to visit the company and identified an error code that was preventing the computers (on a network) talking to the printer.
Like all good technicians he started with the onboard diagnostics, but was unable to identify the fault. He then went to the HP Website and again, no reference to the fault. He then started looking on the various HP User forums, and again there was no mention of this fault.
So he then started interrogating the system, investigating, trouble-shooting and experimenting and whether it was good diagnostic skills, or sheer fluke, he solved the problem.
What should he do now? If we look at the scenario, he has created unique Knowledge. This should be captured, protected and even shared with HP and the user forums. The benefits of this;
- Reputation and Kudos - he is clearly knowledgeable as he has resolved the problem
- Efficiency - He will save time if the fault reoccurs, or save time for others should they discover the same problem
What really happened?, he left the job with a thanks from the client. Two years later, the same company rang him up again and said "You remember we had that fault with the printer?, well it's happened again.....can you come and fix it?"
So he gets in to his car and visits the company, and identifies it as the same error from two years ago, again preventing the computers talking to the printer.
Remembering it wasn't on the onboard diagnostics, he starts his investigation at the HP Website and there is still no reference to the fault. He then proceeds to the various HP User forums, and again there is still no mention of this fault. So he starts interrogating the system, investigating, trouble-shooting and experimenting....but this time he can't solve the solve the problem.
This time he didn't leave with thanks from the company, he left to the sound of the Managing Director saying "Why haven't you fixed it, you did last time!"
And the outcome of this:
- Reputation and Kudos - Severely damaged
- Efficiency - Wasted time investigating a problem that he had previously investigated and solved
Does this sound familiar?
My view - I believe that every organisation, regardless of size, regardless of sector should be protecting 'Business Critical Knowledge' - Knowledge Management.
I then usually give an example of an IT Technician that I know. He was a one man business. He designed and built websites and provided technical IT Support for a number of organisations.
One day he received a phone call from one of his clients asking him to come and resolve a problem with one of their printers; a HP Printer.....although it could have been any type of printer!
I only mentioned the printer brand because there is actually some deeper relevance to Knowledge Management because HP actually practices Knowledge Management, and one of their Executives once said "If only HP knew, everything that HP Knows".
Anyway, back to the story......he went out to visit the company and identified an error code that was preventing the computers (on a network) talking to the printer.
Like all good technicians he started with the onboard diagnostics, but was unable to identify the fault. He then went to the HP Website and again, no reference to the fault. He then started looking on the various HP User forums, and again there was no mention of this fault.
So he then started interrogating the system, investigating, trouble-shooting and experimenting and whether it was good diagnostic skills, or sheer fluke, he solved the problem.
What should he do now? If we look at the scenario, he has created unique Knowledge. This should be captured, protected and even shared with HP and the user forums. The benefits of this;
- Reputation and Kudos - he is clearly knowledgeable as he has resolved the problem
- Efficiency - He will save time if the fault reoccurs, or save time for others should they discover the same problem
What really happened?, he left the job with a thanks from the client. Two years later, the same company rang him up again and said "You remember we had that fault with the printer?, well it's happened again.....can you come and fix it?"
So he gets in to his car and visits the company, and identifies it as the same error from two years ago, again preventing the computers talking to the printer.
Remembering it wasn't on the onboard diagnostics, he starts his investigation at the HP Website and there is still no reference to the fault. He then proceeds to the various HP User forums, and again there is still no mention of this fault. So he starts interrogating the system, investigating, trouble-shooting and experimenting....but this time he can't solve the solve the problem.
This time he didn't leave with thanks from the company, he left to the sound of the Managing Director saying "Why haven't you fixed it, you did last time!"
And the outcome of this:
- Reputation and Kudos - Severely damaged
- Efficiency - Wasted time investigating a problem that he had previously investigated and solved
Does this sound familiar?
My view - I believe that every organisation, regardless of size, regardless of sector should be protecting 'Business Critical Knowledge' - Knowledge Management.
What is the Difference Between Knowledge Harvesting and Exit Interviews?
The Difference Between Knowledge Harvesting and Exit Interviews? - This was a discussion that appeared in one of the KM Groups on the Professional Networking site - Linked-in.
And it got me thinking, because this question is like asking what's the difference between a Mini and a Rolls Royce?, in essence they both get you from A to B; but it is how they do it and how effective they are at doing it!
In terms of Knowledge Management the processes of Knowledge Harvesting and the Exit Interview are both aimed at 'Capturing Knowledge', but again it comes down to how effective they are at achieving the desired outcome.
Firstly, I need to say that I do not like the term 'Knowledge Harvesting', it sounds too mechanised and systematic, almost like "We are going to Harvest your Knowledge" whether you like it or not! I prefer Knowledge Sharing; a focus on the fact that you want the Knowledge Holder to share their Knowledge with others, and in turn others will share their Knowledge....but that's for another Blog Post, for the purpose of this post I will focus on the difference between Knowledge Harvesting and Exit Interviews.
In this context Knowledge Harvesting is the 'state of being' that organisations should aspire to, so that Knowledge is 'Harvested' as it is created (or remembered) and this should be part of the normal business activity, part of the day to day business, capturing Knowledge as it is created and protecting it.
Knowledge is created all of the time; via experiences, doing, interacting, innovating, investigating and just by existing. So on that basis organisations should be trying to harness that Knowledge and protect it. And as Knowledge is being created all of the time, then in terms of adoption of KM the answer is now!, immediately....organisations should adopt KM Practices at Start-Up. But we know that in reality they don't! I have had discussions with many 'Start-up' businesses and they agree that they need to protect the so called 'Business Critical Knowledge' but they either 'Don't have time' or Don't have the money' to either pay a consultant to assist them or develop their own way of protecting knowledge.
So unfortunately we are left with the scenario where companies will carry on operating where the Knowledge circulates happily (and informally) within the organisation until something happens to upset the 'Status Quo'; Mr X who has 'this Knowledge' wins the Lottery and decides to leave, Miss Y who has 'Business Critical Knowledge' gets 'Head-Hunted' into a better job, or Mrs Z who knows all there is to know about 'widget a' retires. Or worse still, a series of redundancies driven by a bean counter who doesn't understand the business, and you are left with a last ditched 'Knee Jerk' effort to capture the Knowledge before it disappears out of the door - the exit interview.
This is usually the time that most organisations realise that they should have been more proactive and focussed on protecting Business Critical Knowledge. I have experienced the 'Exit Interview' approach twice, and in both cases the 'Knowledge Holders' are not focussed on sharing their Knowledge, they are focussed on the 'Exit', so you then have to question the value of this last ditch Knowledge Capture, both from the quality of knowledge, and the effort that is used to capture it.
The scenario could be even worse - a fatal accident.... because if this happens there is no chance of capturing any Knowledge; good or bad!
If you look at the scenarios that I have described they are not fanciful or an attempt at scaremongering.......they happen every day, even people winning the lottery. It may only be a few people who win a big jackpot, but what happens if that person works for your organisation?, what if that person is the holder of your 'Business Critical Knowledge'?
And it got me thinking, because this question is like asking what's the difference between a Mini and a Rolls Royce?, in essence they both get you from A to B; but it is how they do it and how effective they are at doing it!
In terms of Knowledge Management the processes of Knowledge Harvesting and the Exit Interview are both aimed at 'Capturing Knowledge', but again it comes down to how effective they are at achieving the desired outcome.
Firstly, I need to say that I do not like the term 'Knowledge Harvesting', it sounds too mechanised and systematic, almost like "We are going to Harvest your Knowledge" whether you like it or not! I prefer Knowledge Sharing; a focus on the fact that you want the Knowledge Holder to share their Knowledge with others, and in turn others will share their Knowledge....but that's for another Blog Post, for the purpose of this post I will focus on the difference between Knowledge Harvesting and Exit Interviews.
In this context Knowledge Harvesting is the 'state of being' that organisations should aspire to, so that Knowledge is 'Harvested' as it is created (or remembered) and this should be part of the normal business activity, part of the day to day business, capturing Knowledge as it is created and protecting it.
Knowledge is created all of the time; via experiences, doing, interacting, innovating, investigating and just by existing. So on that basis organisations should be trying to harness that Knowledge and protect it. And as Knowledge is being created all of the time, then in terms of adoption of KM the answer is now!, immediately....organisations should adopt KM Practices at Start-Up. But we know that in reality they don't! I have had discussions with many 'Start-up' businesses and they agree that they need to protect the so called 'Business Critical Knowledge' but they either 'Don't have time' or Don't have the money' to either pay a consultant to assist them or develop their own way of protecting knowledge.
So unfortunately we are left with the scenario where companies will carry on operating where the Knowledge circulates happily (and informally) within the organisation until something happens to upset the 'Status Quo'; Mr X who has 'this Knowledge' wins the Lottery and decides to leave, Miss Y who has 'Business Critical Knowledge' gets 'Head-Hunted' into a better job, or Mrs Z who knows all there is to know about 'widget a' retires. Or worse still, a series of redundancies driven by a bean counter who doesn't understand the business, and you are left with a last ditched 'Knee Jerk' effort to capture the Knowledge before it disappears out of the door - the exit interview.
This is usually the time that most organisations realise that they should have been more proactive and focussed on protecting Business Critical Knowledge. I have experienced the 'Exit Interview' approach twice, and in both cases the 'Knowledge Holders' are not focussed on sharing their Knowledge, they are focussed on the 'Exit', so you then have to question the value of this last ditch Knowledge Capture, both from the quality of knowledge, and the effort that is used to capture it.
The scenario could be even worse - a fatal accident.... because if this happens there is no chance of capturing any Knowledge; good or bad!
If you look at the scenarios that I have described they are not fanciful or an attempt at scaremongering.......they happen every day, even people winning the lottery. It may only be a few people who win a big jackpot, but what happens if that person works for your organisation?, what if that person is the holder of your 'Business Critical Knowledge'?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)