The Jounrney of Knowledge-Enabling

Knowledge management or more so knowledge creation should be the goal of all businesses today. In reading the book Enabling Knowledge Creation it this understanding and application of unlocking the mysteries of Tacit Knowledge and Releasing the Power of Innovation. It is not a matter of capturing and storing information as this is not knowledge. It is in the application of information and the interaction between people and the creation of new innovative ideas that this information becomes real knowledge.

Krogh, Ichijo and Nonaka provide an understanding of the limits of knowledge management and the barriers which retard the level and effectivness of this area of business. In understanding these barriers which are both individual as well as organisational you are better prepared to assist an organisation in liberating this resource and allowing it to be a true asset in the business.

The book identifies four severe barriers. These are

• The need for a legitimate language
• Orgnisational stories
• Procedures, and
• Company paradigms

These as with individual barriers arise because of natural human tendencies, and they can be strenthened because of the wrong attitude of managers attitude towards knowledge and the acceptance of limited company paradigms.

The first being language is key as the conversion of tacit knowledge to explicit can only be done through a common language which is accepted thoughtout the organisation. So time this can not be achieved and it is a matter of defining the new language and communicating it amound the business.

The second is organsation stories, sometimes these stories are from past experience or hear say, or stories brought from other organisations. Not to say these stories are needed to help people to orient themselves in bonding with other and understanding the company. But its the other side when it makes it difficult for new knowledge creation, since they make it difficult for individuals to express contradictory ideas. A lot of the time stories are negative and about failures of the past. They work of the assumption that it failed before so its not going to work now. The old story is there was this person Peter Nurk who tried it and he not hear any more.

The third is procedures which is a double edge sword. These procedures usually have been developed over and time and through experience and provide a more efficent way to carry out complex task. The trouble is when individuals find an innovative alternative the procedure is quoted as the proven and test method and encourged to stay within the defined boundarys. Which is a good idea and maintain standards but can be a limiter to new eyes.

The last barrier to knowledge creation is the most fundamental and all-encompassing: company paradigms. A companies worldview is usually governed by it strategic intent, vision or mission statement all of which contribute to their paradigm. Its these paradigm which define the conversations, language used, key stories and the routines followed. All of these influence the way individuals work within an organisation and interpret the data.

The large part of my understanding from this book is the alignment and context of information. And the translations of this information in to a common language so that others can digest and internalise the lessons learn't.

One of the diagrams which best showed the model knowledge creation was in the Epilogue on Pg261.

This models highlights the three types of initiatives used in knowledge management. They are:

• Risk Minimisers,
• Efficiency seekers, and
• Innovators

It is the Innovators who have travelled fartherst along the path of knowledge enabling path. Still most organsiations go through these steps first. The first step is to minimise the risk to the business. Taking stock of what it is the organisation has and where it is and then capturing and locking down. This can be in data but usually it is found in people and their tacit knowledge of the business. This knowledge is used to solve operational tasks in marketing, finance, manaufacturing and so forth.

The second is the efficiency seekers, making available the information and finding new use for it within the business. These types of organisations tend to look at new knowledge and not knowledge creation. The main role of these types of businesses is to capture and reuse of this knowledge to other parts of the buisness. People need to be motivated to share their knowledge and utilise knowledge which has come from other parts of the business. They tend to concentrate on knowledge transfer rather than specific technological solutions for capturing existing knowledge.

The third step is taken by the companies which are firmly on the knowledge enabling path which is taken by the innovators. Its more about understanding the current limitations of their knowledge and realising that they need to create knowledge for succesful innovations. These organisations focus on new knowledge and the processes involved. The constantly engage and motivate their people, creating enabling context for new knowledge creation. Managers in these companies have a strategic view of knowledge, formulate knowledge visions, tear down knowledge barriers and develop new corporate values.

This highlights what I have found in much of my reading and that is Knowledge Management if the combination of People, Processes and Technologies, it is the balance between these that provides the results of a good knowledge managment vision, strategy and solutions which delivers results to the business.

In the epilogue the provided an examples of some enabling tools for knowledge management which is work considering.

Capturing and Locating

• Data warehousing
• Datamining
• Yellow pages
• IC-Navigator
• Balanced scorecard
• Knowledge audits
• IC-index
• Business information systems
• Rule-based systems

Transferring and Sharing

• Internet
• Intranet
• Groupware
• Networked organsiation
• Knowledge workshops
• Knowledge workbench
• Best Practice Transfer
• Benchmarking
• Knowledge gap-analysis
• Knowledge sharing culture
• Technology transfer units
• Knowledge transfer units
• System thinking

Enabling

• Instill a knowledge vision
• Manage conversations
• Mobilise knowledge activists
• Create the right context
• Globalise local knowledge
• Professional innovation network
• New organisational forms
• New HRM-system
• New corporate values
• Project management systems
• Corporate universities
• Communities
• Storyboards
  

These entry is based on my reading of "Enabling Knowledge Creation" - Georg Von Krogh - Kazuo Ichijo - Ikukiro Nonaka

Randomness of Thought

Articulating an idea sequentially for the digestion of other is difficult especially as ideas come about in a random manner. So how can we take those random ideas keeping up the energy levels and inspirations to then produce a sequential document?

Throughout my life and even today we are expected to produce information in documents which present the information in a sequential flow. It makes sense, if you were to try and locate the proverbial pin in the haystack you would find it easier if you had the table of contents or index so that you knew where you were looking.

This can become an arduous task at times computers have improved these abilities to catalogue and index our material. But the end result is not what I am talking about it is in the initial stages of generating the material and information and creating the work. It has been accepted that the material we end up with should be produced in the sequential manner of a beginning, middle and end, and it is that point we need to consider to find a better way to approach the topic.

The human brain is not created in a series of sequential steps; our whole process of thinking is based on a network of nerves and electrical impulses firing throughout our brains neural network randomly and in multiples of hundreds and thousands of incidents a time. It can happen in parallel, sequentially and randomly. So with this in mind try to out put our ideas, information and knowledge in our heads in a sequential manner does not seam to make much sense.

As a child I always struggled with the concept of writing a document in the manner that was taught at school. This could be the due to the many different schools and methods that I was exposed to. But consistently the result at the end was to produce these written works in a sequential manner to do that you had to put your thoughts on paper in the same manner. I have taken me close to 40 plus years to achieve the understanding that I wish I had as a child. I have since ever tried to impart my lessons learnt to my children.

As I worked throughout my life I have spent much of my adult life being in the forefront of technology. This is due to my own fascination and intrigue and my own pursuit to achieve a better understanding of the technology and be in a position to assist my children as they grow and endeavour to use this technology as a standard part of their lives. I have been fortunate to have been around at the beginning of the technology evolution in to the broader community. It had been around for a number of years before I started but not available to the average person on the street.

I started with a Sinclair ZX80 which at it time was one of the latest in it field of home computers. It was a small computer which was based on a ZX80 chip and had 1kilobyte of memory. Looking at it now my watch has more power that probably 10 of these computers. But it was the start of the home computer, I later obtained a memory upgrade to 32 Kilobytes which was an open circuit board with bare wires and I had to store it in a piece of aluminium foil. At not realising why, but later to understand to isolate it from static the enemy of these types of chips and circuit boards.

Bit by bit the computers improved and the capacity and capabilities of these computers improved to the extent that I am currently flying 37000 feet above the ground on my way to Chicago writing this article on a laptop which in the day of my ZX80 would have required building the size of at least half a dozen house if not more. In that time as I have work in this industry and with the many different computers and software application to carry out my work I have been required to produce many documents and to convey my thoughts and ideas.

For many years I have struggled with this not only due to my lack of ability in spelling but also in the ability to convey my thought to paper. I knew I was able to verbally communicate my ideas and I always was able to convey them when verbally communicating with people and associated but my downfall always happen at the point of trying to commit these ideas to paper. It has taken me a number of years to find the software that was able to assist myself, my children and anyone who is interested in communicating their thoughts to paper and struggle with the standard method of converting ideas and random thoughts to paper.

I was introduce to a piece of software which when I was first introduced to it turn on a light. It clicks so and I wondered why I had not been introduced to this many years ago. The concept was so simple but I suppose it required the ability of computers to reach such a stage to make so effective in today’s computer dependant world. The concept is called Mind Mapping and it was developed and is still being presented and I gather further developed by its creator Paul Buzan. I have read a little of his work and I support I should read some more, but at this time I have leant how to use the software tool which was based on his concept and have not needed to gain any further understanding of his concept as I have applied it as I see in the manner it was intended.

The software itself is so well designed that it took only a matter of minutes to understand how to use it. Not only use it but become both an avid user and evangelist of promoting its ability to assist people in not only taking what is in their heads out and committing it to paper but the power of the tool to brain storm and work in a collaborative manner to find the essence in a group and distilling it to a usable format.

The application is Mind Mapper Pro and there are a number of other products in the market place which will work as well and probably offer just as much if not more or lest that this product has. This software is the product I use but it is not the software but the idea and concept that it handles and the simplicity of the idea that it does. Taking a core idea and letting the user build a map a mind map of their or the groups ideas and in a simple and effective way putting it in to a computer which then give the ability to then convert it to a documented way which can then be produced for others to digest.

As the user builds their mind map it give the ability to add further branches, each adding to the depth and breath of to the original idea. This ability to interact with the software is simple and is able to be effected in a very quite manner. By clicking on each of the ideas which are added to the map the user has only to start typing to add further branches. The main advantage is that as we think and cross over between ideas and construct we can just click on each idea which need to be added to and start to type. The user has the ability to control the structure and place the map in order but it is the freedom that each user can work the way they feel in control of the process.

Myself I start of with a random map and then as I feel that I am getting to the point that I do not have any further idea to add to the map I then start to priorities and change the structure. But it is this ability to take the random ideas and as those ideas develop start to put in the structure and framework in preparation to then export the map to a document in a structured format. In the group environment I use it to manager the ideas to any given task. One of the biggest issues when working in a group is that people come up with allsorts of ideas. Some good some not so good, but the issue it to empower the members of any group and not to close them down if an idea does not look clear to myself. In this way we acknowledge the ideas and can developer them or not. But in putting the idea in to the map we then have taken the focus of not letting others put up their suggestions and focuses on the solution or results. These ideas can be expanded and developed and usually the people who suggest them will be the people who will come to the realisation that their idea may not be that good. Or the reverse may happen and the idea picks up momentum and others start to see the merits and focus further energies on them.

So if you are looking for a better way to extract either your ideas or the ideas of a group to find that solution and develop it further then may I suggest that you look no further than to the concept of mind mapping and the software tool that I have come to use frequently called Mind Mapper Pro. It can be found at http://www.mindmapper.com/ . These are the rants of someone who has found a tool that is very useful and easy to use and thought that others should be aware of it. If you are the sort that thinks in a sequential manner then this product may not be for you but if you are like me and as far as I know many others then take a look.

How Knowledge Enabling Avoids the Pitfalls

It is understandable that members of organisation to be obsessed with the information tools and technologies and the boundaries that staff workin. As many of these systems are expensive and based on the cost a business case is derived, and basic outcomes can be predicted. Executives who take this route usually are not fools, careless or uninformed, but they may be short sighted. Focusing on the part that is easily defined and described is a natural process, but the sustained production of knowledge requires more.

Knowldge enabling is founded on basic human skills, that is being effective, caring experts and activits the following three premises indicate why this is so:

1. Knowledge is justified true belief, individual and social ,tacit and explicit. Knowledge is closely attached to human emotions, aspirations, hopes and intentions.
   
2. Knowledge depends on your perspective. Despite efforts to come up with general measurement tools that apply across many situationtions, knowledge is scalable (von Krogh and Roos, 1995a). It depends on an individual's perspective and a given context.


3. Knowledge creation is a craft, not a science. Knowledge activists and COPs (Community of Practices) share in the craft of knowledge creation it is not the responsibility of one staff member.

Premise 1

Knowledge is not simply information stored in the latest professed Knowledge Managment system. These systems are simply information managment and do not have much to do with the creation of Knowledge. Knowledge which is tacit and shared with other COP members is more difficult to capture and it is the processes of enabling which will assist with this task. When companies put information and knowledge into the same category, they neglect the very particular nature of knowledge and its creation; at worst, their elaborate information systems and measurement tools may leave out the creative aspect of knowledge. The real challenge is for managers to enable the creation of knowledge; capturing its by-product, information is the easy part.

Premise 2

Everything known is attached to a particular scale of observation; change the scale and knowledge of a situation changes. For example you can describe your current environment, but if you were in a helicopter your view would be of the building and its environment. This view offers a better understanding of the overall context. Going the other way a researcher using a microsocpe reduces the scale of observation, going inward and investigating the microbs.

Within an organisation a new employee starts with a general overview and as they become more aware they then delve further into a topic and detail of the subject at hand. So in Business acknowledging a range of perspectives is essential, even if general tools can help define what kind of knowledge are most relevant to the company.

Premise 3

Managers may want clearly defined responibilities and tasks, but the ebb and flow of knowledge in any company requires a more expansive approach. Individual and organisatioinal barriers are inherent to knowledge creation:

• lack of understanding
  
• lack of agreement


• lack of common language
  
• company myths


• failure stories, and


• rigid procedures.
  

Yet even if an overly scientific attitude contributes to these barriesrs, we do not mean that knowledge creation happends by default; it has to be carefully enabled throught an aware and sensitive managemnt practice. It is hard to achieve from scratch but this is not impossible especially if boundary-braking managers are in place.

(These insites are from my reading of 'Enablling Knowledge Creation' by Georg Von Krogh - Kazuo Ichijo - Ikujiro Nonaka - 2000)

Organisational Barriers to Knowledge Creation

In any organisation it has been identified that there are four main barriers to the creations of Knowledge. They are:

1. The need for a Legitimate Language
2. Organistional Stories
3. Procedures, and
4. Company Paradigms

Legitimate Language
First, language is key to the learning and reflection of individuals. The problem arises when sharing ones knowledge, taking the individuals tacit knowledge and making it explicit for others to consume. The problem arises that some knowledge can only be expressed with the individuals vocabulary. So to recognise any new business opportunity might require an innovative and new vocabulary.

Organisational Stories
Secondly all organisations have stories of various kinds as well as anecdotal history of management. These constitutes corporate memory or commonsense in understanding about the individual environment within an organsiation and allows individuals to regulate their behaviour accordingly. Many stories are also coloured by personal experience and anecdotal evidence. Where this become a barrier is when you get stories which relate to an activity that someone has done before and they are not there anymore. Giving some indication that if you what to follow that path, it has been done before and failed so don't try unless you want to fail.

Procedures
The third knowledge barrier involved procedures, the double-edged sword of knowledge management. On one hand the process provide improved productivity gains but on the other hand it stifles innovation. An example is with products which are created across different work groups. ie with the development of the Sharp's pocket organiser, it required engineering staffs from a least three distinct technical milieus and groups. The problem arises that most processes are not designed to work across these areas and budgetary control usually does not allow for the utilisation of resources for other work group purposes.

Company Paradigms
Finally the last barrier to knowledge creation is the most fundamental: company paradigms. In general, paradigms socialise new organisational members, getting them to line up behind the current thinking of the company. Paradigms have the power to make or break knowledge creation, they determine the legitimacy of personal knowledge within an organisation. Personal knowledge that conforms with the paradigm will be quickly embraced by colleagues; nonconformist attempts to justify personal beliefs are often met with skepticism.

Summary
When any or all four barriers are present, individual insights may never make it through the whole process of knowledge creation. Ideas, arguments, concepts are killed and don't make it into successful products or services.

If new, innovative language cannot be accepted then tacit knowledge will be lost; alternatively, stories of past failures may paralyse members of the company. When individuals beat their heads against the proverbial brick wall they get to a stage point where they often decide to stop contributing new ideas. Like many organisations they become part of the passive participants, or reach a point and leave - only to compete with the company from outside.

These point highlight the fact that knowledge management is a whole lot more than the information and technology being used. Knowledge management is managing the most expensive resource in a company, their people it about the investment and management of the resource which returns the interest in payment of increased organisational knowledge.

Enabling Knowledge Creation - How to Unlock Tacit Knowledge and Release the Power

From the authors of "The Knowledge-Creating Company" and "Enabling Knowledge Creation" I have started to get a better understanding of the barriers and enablers of Knowledge Creation.
We are still seeing Knowledge Management being cast into the realms of mistic and theory and no results. Yet countless examples are given around the world where it is fact and working. So what is wrong where does it stop and how do companies turn it around to work? These are some and part of the questions that are raised each time I have this converstation with managers. So over the next few weeks I am researching the answer to these questions. Part of this investigation is in the many books, websites and other peoples experiences.
In the latest book that I am reading which is "Enabling Knowledge Creation" by Georg Von Krough, Kazuo Ichijo and Ikujiro Nonaka published 2000. They had identified two types of barriers, they are individual and organisation. The two are both different and yet interrelated and companies need to address both of them to dismantle and enable the creation of knowledge.

"For your people to be innovative and motiveated, you need

to consider human needs. If you feel good and appreciated, you are much more open to many things than if you always need to defend yourself."

-Andreas Rihs, CEO, Phonak

As I work throught the book I will update and make further postings on the subject.

The Process of Theory Building - (based on "Seeing What's Next")

In the book "Seeing What's Next" (SWN) a number of theories are presented. One of the areas which I found quite powerful is understanding the processes in building a theory. One of the interesting presentations I heard in which Clayton Christensen presented was his explaination of a theory. He articulated it in the audio presentation which can be found at IT conversations. In this podcast he discusses that theories have got a bad rap and that because they are referred to as theories that this must mean they are theoretical. In SWN in the appendix it is outlined basically in two pages how a theory is built.

There initial statement is "A theory is a contingent statement of what causes what and why". People when building a theory usually take three steps, they being:

1. Carefully observe, describe and measure the phenomena.
2. Group observations into categories, then
3. Develop a theory that explains the attributes and how they lead to the results

Working with theories is an iterative process in which the person keeps testing. The theory is used to predict the expected result in various situations and typically they will encounter anomalies. It is these anomalies which their theory did not predict and do happen that are used to temper the theory. It is in the discovery of these anomalies that is pivotal in the process of building and improving the theory. As the research is carried out and the categorisation is tuned with any anomalies the theory starts to stablise.

The important part is the distinction between anomalies that a theory cannot account for and exceptions that a theory can account for. a theory with a good circumstance-based categorisation scheme and a causal underpinning explains the actions a practitioner can take to change the circumstances or to account for the forces that act upon them.

Further information can be found in "The Innovator's Solution, chapter 1"

Understanding "Seeing what's Next" by Clayton Christensen

In the book "Seeing What's Next" which was written by Clayton Christensen, Scott Anthony and Erik Roth it discusses and analysis the use of a number of theoretical frameworks. It looks at how companies are using innovation and how businesses can use these theories to predict industry change. To do this they use three iterative steps:

1. Looking for signals of change and seeing if the non-consumers and both under and overshot customers are being addressed
2. Looking at the actions in the competitive market and seeing if companies are effectively using the sword and shield approach of Asymmetries, and
3. Watching firms and their strategic choices. Seeing how those choices increase or decrease its chances of successfully managing the process of disruption.

Important lessons learn't with "Seeing What's Next" naturally relate to disruptive innovations and understanding that it is a process not an event. In many respect disruptive innovation is perspective as some find it disruptive others are able to sustain the innovation. Understanding that different or radical technology does not equal disruptive. Finally disruptive innovation does not limit itself to high-tech markets. Christensen discusses a number of examples in "The Innovators Dilemma" which are more based on addressing the non-customers and those customers who are not so demanding.

The book "Seeing What's Next" discuss the process involved in theory building and then reviews the following concepts:

• Disruptive innovation theory
  
• Resources, processes, and value (RPV) theory
  
• Jobs-to-be-done theory
  
• Value chain evolution (VCE) theory (with corollary sustaining innovation classification scheme)
  
• Schools of experience theory
  
• Emergent strategy theory (with supporting discovery-driven planning tool)
  
• Motivation/ability framework
  

Each of these theories are explained and notes provide references to other source materials. This is a book that will be something you come back to, time and time again. I am working through this book for the second time and can see that I will be doing it again. The more you read the more you find and its the clarification and application which shows the power.

In Understanding the Dilemma we can find a Solution

"Knowing the how, of the competitions disruption provides a solutions"

"The theory holds that existing companies have a high probability of beating entrant attackers when the contest is about sustaining innovations. But established companies almost always lose to attackers armed with disruptive innovations."
(Christensen 2004 - Seeing What's Next)

Established businesses most of the time aim to provide the resources needed to provide for their best customers in the way of products and services. The problem is that it can provide a blind spot to new products and services that are initially targeted at the small seemingly unprofitable customer. As this type of approach is not feasible to the established business they forgo this business feeling that it frees them up to work in the higher end of the market. The real dilemma is the new businesses evolve and sometime at a more rapid pass than expected, in turn taking over the marketplace. The mark of disruptive innovation is usually, simple, cheap and revolutionary.

The Innovator's Solution reveals a powerful set of theories that assist in the challenges and explains how to go about creating a new growth business which is being challenged by disruptive innovation. The first part is to recognise the signs of disruptive innovation and having a strategy and model to counter.



From my understanding the low-end disruptor comes under the radar and targets the overshot customers with a lower cost business model. That is not the issue at first this market is usually unprofitable to the established business. These businesses tend to falls into a comfort zone, until the low-end disruptor starts to evolve. As the disruptor starts to sustain and improve this change can and does catch the established businesses off guard. The new business starts to focus can and has done in the past removed the incumbent.

What is needed is for the incumbent to earn their disruptive black belt. This is usually done with the company setting up their own disruptive counterattack and developing internal capabilities in disruptive growth. Many companies try this and usually need to create a spin out organisation to drive the disruption, as the current model and culture is usually not the best structure to build such an organisation. The book outlines a four pronged approach which is covered in more detail in chapter 10.

1. Start before it needs to
2. Appoint a senior executive to shepherd ideas into the appropriate shaping and resource-allocation process
3. Create a team and process for shaping ideas
4. train the troops to identify disruptive ideas

As I get further into these books I will update these postings

The Innovators Dilemma, Solution and Seeing What's Next

"My learning of the theories of Clayton M Christensen's. This is a work in progress and I will be adding to it as I progress through the books and my understanding."

I have been reading the latest in the line of books written by Clayton Christensen. These books I came across via a podcast that I listen to when I was studing for my Master of Management. This was a presentation he gave at the Open Source Business Conference in 2004. His other books are The Innovator's Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth and Seeing What's Next: Using Theories of Innovation to Predict Industry Change

In this presentation he delivered his theory in an easy and understandable manner. From this presentation I then went and purchased the first of his books The Innovator's Dilemma This book was all about the dilemma's faced by existing companies and how they are almost always lose to attacks from businesses which introduce disruptive innovation. The issue faced by businesses when confronted by disruptive innovation is the lack of understanding that it is a threat to their business. Initial the disruptive innovation usually come about with going for the non-customer or the least profitable customer.

The incumbent business in many respects sees this as a blessing and is more than often willing to for go that client and business. It usually is the high maintenance, low margin which detracts the business from the higher margin clients. Where there is a higher margin client the incumbent will move up feeling that they can address the higher end and leave the small fish. The problem starts when the disruptive innovator starts to then move up the tree. Again the incumbent sees higher margins up the tree and for goes the next level. After a while each step up the tree becomes faster and the incumbent has no where to go.

Initially the disruptive innovator's product appeals to the less discerning customer who is willing to pass on the more expensive options. As the new business starts to build on their innovation their quality and standard improve and they start to move up the food chain. If they stay in the lower end of the market while they are establishing then this market space will stay open. When the incumbent has reach the top of the food tree then it is at that point that the new entrant needs to have established sustainable innovation and improvement.

The dilemma face by incumbent businesses is to compete with the disruptive innovator it usually requires a different business model. As most incumbent businesses would have reached a point of sustainable innovation, for them to address the lower end of the market would need investment for lower or little return. As put forward by Clayton does the business invest in customers who return a high profit or in the customer with low return. While there is profits at the top end of the market businesses usually will keep going up, it a logical decision. But in understanding this theory it raises the dilemma.

Knowledge Management (KM) its about a Cultural shift not an IT solution.

‘It’s not about creating an encyclopaedia that captures everything that anybody ever knew. Rather, it’s about keeping track of those who know the recipe, and nurturing the culture and the technology that will get them talking” (Arian Ward, of Work Frontiers International)

This takes the emphasis away from creating vast knowledge repositories, and places the higher value on the knowledge which is in people’s head and finding ways to increase the mobility of that knowledge.

The essence of our companies in the new economy will be its capacity to create, transfer, assemble, integrate, protect and exploit knowledge assets. These knowledge assets are chief to most businesses if you are repeatedly to use your solutions in the most cost-effective manner. Unless you learn to nurturer, invest and manage your assets you will not add to the current asset and potentially lose more productivity income.

So what is knowledge management?

Why is it important to your business? And

How will you begin to nurture and manage this asset to increase your return?

To manage knowledge you need to know what it is we are going to manage. There is a need to map and define all the knowledge assets in the organisation and the flows of that information both internally and externally to the business.

Many of my discussions with companies result in comments ranged from “What Knowledge” to “that’s an IT issue” or “that’s not my problem”. These couple of statements provide a real concern on what companies are currently losing. It’s important that members of your organisation understand who and where these assets are located.

KM is not only about information, it is about the people that you have recruited, trained, developed, and promoted within your organisation. KM involves not only setting up a software solution; it involves understanding your business needs, your organisation’s culture, and your personnel. To succeed, any KM initiative needs to know your people and clearly define the behaviours that need to be changed or reinforced.

The benefits of KM can be extensive, but getting the most from a KM initiative is no easy proposition. However, if the people issues are effectively managed, your organisation's chances of success are high. KM is much more effective if it is not a stand-alone button on somebody’s PC but it integrated into a key business process. Most importantly KM is not an IT or HR solution; IT only provides the supporting infrastructure.

HR is involved as one of the parties that will start to depend on many of the tools and solutions a KM initiative can offer. Control and direction needs to involve and be managed within the company. It is the role of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) or Chief Knowledge Officer (CKO) reporting to the CEO, and it must be linked to your business strategy to create value to both our employees and the company.

Knowledge Management - "that's an IT thing is'nt it?"

More and more of our assets in a business are reverting to knowledge and information. This knowledge and information has a cost as well as providing a possible avenue of revenue. A large part of the business investment is in the solutions and knowledge to provide and support our systems. Protecting, building and improving what we have would be a wise investment.

So you would think. But how many businesses have their heads in the sand? How many still think that the solution is an IT solution? Isn't it the New Intra-net or our document filing system? isn't that the knowledge management thing, that should take care of it, won't it?

More and more we hear this and more and more businesses are losing money. A simple example is if 80% of your staff is spending 30 minutes a day looking for information to carry out their job. What is the cost in lost productivity to your company?

It has been calculated the average salary at a company is about $80,000. This figure would be higher if you were to consider contractors and consultants. And the company employed 100 staff members, 80% of this figure is 80 staff. 30mins a day for a full year based on a 48 week working year, working 5 days a week, 9-5. This is being conservative, considering that most staff work well outside this range of time. The figure equates to 6.66% of a staff members time over that year is devoted to searching for information.

That’s 120 hrs which equates to $5,333.33 for the 80 staff members or $426,666 annually.

Providing resources to search and find relevant and contextual information 10 minutes sooner would save $142,222 a year in lost productivity. This is just one area of the business which is losing productivity based on not having the ability to locate information. The other side of the coin is creating value with our knowledge and returning an income for our investment.

In the article “The Cost of Knowledge” (Jacobson and Prusak, 2006) KM has become synonymous with searching for knowledge or information. This has been achieved by eliciting knowledge from experts and then adapting the gained knowledge. The time used by knowledge workers in searching for knowledge is about 10.2%, most of their time is in the eliciting, meeting and adapting that knowledge.

Many companies spend a large part of their time in eliciting and adapting information, but sharing of that knowledge or information is weak. Based on the figures above how much is your company losing. If they are wasting the sort of money indicated of productive time how much of the businesses investment in experts and external consultants are you wasting or not providing a true ROI.