|
Conversations
with Debra M. Amidon The contents of these discussions, enhanced with numerous supporting charts and diagrams, have been published through Amazon.com as an online downloadable ENTOVATION Architectural Primer. Go to the ENTOVATION web site for ordering instructions.
Editor's note: This is the first in a three-part series synthesizing the knowledge gained during the tenure of Debra M. Amidon as guest moderator for the AOK Knowledge Architecture/Structure Discussion Group in February, 2001. It is part of the AOK Star Series which brings leading leaders in knowledge enterprise to the AOK table. Debra was asked to address in broad terms the structuring of knowledge management.
is with the permission of Debra M. Amidon and remains protected.
It is a matter of personal pride that I introduce one of the giants among knowledge professionals. She has five publications to her credit, including Innovation Strategy for the Knowledge Economy: The Ken Awakening. She has been a leading knowledge professional for a quarter of a century and is now described as "an architect of the 21st Century." Her knowledge innovation strategies began long before the seemingly sudden popularity of knowledge management in the late 90s and will likely outlive most of the alphabet soup now spinning off into the first decade of the new millennium. Why? Because her knowledge innovation principles are both fundamental and comprehensive. Debra M. Amidon, founder and chief executive of Entovation International, is the holder of an immense intellect that has attracted a network of some 5,000 professionals in 80 countries. In the last year alone, her presentations have been heard throughout the US, Canada, France, England, The Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Mexico, Peru, Brazil, Chili, Spain, Austria, South Africa, Malaysia, Singapore, Venezuela and China. Her books have been translated and published in French, Chinese, Spanish, Portuguese and German and her articles and papers are available in many languages over the World Wide Web. Complete biographical sketch. Please make Debra welcome in the AOK Knowledge Architecture/Structure CoP for the next three weeks by engaging her in spirited conversation!
Debra Amidon: What a privilege to join your CoP discussion over the next couple of weeks on several counts. Initially, the opportunity provided Jerry Ash and I some quality time to reflect on our mutual progress and aspirations. We originally met online, but it was early in 1997 when we were face-to-face in something called "the Austin Dialogue." It was one of those seminal, even magical, events from which good ideas receive energy to flourish. One of those ideas was the need for an association in the knowledge field; and the foundation for AOK was seeded. It was in that meeting where we explored something called the Productivity Paradox - a notion that had plagued the technology field for decades. I use the term "explore" because it was the first time we began to look at the relationship between economics, behavior and technology. Also, we analyzed something called the "Community of Knowledge Practice" and the notions that every function was undergoing a major transformation - hardly a rock unturned! And now, there is a critical mass of knowledge professionals in each industry, every sector and region of the world. We are all learning from one another, daily increasing our knowledge of the world around us and ourselves. We are all architects - in a sense - each absorbing new insights, organizing them in a way that makes sense, and acting upon our new knowledge - "innovating" as it is described. For me, this transformation is an awakening of sorts - a "ken" awakening. We are at a cathartic moment in the evolution of modern management. The transformation is fundamental; and we are all playing a role in its birth. The word "ken" is defined as both a noun and a verb:
Not only is this the ideal term to synthesize the knowledge management movement, it integrates history and vision, respects the difficulty in discovering the unknown and paints the picture of perspective. And so, we all have a rare opportunity over the next few weeks to explore if and how we might architect a management schema that enables the prosperous growth of an enterprise, the vitality of a nation's economy and the advancement of society-as-a-whole. Indeed, I look forward to what our "collective ken" might provide. Treat this forum as your opportunity to fill the gaps in your own understanding, provide some substance to the apparent fluff inherent in these intangible concepts, and motivate you to make a constructive difference. I pledge to provide you as much perspective and practical advice as possible. Let our dialogue begin!
Jerry Ash: Let me begin the dialogue with two questions: Many of us (even though some of us know better) think of the knowledge phenomenon as a recent development; and, some believe it is a passing fad. Still, Peter Drucker first coined the term "knowledge worker" 40 years ago and you've been a leading advocate of knowledge innovation for two decades. First question: If it isn't a flash in the pan, what fuels it? Debra Amidon: The focus on knowledge has been around since the origins of time. In fact, several authors and researchers in the field have documented the roots far better than I. However, the "knowledge phenomenon" - as Jerry describes - is a function of making a focus on "knowledge" explicit; and this new focus has literally transformed the way we look at all aspects of management. You might want to review an article on the Entovation Web site, "Emerging Community of Knowledge Practice" that documents how each of the functions in the value-system is undergoing radical transformation. If the future belongs to those who are able to transform boundaries, then participants in these communities of practice may represent the leadership of tomorrow. There are at least ten of these functional areas - traditional and new - which are contributing to the emerging community of knowledge practice. Among them: Finance; Human Resources; Quality; Information Technology; R&D Engineering; Manufacturing; Marketing/Planning; Sales/Services; Alliances/Joint ventures. New networks are forming daily with the enabling communications technology for intranets and cyberspace. As employees at every level begin to discover that there is more value in creating and applying new ideas than there is in clutching to successes of the past, these collections of expertise will proliferate and grow more influential. For our purpose, we will use a simplified description of mission for the community of knowledge practice: "harnessing complementary competencies with a shared purpose toward a common strategic vision." The article takes a cursory view of each of these dimensions and the recent changes that characterize their individual evolution. It is the collective changes that constitute the fundamental transformation underway. Hardly a function, discipline, sector or industry organization is not affected in some significant way. And so, Jerry asks, what fuels it? Essentially, it is fueled because it is "right." In fact, those who enter the field and seek to understand the core concepts (e.g., the difference between information and knowledge, tacit and explicit knowledge, the value of intangibles, etc) realize that many of these "new" practices are actually intuitively obvious. Furthermore, the focus is both human and humane. Instead of focusing on the technology or the financial assets exclusively, this approach places the human being at the heart. The fact that knowledge is infinitely expansible resource - i.e., it grows as it is shared - is icing on the management cake. Jerry Ash: This week we will be focusing on the knowledge value proposition which, of course, is essential if we are to convince management that there will be a defined return on investment in knowledge architecture. My second question - How can we frame the knowledge value proposition in terms that can be understood and accepted by those who are uneasy with or even hostile to the valuation and utilization of intangible assets?
Debra Amidon: There are very few people who disagree that there is a difference between book value and market value. Most will agree that we can label it intellectual capital; and most of them would agree that we should discover a way to "manage" these resources more effectively. The alternative is to leave it to serendipity. There has been considerable confusion in the knowledge field with those who have just substituted labels on old programs in order to get to market quickly. Even in the profession, there are a group of experts who have focused on managing and measuring Intellectual Capital (i.e., Economics). A second group has focused primarily on the Learning Organization (i.e., Behavior). And a third group has focused on Knowledge Management - generally from the technology perspective (i.e., IT-reborn). The Knowledge Value Proposition requires a balance of all three - not one at the expense of another. How this gets managed in the organization requires cross-functional leadership - at the least, the CFO, CHRO and CIO. These are the political realities of implementation. Those who are hostile to the notions may never see the true value of the perspective. They operate with a traditional lens that defies change - never mind innovation! They seek justification, analysis of competition, case study examples of best practice, and so on. Managing a knowledge agenda requires skillful and courageous leadership. Some will just never "get it" - and this, by the way, is not a function of age. My practical suggestion is threefold:
Debra Amidon: It seems an impossible task to summarize over two decades of research and practice for the purpose of grounding our AOK dialogue; but the scope provided does so. Our conversation will zero in on the three aspects - the Knowledge Value Proposition (the Why?), the Architectural elements (the What?), and Innovation Strategy (The How?). There is no way to do justice to each of these topics individually; but in the end, we should have a good sense of what we know - collectively. And so, let us begin with "The Why?" In the article, Power of Innovation Capital, you have the most succinct description of the "Knowledge Value Proposition." The research goes back to the mid-1980's when engineering and marketing experts worldwide were trying to understand why companies were not getting bottom-line results when they were modernizing with information technology. This was described as The Productivity Paradox. Under two major studies sponsored by the National Research Council in Washington DC, we learned that the problems were a function of behavior - specifically, the sociology, psychology and anthropology of a firm. In the second article, Atlas of Knowledge Innovation, you can see how we have evolved the concepts from a function of business planning to one of innovation strategy. Instead of viewing (and documenting) the organization as a function of the past, there is a need to focus upon the future - where stakeholders inevitably make investment decisions. Traditional planning - even strategic planning - is not enough to keep pace with the demands (and opportunities) afforded by what we describe as "kaleidoscopic change." And in the monograph, Collaborative Innovation and the Knowledge Economy, we have the 5 strategy assumptions that constitute a collective attempt to define the future managerially. This publication, sponsored by the Society of Management Accountants of Canada, makes the case for innovation being the function of the flow of knowledge, not the flow of technology. If we can agree that "the value of human potential must be linked to economic results," then, we have asked the right question. And from a discussion of the implications for an enterprise, a new management philosophy, policies and practices should emerge. Now, given that AOK has a global constituency, I would like to make available a version of the Global Knowledge Leadership Map that is not currently open to the public. If you click on the stars, you will see examples of several knowledge practitioners who come from different functions, sectors, industries and countries. (Editor's Note: Jerry Ash called free access to the Global Knowledge Leadership Map the gift of a "real treasure.")
Denham Grey, CEO, Grey Matter Inc.: I liked your way of putting things (in "Preparing for a Conversation with Debra M. Amidon") when you said "A thirst for learning must pervade the organization." This, I feel, gets close to the heart of the matter. The key is selling that proposition to everyone, even those who do not wish to hear! Many organizations are very complacent, it seems - they are so busy trying to climb their local "fitness" peak that they have not noticed the ground below is heaving, new and higher peaks are emerging and getting just that little bit higher (on their ever shrinking hill), taking all their energy. How do we get away from the "stick to the knitting," "leverage our core competencies" and "king of our niche thinking?" What do you say to world class organizations when you tell them there is a new value proposition, things have changed, drivers are different, when all they can see is more of the same - faster better and cheaper? Somehow you have to shatter the mold, change mindsets, open communications and get companies to unlearn what they have been striving to obtain. How do you change the target without moving the rifle? Thanks for joining us, Debra. I'm really looking forward to this dialog.
(Editor: There is a treasure buried here! Don't overlook it!) Debra Amidon: First, regarding the editor's comment on the Global Knowledge Leadership Map: Yes, the Global Knowledge Leadership Map is a real treasure - mainly because of those who took the time to answer the questions:
The responses that came from this cross-generation segment of knowledge professionals are extraordinary. They have been summarized and analyzed in a way that provides a compelling vision of the future. So, you need not take "Debra's word" for it; the vision is forming as we "speak" and our challenge is to put the foundations underneath to sustain its viability. To Denham Grey: How do we get away from the "stick to the knitting," "leverage our core competencies," "king of our niche thinking" and "more of the same, faster better and cheaper?" Although we have evidence that many market leaders exemplify what we would call courageous knowledge leadership, there are as many - f not more - organizations that are entrenched in the old thinking. Worse, many of them invested considerable precious resources under the auspices of knowledge management only to discover inadequate returns. Many of them are now off into e-land, thinking that will provide the silver bullet. The reality is that there is no quick fix to thriving in the knowledge economy. A knowledge strategy - by definition - is complex and comprehensive. It requires a leap of faith to implement effectively. And true is the adage that "one does not get a second chance to make a first impression," so whatever pilot program is initiated better be relevant and successful. That's the "bad" news. The "good" news is that when executives do get a fundamental understanding of the new management rules, the potential is enormous. Good knowledge practices breed better knowledge practices; so those who are implementing in earnest are reaping the rewards . . . and big time. Take for example some of the companies benefiting from early adopters - Skandia, Dow, BP, Clarica, Siemens, Buckman Labs and more. There is a real tragedy, though, in your comments. Many who are in positions of company decision-making are the most resistant to change - especially in those companies that were victims of the downsizing rage. Risk - even responsible risk - was squeezed out of the system. How, then, can a company regain its capacity to innovate which - according to Peter Drucker - is the one competence needed for the future? The irony is that companies need to innovate when they are successful (according to Charles Handy). It is the only way to effectively take advantage of the Unleashed Opportunity (described by Prahalad and Hamel) that creates products and services for the "unarticulated needs" and "unserved markets." Just think of the potential! And so, how do you "shatter the mold" as you suggest? My practical suggestion is to create a compelling, distinctive vision that - like a magnet - draws people forward. Make sure that it capitalizes upon its heritage and unique knowledge base. Build the foundation underneath that sustains a realization of that vision. Create the standards rather than belaboring best practices. Become the enterprise to emulate. Bill Miller (formerly from Steelcase) said it best: "How do I create a business plan for a market that does not yet exist?" His search for the answers not only transformed the company, it transformed the entire industry! Debra Amidon: Some of you have queried how to "architect a Network" . . . and what are the best practices of CoPs - which are self-organizing networks. I have participated in several personally. Some are dedicated to the measurement of Intellectual Capital and creating knowledge trading systems. Some are dedicated to the principles and practices of Learning Organizations and progressive Human Resource methods; and others focus on the tools of the knowledge profession. There are few such CoPs that balance all three aspects of the Knowledge Value Proposition - Economics, Behavior and Technology. Perhaps the best experts in the field - in addition to Etienne Wenger and George Por who can be credited with making CoPs real to us all - are Jessica Lipnack and Jeffrey Stamps, authors of the Age of the Network and The TeamNet Factor. It was there I discovered the concepts of 'holonomy', loosely described as nesting of networks. And so we used this concept to architect some order and defined relationship among the myriad of relationships. You can see our example on the Entovation Web site. Here you can see that there are multiple levels of Networks than can operate simultaneously. Although each level presents its own challenges and opportunities, the managerial practices seem universal. It would be nice to know if other AOK members have experiences the same. For those of you more interested in this evolution, I can offer a recently published article that describes the evolution of the Network and illustrates the steps in the process. [Note: The full article is available upon request.]
The article also outlines "What Went Right:"
And What Went Wrong?
Those of you interested in some Stories (to tie to Stephen Denning's previous AOK conversation), visit the article about Global Learn Day - a 24-hour Around the World Dialogue - and read the seven vignettes of the Network in operation. Already, there are several local spinoffs where members in the Network are beginning to leverage the competencies of one another - and it is only the beginning! We have made great strides; but we have a long way to go. I do believe, however, that what is needed to advance the concepts and practice forward is more of a "structured dialogue" - a conversation that occurs within the frame of architecture. The architecture only sets the boundaries of the playground - the parameters of the conversation - similar to what AOK has done with its own CoPs.
Editor's Note: Denham Grey posed several questions about the Leadership Map and Debra's answers hold meanings far beyond the operation of the map. They can be applied anywhere a network is being formed. Debra Amidon: Your response is welcomed on several counts. For the AOK audience, you are currently one of the ENTOVATION 100 and featured on our Global Knowledge Leadership Map. In that regard, you can speak firsthand as to the potential! And by answering your questions about the progress and plans, we inform AOK members realtime! 1. As you suggest, the ENTOVATION Network has operated on a "pull" philosophy. Those who participate actively, share their expertise and make connections to which they would not otherwise have access do benefit the most. But because the Network has been so carefully architected (i.e., cross-functional expertise, profit and non-profit representation, global diversity and cross-generation participation), one might also argue that some "push" has been applied. Our learning from the 1987 Roundtable was that the optimal interactions require a "complementary push/pull," not one at the expense of the other. This translates into business practice on many levels. For instance, some companies have redirected orientation from a push philosophy to one that is totally market or customer-driven. A balance between the two is required since customers are not always able to articulate what they need/want. 2. How does the Network operate on a daily basis? Initially, it was a function of my personal relationships and our mutual initiative to leverage the competencies of one another in terms of business contacts, research expertise, access to knowledge leadership, alliance possibilities, et al. If you read the 5-stage evolution, you can see how carefully the selections have been architected. Once the Map was made visible and the proof-of-concept was made with Global Learn Day, members of the Network began to connect with one another in meaningful ways that did not require my involvement. To-date there is no automatic routing system - nor are there published competency profiles - although this is the plan for the near future. We've already begun with many who participated in GLDIV who provided biographical information and suggestions for their favorite web sites. 3. Plans for the ENTOVATION 100 Dialogue? We have analyzed the interview responses and published the 5 Meta-Trends analyzed by TrendMonitor - :
In fact, all the source quotes from the ENTOVATION 100 are prepared for when the Network enters into the impending electronic dialogue. The reality is that these talented individuals share in common a sense of values, high standards of operational excellence and a capacity to envision a future. Their respective experience and learnings, however, are yet an untapped resource to one another other. 4. How will this community contribute to the innovation and knowledge-sharing at a lower level? We have architected plans with all three economic levels operating simultaneously. You can read about this foundation. Our research has shown that the management technology required across all levels is universal. There are many other CoPs - as you say - that are operating on a local level. We plan to manage the global dialogue and, from there, develop Country Maps of expertise in a similar fashion. Some countries like Mexico have already taken the initiative! Furthermore, we have analyzed the interview responses according to the ten dimensions of innovation that we will be discussing during Week Three. We will be managing this global dialogue on a monthly basis and publishing the insights from the conversations. 5. And what will ENTOVATION be doing with CoPs? Our philosophy is not to reinvent the wheel and to not duplicate where others are skilled. Instead, we seek to make visible the quality work we value through visibility on the Map, supporting local and global initiatives with sponsorship and presentations, and through publicity of writings in our newsletter - I3 Update/ENTOVATION News published with David Skyrme. Our uniqueness is an understanding of the innovation process from the flow of knowledge, not the flow of technology - knowledge creation, knowledge conversion and knowledge commercialization. Our intent is to structure that dialogue through the research initiative - Global Knowledge Innovation Infrastructure in conjunction with The Banff Centre in Calgary, Canada. 6. For a more detailed description of several case study examples (e.g., Sharp, Hoechst-Celanese, Steelcase, Monsanto) in our research report, we dedicated an entire Chapter to "Creating a Knowledge-Sharing Organization" in which we reviewed CoP practices. Our learnings include:
However, I would have to agree that our understanding of how to manage these new organization forms effectively requires much more experimentation along with some rigorous research.
Yvonne Buma, Buma Communicatie, The Netherlands: Reading your contributions to this forum I am impressed by the vision they show. An inspiring vision indeed. But . . . the measures required to implement this vision are not the most simple ones. How, when the situation/culture is not favourable, do we (re)create this culture of sharing and trust, taking time to develop a common language, coach people, hold strategic conversations etc. etc.? Which is necessary if we want to implement an effective knowledge strategy and get ahead in the game again. What measures would help to turn around a situation like this? Or do we have to accept that only the successful will also be successful in the future? Debra Amidon: You have made an eloquent statement of the performance challenge: "How, when the situation/culture is not favorable, do we (re)create this culture of sharing and trust, taking time to develop a common language, coach people, hold strategic conversations etc., etc.?" On the first level, your question is about performance and the measurement of intangibles, some of which is described above. But then, you ask a deeper question relative to the current economic conditions that, I will admit, are threatening. My response is threefold: (1) Leif Edvinsson has said that he would rather "be roughly right than precisely wrong." Most executives today are measuring what they can measure because it can be measured. But this is like looking for the lost keys by the light - because there is light - rather than near the car where they were dropped! Those who do not get a better handle on measuring intangible value or intellectual capital are likely to be left behind those that do. This is one of the reasons that the accounting profession and research studies such as The Brookings Institute are dedicating considerable resources to find some answers - and if not answers some direction to navigate. (2) "We are in a transition period," suggested Bruce Bond, CEO of PictureTel, "between one era and another in which the old rules do not apply and the new ones have yet to be invented." It is as the Trapeze parable that was published in our I3 Update newsletter. The trapeze artist must let go of one bar before catching the other and for a moment is suspended. For many, this describes their uncomfortable uncertainty with this future economy that is evolving. (3) Must we accept that "Only the successful will also be successful in the future?" Quite the contrary! The knowledge economy demands a new kind of leadership. Our research report suggested the 10 characteristics of "leaders" and "laggards". And, a summary of an article, "The 7C's of Knowledge Leadership" outlines some of the areas we should be "measuring" - Context, Competence, Culture, Communities, Conversations and Coaching. Believe it or not, some enterprise are beginning to do so!
Denham Grey: Seems social capital is the 'in' concept right now. New books expound the theory, web sites and seminars provide practical advice: Wayne Baker's, 2000 "Achieving Success Through Social Capital, Tapping the hidden resources in your personal and business networks" and Don Cohen's and Larry Prusak's 2001 "In Good Company:How social capital makes organizations work," a virtual conference, is due next month: I'm wondering if we will not see new social networking applications targeted to knowledge sharing and relationship building that go way past CRM and start to monitor and analyze a network in real time, provide measures of reciprocity, detect style and communication media preferences, suggest ways to connect around 'structural holes' and help visualize those network clusters? This would be taking automatic profiling to the next logical level moving up the holonomy. You folks are on the cutting edge of networks, in contact with thought leaders in this area such as Mowbray, Stamps and Lipnack; when are we likely to see the formal analysis tools become available to the man in the street? I see collaborative filtering and recommender systems creeping into eCommerce, e.g. Amazon, companies such as NetPerceptions get a lot of press, so this is surely the time for networks in a big way. Some of the interesting folks in the SNA (social network analysis) area are: Valdis Krebs, Barry Wellman, Karen Stephenson. Here is a rather neat look at the links around internet companies from Valdis. I would be very interested to hear what is happening in the software application fields to support quality knowledge networking. Debra Amidon: Social Capital - as you suggest - IS the new name of the game - how it is incentivized, nurtured and harnessed. But it is not Social Capital for Social Capital sake - just as it is not Learning for Learning's sake. The question relates to the Knowledge Value Proposition, and you have stated it better than I - how is the Behavior (resulting in Social Capital) related to the Performance (Economics) and enabled by the new collaborative tools (Technology)? We may want to refer this question to the section on Knowledge Processing Technology, but since you have raised such a compelling question, let me suggest that we have only just begun to see what is possible. Only a couple of years ago, there were few people who were even analyzing the plethora of Knowledge Tools that were being released. Perhaps the best I have found is Dave Coleman, CEO of Collaborative Technologies (California, USA) who has been in the field since 1989. And look at the release of new knowledge technologies, such as the Knowledge Station (code name being Raven), announced at LotusSphere by IBM Lotus. Who thought that there would hardly be a Fortune 500 company that did not have its own Intranet within five years? Now that practitioners are actually using the systems to manage their knowledge, learning (and what we call innovation capacity), they are beginning to put more demands on the technology - accelerating the product development cycle. Remember, 72 percent of new product ideas come from customers, so the interface strengthened by CRM is likely to further fuel innovation. Denham Grey: An important aspect of knowledge networking IMO is to locate and connect to thought leaders. I was wondering if Debra would agree with my list of gurus for the design of collaborative and innovation spaces??
I have deliberately left out Rheingold, Kimball, Kim, Stamps & Lipnack, Ash!! and some others, as we have had their names mentioned already. Rank outsiders: Who really knows where the next breakthrough will emerge from? The ability to compile a list and network with thought leaders is a key KM strategy in my book. I would like to get the inside scoop from Debra on ways to make this really work! How do you get reciprocity going and engage a busy world-recognized thought leader in your networking activities? Debra Amidon: I would never agree - or disagree - publicly on any list of gurus - or knowledge leaders, for that matter. However, the list you have provided is certainly valuable in opening new communities of thought to our perspectives. I have personally realized that what I have to learn from others may not be a function of their guru status. That being said, I do believe that we each need to make sense out of our perception of the field - how it is evolving and how it is influenced. This is, of course, the essence of architecting. For the Global Knowledge Leadership Map, however, I specifically did NOT include ALL of whom I might consider Knowledge Leaders. They have their own Forums. I wanted to get a cross-generation - what Skandia called "3 G-Planning" - approach to the conversation that I will structure. In the dialogue process, we will be led to new arenas of thought and practice that will shape our perception of the future. As for the inside scoop about linking thought leaders, I am not certain that I have the answers; but I know that it is an admirable goal. I personally believe in my heart that a balance of electronic and face-to-face dialogue is essential. I guess my own strategy is simple:
Interestingly enough, I spend considerable time with students - learning from their learnings - as a way to expand my own thinking. I teach at Tilburg University (The Netherlands), The Banff Centre (Canada) and IPADE (Mexico); and I have provided several academic lectures, such as Tsinghua University (China), MIT (USA), McMaster (Canada), ITESM (Mexico), EuroForum (Spain), Universidad Cat'DBlica (Peru). We have even analyzed 1,111 papers submitted to the University of Cologne (Germany) from 83 nations and published the Knowledge Millennium Generation. |
Architecting Success
Welcome from Jerry Ash,
AOK chief executive