Conversations
with Carl Frappaolo
Knowledge Initiative Begins with Knowledge Audit
Editor's
note: This
is a synthesis of the "Conversations with Carl Frappaolo,
co-founder and EVP, The Delphi Group, which was held in July,
2001 as part of the AOK STAR SERIES. Each month one of our four
discussion groups enjoys the visit of a KM luminary as guest
moderator. During the course of 11 months, the STAR SERIES will
have delivered the best "conference" of the year to
the desktops of AOK members around the world for a fraction of
the cost of a physical conference and with the convenience of
continuous education that is at the right place at the right
time. Please Join AOK and
participate in these knowledge exchanges as they happen in the
future.
Table of Contents (Click on list item to go
directly to each topic)
 Introduction
of Carl Frappaolo
Jerry
Ash, AOK chief executive:
Please join me in welcoming Carl Frappaolo as guest moderator
of the AOK STAR SERIES which will take place over the next two
weeks in the Knowledge Work/Systems CoP. His selected thread,
the Knowledge Audit, is also welcomed. I will explain why in
a moment. But first, please let me introduce Carl Frappaolo.
Carl is a frequent
lecturer at industry shows around the world and is a frequent
contributor to industry publications such as Forbes, ComputerWorld,
InformationWeek, KMWorld, Business Week, Databased Advisor, Network
World and The Wall Street Journal. He has authored
two books: Electronic Document Management Systems: A Portable
Consultant (McGraw-Hill, NY), an exhaustive text on the technological
and business issues related to the deployment of  electronic
documents; and Smart
Things To Know About Knowledge Management (Capstone),
the definitive source on Knowledge Management.
He is recognized
as the industry authority on the subjects of knowledge-based
business practices and document management for business process
redesign. He has consulted for and designed portals, knowledge
systems and document management systems for some of the world's
largest organizations, including companies such as Lockheed Martin,
Union Pacific Railroad, Pfizer, Lehman Brothers, AARP, Prudential
Insurance, Nabisco, SmithKline Beecham and CoreStates Bank. He
has also advised leading vendor organizations including IBM,
Xerox, AT&T and Apple Computer.
Carl is one of the
industry's most sought after speakers, with lectures and seminars
taking him around the world throughout the year. He is valued
for his ability to bring technical ideas into a business perspective,
and to stretch the audience's imagination. His presentations
are consistently viewed as not only educational, but also thought
provoking and provocative.
Needless to say,
we are indeed privileged to have Carl Frappaolo as our guest
moderator July 16-27, 2001, in the Knowledge Work Discussion
Group.
I am particularly
pleased that Carl has selected the Knowledge Audit as his beginning
thread for this discussion. The Delphi Group is well known for
its research and research-based consulting practice.
I believe this "first
things first" approach to any KM initiative is both insightful
and courageous in a field that is too often driven by the hurry-up
strategies of "time to market." If knowledge is the
asset, then a client (or employer) often looks to quickly convert
the intellectual resource to "real" value before knowing
what is known or not known or what the value of knowing is or
is not. Likewise, the KMer is motivated to show immediate results
in order to earn respect for KM in order to establish its rightful
place in the corporate structure. The result, in my opinion is
"managed" chaos.
More often than
not, an audit of an organization's knowledge resources is often
left in the dust. Everyone enjoys a quick start -- but a measured
voice should ask: "Where are you going?"
To prepare for your
conversations with Carl Frappaolo, please go to http://www.kwork.org/Stars/frappaolo.html
Thank you, Carl,
for helping us think strategically about KM, just as we have
always evaluated and thought strategically about the spending
of our other valuable resources.
I am sure I speak
for all the AOK members when I say, "we" are looking
forward to these "Conversations."
Back
to top
Measuring KM Based
on Critical Success Factors
Jerry
Ash: I'll
begin the discussion by posing a first question and then move
aside for your engagement with the members.
In your excellent
piece on establishing an organizational
benchmark for knowledge,you wrote: ". . . there is no
simple way to conduct a knowledge audit."
You said "the
unpredictable and informal nature of organizational knowledge
sharing defies structured measurement."
There lies our frustration,
Carl. How do we audit the "unquantifiable?" How do
we convince the bean counters we have a measurable resource against
which we can verify identifiable outcomes?
Now, Carl, I don't
mean to get into metrics here, but I do suppose that a knowledge
"audit" will need to be more than mush if it is to
be taken seriously. Just exactly what is the content of a useful
knowledge audit?
Carl
Frappaolo:
Jerry, your question is one that I am asked with far greater
frequency of late -- a symptom of the state of the economy. Knowledge
Management is not supported simply with a management vision --
as it was a year ago. Today, CEOs and CFOs are asking for hard
dollar returns. There are two parts to this answer.
A well thought out
and executed knowledge strategy can benefit virtually any organization
in many ways. But, to satisfy the fiscal reality needs of today's
management, we must ask management to give us the hot spots or
metrics by which they wish to see an ROI. Why would they invest
not only in knowledge management, but any information handling
technology? What issues do they feel need to be addressed to
ensure the solvency and competitiveness of the organization?
Is time to market a major factor in how they define success?
Or is it the rate of producing new product ideas? Is minimizing
resource costs while scaling production up a major concern? Is
minimizing rework a major issue. Is lack of consistency jeopardizing
customer satisfaction or putting the organization at risk? While
a knowledge audit can be initiated without these metrics clearly
defined, analysis of the audit findings cannot proceed with any
degree of focus until the critical success factors are defined.
To that end, analysis
must be steeped in user perceptions regarding the value of knowledge,
the physical nature of knowledge, the volume and sources of knowledge,
and the communication of knowledge within the organization. Knowledge
is indeed a slippery animal. It almost defies a structured approach
to its measurement. The audit is built upon the premise that
user perception is reality. Knowledge and its inherent value
and relevancy to an organization's day to day practice is a function
of the perceptions of the owners of that knowledge, which in
the end are the employees of an organization in total, not management,
not IT, or a select few. Therefore by involving virtually everyone
in the organization in the process you should be able to achieve
a reading on the value, volume, and practices regarding knowledge.
Furthermore, an audit should uncover the factors that influence
the state of knowledge and knowledge sharing in an organization,
including formal and informal communication protocols, leadership
styles, incentive plans, industry pressures, training and organizational
structure.
As stated, the analysis
of these findings can be viewed in light of the critical success
factors as defined by management. It is only in the juxtaposition
of these two variables that a valid ROI can be constructed.
For example, management
within a major U.S. federal lobbying group that I worked with
expressed the need to increase productivity with existing staff.
Business had to grow without increasing personnel costs. Among
the findings in their audit was realization that many knowledge
workers exerted approximately 20 percent of their time looking
for precedent, existing expertise in house, and general knowledge
external to the organization. It was also found that it took
approximately 5 years for an employee to become proficient in
identifying and leveraging existing in-house resources with any
degree of efficiency. By augmenting existing Intranet technology
within the origination, we demonstrated a return of more than
half the time required to research issues and a virtual elimination
in employee acclimation. This was time returned to staff, so
to speak, which could be used in production and innovation tasks
versus discovery. This had a huge impact on management's understanding
of how knowledge management would provide real dollar value to
the organization.
In literally every
case where I conducted an audit, gems such as this have been
uncovered. It is uncanny how much opportunity exists in organizations
to maximize existing resources and investments. The trick is
to determine the reality of what users face each day in very
facet of their jobs, and to determine how issues can be reconciled
or leveraged in order to support management's success factors.
But until both of these values are clearly defined, you are firing
in the dark.
Back
to top
Comparing K-Audits
and K-Mapping
Denham
Grey, Grey Matter Inc.:
I would like to start with a distinction between audit and mapping,
which influences how I approach this general area.
An audit:
Implies there is already something in place. It is firstly a
focus on compliance, a search and documentation of deviations
and an evaluation of consequences. When I think of knowledge
audits, I picture measurements, market valuations and accounting
procedures, I think of intellectual capital and book values of
intangibles. An audit seems slightly confrontational and implies
that there is a standard against which judgments will be made.
A map:
Leads me to think of a search, a journey of discovery, charting
an unknown landscape so others can find their way. Somehow knowledge
mapping seems the kinder term, it brings to mind the notion of
scouting and of guides, it puts the focus on depicting relationships
and spatial locations.
Neither of these
quite fit the bill. If we wish to understand and appreciate knowledge
we have to experience the culture, become immersed in the activities,
feel the flows, comprehend and discern the constraints and the
empowerment.
Mapping knowledge
is far more than charting the location of information objects,
compiling directories and yellow pages, ascribing monetary values
to intellectual property, plotting the electronic traffic flows
or classifying repositories. Knowledge mapping at the core is
understanding the constraints, discovering the tacit stores,
and surfacing the opportunities for knowledge work. Here are
some notes.
http://www.voght.com/cgi-bin/pywiki?KnowledgeMapping
What should a knowledge
mapping project really cover?
Back
to top
Does Size Matter?
Is Purpose about Direction, or 'Inventory'
Jack
Vinson, Ph.D., Knowledge Manager, GS-API BioPharma, Pharmacia
Corporation:
My first question in this series is reflective of my new role:
At what level in an organization does a worthwhile knowledge
audit begin? I suspect knowledge audits become valuable for organizations
that are large enough to be geographically dispersed -- in other
words, for organizations where the knowledge workers are not
in regular contact with one another.
Depending on the
organization, this might be 50 people or it could be hundreds
and possibly thousands. At some point in the size spectrum, I
imagine that the audit exercise becomes more a question of the
direction of the organization, rather than an audit of what individual
knowledge workers know.
What are your thoughts?
Back
to top
K-Map Is Component
of K-Audit; Size Matters
Carl
Frappaolo:
First, in response to Denham, I believe that you and I are kindred
spirit, but have a semantic issue here. Call it an audit, call
it a map, call it a diagnosis. The purpose of an audit, to use
my term, is indeed, as you put it, understanding the constraints,
discovering the tacit stores, and surfacing the opportunities
for knowledge work. That is precisely what an audit should uncover.
Effective audits cannot be done with a calculator and reports.
They cannot be done with a select few in the organization.
Audits must involve
virtually everyone in the organization. The audit should determine
what if any knowledge sharing already exists in an organization
and what type of knowledge is considered valuable by staff. Indeed,
knowledge management exists in every organization. It does not
need a formal practice. Formal knowledge management initiatives/practices
need to augment and leverage what already exists in the organization.
Communication protocols, attitudes regarding sharing and the
approaches to collaboration should be uncovered through an audit.
Users' aptitude to embrace knowledge and use it strategically
must be assessed. Factors that motivate individuals to not only
contribute/share knowledge but also seek it out and redeploy
it in creative new ways must also be understood. The audit is
a diagnostic tool that assesses the organization's ability and
aptitude to benefit from knowledge management, as well as providing
a road map of the types of knowledge available, where they exist
and the best means for accessing them.
The audit is far
more than a map -- a map is a subset of the audit. The audit
is a full physical exam of the organization that not only determines
the current physical conditions of the organization, but its
inherent aptitude and mental psyche.
Jack, your question
raises a legitimate issue. Knowledge audits and indeed knowledge
management practices themselves differ with respect to the size
of the organization. The approaches to knowledge sharing are
often far different in a company of 30 then they are a company
of 300. Personal interactions can take on far different forums
and frequencies in smaller organizations.
But, while I will
give you that, I do not agree that knowledge management is any
more easy or automatic in the smaller organization. Knowledge
management is not the result of any one factor. It is the result
of several issues including the perception of users regarding
the value of knowledge, the inherent value knowledge seems to
have to internal process and product, user motivations regarding
knowledge sharing and knowledge repurposing. Although perhaps
the intricacies of these issues grows with the size of an organization,
the number of issues remains constant with any group of two or
more individuals.
Too often smaller
organizations falsely believe they can escape a knowledge audit
because the close proximity of workers automatically facilitates
knowledge sharing. For example, I know of one firm of 50 that
felt this way. But upon close scrutiny, we determined that despite
a facade of constant sharing, there was often reluctance to completely
share and collaborate. Employees felt their individual worth
was more determined by what they knew and others did not, rather
than what was known as a whole. This perception was reinforced
unintentionally, but consistently by management in the job descriptions,
annual reviews, pay scales and the language used in memos.
Yes, larger organizations
may face physical distribution challenges, but these pale when
compared to communication protocol, incentive, process and leadership
style issues. Compare the following real-world companies. Company
A, a world-wide metals extrusion and refining company suffered
from language and time differences, but its employees often spoke
of coworkers as family. There was a general tendency, supported
by management to seek out the advice and know how of others in
the organization. Technology was put in place to expedite the
ability to make a request for collaboration. Culture supported
these requests with rapid and frequent responses. As a result
formal and informal networks of like-minded individuals from
around the globe formed and were reinforced daily. Company B,
a professional services company located within a single building
in the U.S., was comprised of 100+ employees, who spoke of coworkers
as just that -- coworkers who BELONGED to specific departments
(implying who harbored different agendas). Despite the constant
direct interaction with fellow employees on a regular basis,
Company B had a far greater knowledge management set of issues
before it than Company A.
Smaller organizations
may have fewer participants to lead and mentor into a knowledge-based
practice, but face all the same potential issues of a larger
organization.
Back
to top
Derivation of the
World 'Audit' Is to Listen
Tom
Godfrey, VP, Zacnet Market Research:
I would normally not (never say never) disagree with Denham Grey,
but I take exception to his definition of audit. Though the normal
connotation of an audit conjures up ideas of CPAs (or IRS agents
perhaps for some) and a very formal process and methodology,
the derivation of the word means, "to listen," a rather
unstructured practice that only requires one to observe with
one of the senses.
I'm not disagreeing
with Denham that a knowledge audit, just like a quarterly audit
of the books, can and should be a very formal process,
but my point is that an audit wouldn't have to be. In fact, the
idea of just listening to the organization may be one of the
only ways to know what we don't know about it. You can audit
something that is in place, but you can also audit to discover
and "pull the string" of new knowledge.
I agree wholeheartedly
with Denham's definition of mapping, and the depth to which it
may be applied, and though both terms can be applied in an aggressive,
more proactive manner, "audit" also carries with it
the idea of pulling back, and just listening . . . .
Back
to top
'Tacit Miners,' Other
Tools?
Denham
Grey: Thanks
for your reply, Carl. It seems I'm a little to one side of mainstream
with my distinction between audits and mapping so I will go with
audits here. Let me turn to what I believe is the most difficult
yet essential task in a knowledge audit -- tacit knowledge.
If you accept tacit
knowledge as "What you know but cannot tell" and with
all the hype out there, not too many folk do!, then how do you
even start to uncover the stuff?
I would appreciate
your opinion on the role of KM tools being touted as "tacit
miners," e.g. Lotus Discovery Server, Tacit's Knowledge
Mail, products from Raging Knowledge and AskMe, that claim to
discover "hidden interests" and to track your "attention
profile" by monitoring electronic messages and documents.
My experience is
these tools give a highly fragmented first cut at a very small
segment of our knowledge exchanges. Selection of key topics or
themes from the multiple "concepts" delivered is problematic
as there is often too little context to really know what the
person was saying or meaning. Within any organization we use
far too many words and phrases for the same concept or we have
very different meaning for the same thing, e.g. customer.
In many respects I'm not sure these much touted tools are really
delivering!
Any tips, tricks
and tools you use to uncover, verify, chart and monitor (note
not measure!) tacit knowledge would be greatly appreciated. Who
is really working in this area?
Back
to top
KMers Need to Speak
Management's Language
Jerry
Ash: Your
first two contributions to this discussion are worth reading
over and over again -- particularly your advice on establishing
the value of KM through its application as a tool for addressing
an organization's critical success factors.
For me, that was
an "ah ha!" both in terms of positioning KM as a respected
business process and also in constructing a knowledge audit that
produces more than fuzzy ideology. When knowledge audits produce
strategic solutions to perceived problems or opportunities, then
KM will become a valued resource. And, an audit focused on critical
success factors is the lever.
Most of us have
been frustrated by our own inability to produce a credible value
proposition for KM, and it's because we KMers see knowledge as
an intangible resource rather than a tangible solution to business
needs. That's why we haven't been taken seriously. How simple!
Why didn't anyone tell us this before?
Well, they have.
It's just that we (I) didn't listen.
Today I had a phone
call from Britton Manasco, former editor/publisher of the former
newsletter, Knowledge Inc. Britton and I were exchanging
thoughts when he said something that sounded exactly like what
Carl had just written. I said as much and Britton recalled an
editorial he had written about two years before he finally decided
to fold the Knowledge Inc. tent. Here's an excerpt:
"The reason
I'm contemplating the "death" of knowledge management
is that it's clear to me this is not the language people tend
to use in ambitious and successful organizations. Instead, they
speak in terms of results and objectives. They speak of net profit
and customer loyalty, time to market and shareholder value. Knowledge
management is merely an enabler -- a means to an end. It is not,
as so many seem to suggest in their starry-eyed rhetoric, an
end in itself."
Back
to top
Tools Helpful, but
Not the Answer
Joe
Katzman, C.A.T. Consulting:
These can be helpful -- and Tacit's product in particular has
received excellent reviews from acquaintances of mine.
But no, the tools
themselves are not an answer. Different terms and different perspectives
are part of that. Another part is that group genius that truly
mines tacit knowledge requires things like a focus, facilitation,
and often physical proximity as well (even if just for defined
sessions) in order to deliver consistent value.
This isn't to say
that AskMe et. al can't be used in very interesting and valuable
ways. Clarica has certainly done so, for instance. But if you
really want to bring tacit knowledge right into the work, there
has to be a focused effort as well as a channel for "one-off"
serendipity.
One of the useful
things a knowledge audit brings is a better understanding of
the contexts in which people share, and key cultural characteristics.
Once one has that, planning areas of focus for knowledge-based
improvement becomes easier and so does devising a facilitation
process that works well.
Back
to top
Tools Not Answer,
but Valuable Part of Ecosystem
Carl
Frappaolo:
Great question and follow up, Denham and Joe. Yes, tacit knowledge
is a slippery devil, but one that can hold great value if nurtured.
I agree with Joe, tools themselves are not the answer. Perhaps
vendors of tacit knowledge mining tools sometimes over market
their products and lead some to believe that the tools are the
answer to managing tacit knowledge.
Clearly, knowledge
management is not about technology, and this is particularly
true with regards to tacit knowledge. But, tacit knowledge focused
technology such as that from AskMe, Lotus, Autonomy, Tacit Knowledge
et. al, can provide valuable functionality. They expedite the
building of interpersonal networks. These networks are often
at the heart of an organization's knowledge ecosystem -- links
among individuals whose knowledge and experience complement one
another, fostering collaboration, and creative mentoring. Typically
built over years of professional service, they are perhaps an
individual's most valuable knowledge management resource. By
tracking interactions, research, writing and process involvement
of individuals, the tools mentioned above can suggest members
to your network.
In the end, the
contacting of that resource and building a long-term relationship
with that person is not about technology. At an aerospace company
at which I conducted a knowledge audit, it was determined that
it took approximately 5 years to build an interpersonal network
that substantially supported the knowledge worker. But, it was
also recognized that these networks were the single most effective
way to communicate know-how and collaborate on difficult issues.
By utilizing one of the products mentioned above, along with
something as simple as an experts yellow pages, construction
and maintenance of interpersonal networks at this organization
became an official part of the organization's knowledge strategy,
with the hope that production would decrease, allowing newer
employees to get "in the know" and start contributing
far more quickly.
As for monitoring
tacit knowledge, again I refer to the tools listed above. Complete
answers, no. Do they have flaws, yes. But they do facilitate
and expedite the building of interpersonal knowledge networks.
When linked with business practices that acknowledge the utilization
of such networks, and reward collaboration, they can play a most
valuable part in an organization's knowledge management strategy.
Back
to top
Profiling Doesn't
Map Real Tacit Knowledge
Denham
Grey: One
aspect we did not address in sufficient depth (at least from
my perspective) is ways to discover and chart tacit knowledge.
Carl and others provided key feedback on using automatic profiling
to get at some forms of 'tacit' knowledge. I'm still not sure
this is the real stuff!
What can knowledge
mappers do to identity, record, and chart real tacit knowledge?
I feel this is a
burning issue given the industry attention and focus on tacit
knowledge as the next KM frontier. Tacit knowledge ("what
we know, but cannot tell") is a difficult area for knowledge
mapping, you cannot walk up to someone and say "Tell me
all you know about your tacit knowledge", that just does
not work! So what should we be doing? Some suggestions:
- Action research:
immerse yourself in the culture and map by feeling rather than
asking and seeing, become an invisible shadow.
- Ethnography: look
at the behavior, cultural norms, lore, rituals, organizational
stories, and the unexpressed rules that guide actions, identity,
perceptions, co-ordination and intuitive responses.
- Videography: record
activities, movements and interactions, looking for the 'message'
behind the behavior.
- Surface assumptions:
get respondents to reflect on their rationale and their implicit
models.
Carl, what has worked
for you in this key area? I would appreciate any references and
links.
Back
to top
Managing Tacit Knowledge
Like Seeking Holy Grail
Carl
Frappaolo:
I am afraid that perhaps the attempt to achieve total management
of tacit knowledge is like seeking the Holy Grail. We cannot
and should not get too preoccupied with getting it perfect, because
we may miss out on great success without ever achieving 100 percent
accuracy. Tacit knowledge defies being systematically catalogued
and made available in an asynchronous manner. It, by its very
definition is forever changing, growing and being reshaped by
the owners' latest experiences.
There are of course
things we can do to minimize the lack of control and leveragability
over tacit knowledge resources. We have already talked about
personal profiling. Granted yes, this is not always fully accurate,
and does not necessarily capture the knowledge itself, just identifies
the owner of the knowledge. Again, I do feel this is a tremendous
jump forward and have seen it make a difference in many organizations.
But enough of that. Your question is what else can be done.
You raise many good
examples of alternative approaches to getting ones hands around
tacit knowledge. I am most skeptical of, myself of approaches
such as action research and ethnographic studies. I have seen
these executed. And while they do render valuable insights, they
do not necessarily capture the tacit knowledge itself, just the
owners of the knowledge and the communication patterns that exist
in a community. This is all very valuable insight, but it no
more solves the issue of managing tacit knowledge than does profiling.
Unlike profiling, they can become dated, unless the studies/research
are performed indefinitely.
Surface assumptions
are an approach that I do think can work in many instances. In
fact it recognizes a third form of knowledge, one that I call
implicit knowledge (in addition to explicit and tacit). In some
cases, knowledge that is tacit remains so only because no one
has taken the time or effort to extract it from the minds of
its owners and codify it. Just because knowledge has yet to be
codified does not mean it is innately tacit in nature. Certain
knowledge can be harvested from its owner and codified in such
a way as to make it more readily shareable. The value and leveragability
of implicit knowledge is vast. However an organization must take
several strategic steps in order to position it adequately. First,
the sources and nature of the implicit bodies of knowledge must
be identified and quantified (This is where the knowledge audit
comes in). Getting to implicit knowledge mandates taking a second
look at all so-called tacit knowledge resources to determine
whether that knowledge could be codified if it were subjected
to some type of mining and translation process. Then, it requires
implementing that mining/translation process. My experience has
shown that often, much of the work done in businesses is not
in the "deep tacit" realm. Rather, it is a logical,
methodical thinking process that simply is not recognized as
such, even by the thinker. Implicit knowledge management employs
tools, techniques and methodologies that capture these previously
elusive processes and make them more generally available to the
organization. Thus, the thought processes used by your best thinkers
become leverageable assets for the organization. This is not
to say that all tacit knowledge can be transfigured into implicit
knowledge. There will always be bodies of know-how and experience
that remain tacit. Also tacit knowledge is not an effective way
to achieve alignment between personal and organizational values.
(Storytelling and mentoring are better ways to achieve value
alignment.) Finally, there are some intellectual assets too novel
for capture and transfer. The goal of implicit knowledge management
is to determine how much of the tacit knowledge in your organization
defies any form of codification, and to mine that which does
not.
The most interesting
proposition in your question though, Denham, is the issue of
videography. I have heard that some of the National Laboratories
are experimenting in this area. They are videotaping the daily
routines of their top scientists, especially those nearing retirement.
Their hope is that by capturing the live action and interaction
of these individuals, they will be able to someday, create virtual
agents that represent the expert, and pose new situations to
them and see how they react. The eternal techno-optimist that
I am I see great value in this and am sure that one day it will
be possible. But that day is probably decades away.
Until that time,
we should focus our daily habits on ways to capture who knows
what and facilitate collaboration and knowledge brokering within
our communities.
Back
to top
Nothing Better Than
a "Good" Business Catastrophe
Tom
Godfrey:
I'd like to add something to Jerry Ash's recent post concerning
"worst" practices and lessons learned, and take it
another step further.
It seems to me that
nothing either destroys a group, or makes it stronger like a
business catastrophe, or some sort of business threat, or even
strong external pressure (this can be a broad range, such as
a new product release, or even the economy).
Sometimes these
pressures are brought on by seemingly external forces, and other
times it was something done (or maybe undone) within the business
that created the problem. However, if the group pulled through
successfully, it usually a tighter-knit group, and whether they
know it or not, they've gained some knowledge through the process.
Now an after action
review can return some known quantities about what happened and
how they solved the problem, but wouldn't it make sense that
this type of circumstance should trigger a knowledge audit for
the portion of the business affected (or all of the business,
since other areas might have contributed to the problem or solution)?
My thought is that
this would actually take into account best and worse practices
. . . "what did we do to get here?" and "what
should we NOT do in the future", and "how did we get
ourselves out of this mess?" (perhaps a best practice),
and "how do we detect and prevent this from happening again?"
(Lessons learned).
I'm not suggesting
that this be the only trigger, as then the KM effort is purely
reactionary, but is this a good path to go down?
Back
to top
Resistance from Those
Who Don't Order an Audit?
Jerry
Ash: Thanks
for your content-rich response about "worst practices."
You see, gathering such stories is so much more difficult than
"best practices," and they do seem to teach some valuable
lessons. I'm sure I am joined by other AOK members in thanking
you for these gems.
You said, "oddly
enough," (your words) that you had never encountered cultural
resistance to a knowledge audit. I'm not surprised. In my experience,
organizations that order a knowledge audit have already become
-- if not KM-savvy -- at least open minded about the concept.
Is it not the ones (unfortunately, the majority) that have *not*
ordered a knowledge audit who are afflicted (either in management
or on the frontline) with cultural resistance to the process?
And isn't that an indicator of their potential doom?
Back
to top
Not 'Knowing Oneself'
Results in Repeat Mistakes
Jack
Vinson:
Jerry suggests that organizations that have not embarked on a
knowledge audit are likely to be those organizations that fall
apart. Organizations have been doing various forms of knowledge
audit for many years, from Total Quality Management to Business
Process Redesign to Re-engineering. I am sure there have been
similar efforts throughout the years to help organizations get
a grip on what they do well. Of course, the focus of these explorations
is different, but aren't they all some form of business improvements
in order to stay competitive?
Maybe the statement
should be that the organization that does not know itself is
doomed to repeat the same mistakes. Those that do a good job
of learning from (and putting into action) what they do poorly
and what they do well are those that will survive.
This very much relates
to the personal growth philosophy of Covey and others who advises
us to set goals and take actions to reach those goals in line
with one's personal philosophy. Where do I want to be in five
or ten years -- not professionally, but regarding my whole life?
Isn't this similar to a knowledge audit for an organization?
Where are we going and what abilities do we have that will help
us? If we don't have the abilities, do we need to grow/find them?
Is the direction we set the right one?
Back
to top
TQM, BPR Processes
Don't Include K-Audits
Carl
Frappaolo:
Thanks, Jack, for the simple and eloquent comments. How very
true. I wish to reiterate, lest some miss it, that TQM, BPR et.
al. are forms of self inspection and improvement, but not a knowledge
audit -- in the strictest sense of the word. Indeed, these approaches
assume that the environments created after the exercise will
remain fairly stable.
Under a KM practice,
one must recognize that the five year goal may constantly change
itself. It is those organizations that stay fixed on static goals
and suppositions that are likely to fail. The business environment
is forever changing, today perhaps more rapidly than ever before.
If there is one quality that is most critical in this environment
it is agility. To know yourself (your organization and its core
competencies as opposed to core products), and your community
(partners, customers, related government sectors, etc.), and
to be able to respond to opportunities and challenges that occur
in these environments is the ultimate reward of a well run knowledge-based
organization.
Culture, incentives,
leadership styles, communication patterns and technology are
all influences on these abilities, but it is these abilities
that ultimately, in my opinion, are the metric by which you measure
your knowledge quotient.
Back
to top
Changing Labels Doesn't
Knowledge Strategy Make
Debra
M. Amidon, founder and chief strategist, ENTOVATION International: Thank you for such a succinct
and definitive statement about the difference between a knowledge
strategy and all the previous forms of improvement . I cannot
reinforce your insights enough! So many companies have just changed
the labels on their databases, products and services to reach
the market without understanding the significant difference.
What we are all describing is as different as looking at two-dimensional
representations of a world map or looking at the world from
the Apollo. [Any AOK members who want the whole article, just let me know.The K-Audit,
as we have been discussing, is the first step to a viable knowledge
strategy.
Again, I point to
Leif Edvinsson's comment "I'd like to be roughly right than
precisely wrong." So many of the well-intended knowledge
programs are dwelling on the unnecessary questions, spending
inordinate precious intellectual talent on sub optimal activities
and not realizing that what we are creating is a dynamic management
system for a viable business strategy, not just a storage capacity
for accumulated knowledge, albeit sometimes useful. It is in
the process of innovation that the attributes and influences
you so aptly identify can contribute to sustainability.
And Jack's comment
-- "What did we fail to ask?" is a great example of
the spirit of inquiry needed to take advantage of this knowledge
economy we are innovating. I am all ears . . . .
Back
to top
Carl Wraps Up: Leveraging
KM for Business, Scientific Causes
Jerry
Ash: Today
is the official last day of the "Conversations with Carl
Frappaolo," and -- as always -- I fear we have somehow failed
to fully take advantage of the willing presence of an AOK "star."
Tell me, Carl. What
did we fail to ask? What are the one or two very important points
we did not uncover by our questions? I have looked back over
the exchange of the past two weeks and I am thrilled with the
raw material I see there for a future synopsis for the STAR SERIES
archive. But is there more?
Please take these
questions as an invitation to close your tenure as guest moderator
by speaking your own mind, unhampered by specific questions.
I also assume, Carl,
that if a few more questions come straggling in over the weekend
that you will consider responding to them when you find time.
Carl
Frappaolo:
I cannot tell you the last time I had so much cyber fun. Seriously.
The questions were stimulating. I hope the answers were as well.
Knowledge management is a vast topic and one that by definition
will never be resolved -- through its study we gain new knowledge
which will breed new opportunities and challenges.
The knowledge audit,
our focus over the last two weeks, is fundamental to that process
of learning about knowledge management itself. It is interesting
how discussion of the audit process led to so many related topics,
including the relationship to BPR, the value and management of
tacit knowledge, worst practices and cost justification. Audits
are fundamental and thus touch upon nearly every facet of KM.
That is why conducting them is not only insightful but fun.
I am not sure if
any of the big questions have not been asked. We did not cover
the specific measurements uncovered through the audit. Nor did
we address how identified shortcomings in structure, culture
or incentives might be addressed. But given the time frame, I
think we did a great job of exploring the audit and its tangential
topics.
I was most encouraged
by the closing comments of Debra Amidon: "So many of the
well-intended knowledge programs are dwelling on the unnecessary
questions, spending inordinate precious intellectual talent on
sub optimal activities and not realizing that what we are creating
is a dynamic management system for a viable business strategy,
not just a storage capacity for accumulated knowledge, albeit
sometimes useful. It is in the process of innovation that the
attributes and influences you so aptly identify can contribute
to sustainability."
She stresses that
KM can be about academic debate and discussion, or about taking
calculated strategic action to harness and leverage as much intellectual
capital as possible to advance business and scientific causes.
As for me and the audit, we clearly lean to the latter.
Thank you for the
opportunity.
Carl
Back
to top
|
