|
What You Know Shapes Where You Go By Carl Frappaolo
Imagine going to a carpenter and asking him to build you a house. That's it, "Build me a house. I'll be back in six months to move in." It's a ludicrous idea. How will the house be used? How many people should it accommodate? What are the site requirements? What is the budget? You would never dream of giving such a directive without first supplying the answers to questions such as these. Yet, this is the challenge many face with regards to knowledge management. The directive to move is there; but there is no direction. In order to manage knowledge, it must first be measured and assessed. Effective knowledge management requires the coordination of the cultural, technological and personal elements which spur creativity and innovation in response to changing stimuli. There is much more to this than simply picking a "right" technology. In fact, for many, technology is the simplest of dilemmas. Knowledge management represents a completely new and different environment. You are attempting to bring structure and control to that which typically has no boundaries. Managing knowledge is not at all like automating a structured and predictable application, (e.g., a document management system). Knowledge management forces the designer, developer and knowledge participants to delve into processes that almost defy formal procedure and rules. Yet, until a valid assessment is made of each of these factors within the organization, any attempt to initiate a knowledge-focused strategy is futile. Establishing a Corporate Benchmark for Knowledge The first step in any knowledge management initiative should be a knowledge audit. The knowledge audit should look at:
This data helps the organization identify areas for improvement and opportunities to leverage knowledge. Collecting this information about an organization is not an easy task. While researching their book, Corporate Instinct, authors Koulopoulos, Toms and Spinello discovered there was no simple way to get the information needed for a corporate benchmark of knowledge. The unpredictable and informal nature of organizational knowledge sharing defies structured measurement. You are challenged with measuring factors such as the responsiveness of an organization to market and internal demands, or the level of general awareness of core competencies. Some of this could be obtained from series of personal interviews. But often this data did not provide a complete or accurate picture of knowledge usage. Data calculated from the actual results of a business activity tend to be biased towards the last performance (e.g., the one observed), rather than the organization's inherent ability. To hold any merit, a wide variety of business practices/experiences across the organization over several months have to be measured. Thus this type of approach is impractical and costly. In response to that challenge, The Delphi Group developed KM2, a methodology for evaluating and documenting the state of knowledge use and sharing within an organization. KM2 measures elements critical to the analysis of an organization's opportunities for knowledge management, while it uncovers potential obstacles toward effective progress in that direction. Through this process, idiosyncratic factors and influences and their potential impact are revealed. KM2 begins with a customized survey administered throughout the organization. By soliciting responses from the full range of staff, it is possible to garner points of view which are frequently overlooked but which are critical success factors in the management of knowledge. More importantly, the concurrent involvement of the entire organization ensures validity of findings. It also removes the ability for any one group's perspective to prejudice the overall direction. Further, since you are attempting to assess major trends in opinion across the organization, the organizational survey uncovers how the perceptions of users and owners of knowledge shape that organization. In the end, it may not matter what management thinks is the organization's potential for knowledge management. The reality is what is revealed in the experiences and attitudes of the constituents. Because this research is conducted via a dynamically deployed web-based survey, the results are obtained in a matter of weeks. (Take The Delphi Group's Corporate IQ Test at http://www.delphigroup.com). For example, the R&D department of a petrochemical company had embarked on several knowledge-based initiatives, which had full support from upper management. Despite this, the organization's ability to reuse acquired know-how and expertise had not been impacted! The Knowledge Audit uncovered obstacles that the efforts to date had ignored. These included cultural differences across various geographic locations, discrepancies in 'management speak' versus 'management action', and processes that ran counter to knowledge-sharing practices. We also uncovered an underlying cultural approach to team building which was virtually untapped by the current initiatives. Identification of these strengths and weaknesses facilitated minor modifications to existing systems, and resulted in a quantifiable ROI. From the KM2 survey we also uncover groups that exhibit extreme positive or negative opinions or behaviors in each of the factors we measure. Knowing where they are enables us to return for targeted interviews. The details uncovered in this way lend critical insight into positive and negative influences on knowledge sharing in the organization. At one manufacturing company, for example, the Knowledge Audit revealed that despite a high achievement in internal and external awareness levels, bodies of knowledge were treated as isolated silos. Thus, despite the levels of knowledge acquired overall, the organization reacted lethargically to changes in stimuli, and required extensive corporate review and approval. Through KM2 this organization gained valuable insight into specific formal and informal groups and practices that became examples of what works within the organization to promote knowledge management and what should be avoided. Because the interviews were preceded by the survey, the interview time and cost was dramatically slashed. The Knowledge Chain A focal point of KM2 is a review of the effectiveness of an organization's performance with the Knowledge Chain (see chart). The Knowledge Chain (K-chain) is a model that can be imposed on an organization to create a benchmark of current success at leveraging acquired expertise to expedite responsiveness and innovation. It is a valuable analytical resource for assessing the progress you are making in building an effective knowledge management environment. In this phase of analysis, the internal factors which potentially inhibit or foster knowledge sharing in the organization are plotted on the Knowledge Chain. Now, the causal effect between these elements and the reality of how the organization is functioning from a knowledge-sharing standpoint can be empirically tested. Recommendations on how to proceed with a formal knowledge initiative become evident. The relationship between cultural, structural and procedural factors in the organization to technological and infrastructure factors are clearly assessed. Through its Knowledge Audit, a large government organization uncovered informal approaches to knowledge sharing that could be leveraged in building an automated approach to knowledge management. However, the approach taken to technology product selection, process definitions and design of a taxonomy for the envisioned knowledge base as a result of what was revealed by the Knowledge Audit took a dramatic turn from the original plans. The result was a much shortened and far more successful implementation.
 Corporate Instinct (Koulopoulos, Toms, Spinello; John Wiley & Sons) The Knowledge Chain (K-chain) is a series of interactions which constitute an organization's cycle of innovation. Knowledge management creates permeability between the four cells of the K-chain and accelerates the speed of innovation. The four stages of the Knowledge Chain define the flow of knowledge through an enterprise. Being able to measure and view the factors which effect knowledge management separately and collectively on the K-Chain helps the organization comprehend its opportunity in applying KM. The profile also offers insights as to how your organization ranks relative to others in your industry, or even how different groups within one organization rank against another group's use of KM. The resulting benchmarks can be used to justify and precisely assess the value of KM. In the chart below, the organization profiled with the dotted line has little in the way of formal KM technology or practices, yet it demonstrates an ideal environment for leveraging KM practices and technologies. The organization profiled with the dark black line has KM technology and practices, yet demonstrates an organizational environment that undermines its KM efforts. Neither organization is ideal. Understanding where and how to overcome the inadequacies of the organization is the purpose of a knowledge audit.
 The value of the Knowledge Audit is compelling. It identifies the exact needs of the organization for knowledge management, the physical and cultural challenges and requirements of the organization, the value of knowledge within the organization, the types and availability of knowledge throughout the organization and the benefits associated with knowledge sharing within the organization. It provides a benchmark against which progress can be measured, so that you are not building your solution in the dark. Finally, the Knowledge Audit provides the insight necessary to approach development of a knowledge management system effectively, and in a timely manner. ©1999
The Delphi Group About
the author: |
