KM: Making The Business Case

It never fails that March comes around and I become a total "flogger" (flakey blogger).  In my defense, my family celebrates a birthday each week for the first three weeks of the month.  Plus, this year, my lesbian wife, Brandy, gave me the fantastic gift of a five-day trip to Chicago during which "the Braintrust" (her and Lil Magic) and I endeavored to make as many bad decisions as possible.  Although we lived up to the immortal words of Dr. Venkman ("We came, we saw, we kicked its ass!") I was both elated and disappointed to discover that I'm not as "wrong" (read: scandalous) as I think I am (and as my birth date, 3/15, suggests).  Sadly, age brings maturity and wisdom.

Somebody should do something about that.

Anywho, I've got 2 days left in the best month on the calendar (don't agree? Ask someone Irish...holla!!) and in-between matches (this weather is too perfect not to play as much tennis as possible) I figured I should make-up for my ir-writ-sponsibility.

Last month, I was stoked to have a revised version of my Guerrilla KM post published in InsideKnowledge magazine.  Seeing yourself in print for the first time is like your first kiss...too sweet!  I'm following this up with a contribution on Making the Business Case for KM but the downside of writing for a magazine is all of the editing that needs to be done. Don't get it twisted, I'm happy with the end result, but I kinda like the extraneous ramblings I include in my writing. Fortunately, I gots me a license to blog, hardy har har, so I can share with y'all the (mostly) unedited piece.

When I was a grad student in the University of Southern Maine’s most excellent College of Education and Human Development, I wrote a paper on critical technology issues of knowledge management in which I summarized an episode of the 1990's TV version of La Femme Nikita. In the episode, Section One, an ultra-covert, counter-terrorist agency, carried out a plan to “upload” to its computers the knowledge and memories of all its operatives in a gambit to create – at will – “perfect” agents with the collected knowledge of years of training and experience. I wrote, then, that despite its sci-fi appeal, this was exactly the method to managing knowledge many organizations seemed to be attempting (and most interested in aping). Nine years later, it seems to me that for far too many organizations, this is still the reigning concept of what KM is all about.

Since I’ve dedicated 2010 to evangelizing the importance of a KM value proposition, it seems only fitting that I should write about making the business case for KM.  Whether you’re engaging in an initial discussion or re-branding knowledge management efforts, the ability to define, rationalize and set expectations of KM is a critical cornerstone of a successful and sustainable KM initiative.

As usual, before climbing onto my soapbox, I looked to the literature to see what’s already been written on the subject and, frankly, I wasn’t impressed. Dale Neef’s 1997 article, “Making the Case for Knowledge Management: The Bigger Picture” seems less concerned with making the case for KM as it is with providing a list of considerations for developing a KM strategy. David Skyrme’s 2001 article, “Making the Business Case for Knowledge Management: As Simple as ABC?” offers three “planks” on which to justify knowledge management (asset value, benefits potential, and cost effectiveness) that leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. Perhaps, because I subscribe to the belief that KM (as a discipline) requires explanation rather than justification. Save the pleading for your strategy. Lastly, Yelden & Albers 2004 article, “The Business Case for Knowledge Management” advocates delivering a comprehensive KM strategy that identifies “all the options available with the associated risks involved with each choice” since “[c]learly delineating the expected hard and soft benefits of each aspect of the initiative aid in effectively justifying its need.” Not only is this impractical, the amount of up front information this approach calls for is completely overboard. It also fails to consider the implications of proposing a strategic solution to stakeholders whose understanding of KM – which might run the gamut from none to “coo coo for Cocoa Puffs” – can completely derail a KM initiative before it’s even begun. Diligence must be tempered with appropriateness.

Clearly, my sage advice is needed on this subject.

Ultimately, the objective of a business case for KM is to provide organizational stakeholders with an awareness and understanding of knowledge management that will set the stage for a deeper exploration of how it can be approached strategically. First, build (and sell) the case for KM; Second, secure enough buy-in to undertake a proper knowledge audit; and, Third, develop (and pitch) a strategic solution.

Elements of a Business Case for KM

• General and organization-specific definitions of knowledge management
• Awareness of the role that KM plays in the organization
• Awareness of how KM impacts an organization
• Cost and benefit(s) of a strategic approach to KM

General and organization-specific definitions of knowledge management
I’m fond of defining KM as the set of strategies that improve how information is shared and leveraged in an organization, but if that doesn’t work for you, then look no further than the Wikipedia entry for knowledge management for something more comprehensive. Just remember to observe the wisdom of the KISS principle and keep it simple, stupid! Avoid tossing around know-it-all terms like tacit and explicit knowledge and generic statistics about employee retention, knowledge half-life and even competitors KM behaviors. You don’t create a connection by talking over the heads of your audience. You have to speak in their language about their organization. Will some respond to and even demand this type of information? Sure, but your task is to keep them focused on their organization. What works next door and across the street isn’t, necessarily, applicable at home and even if it might be, benchmarking the best practices of others is highly premature for organizations still defining their need for and approach to KM.

And you should say so.

Awareness of how KM impacts an organization
Fundamental KM belief #1: There is no such thing as an organization that does not practice KM, whether or not it's been formally documented or recognized as such.  When an organization says it "wants” KM what it's really saying is that whatever it's currently doing isn't working (for whatever reason and to whatever degree).

If you need to, take a minute and let that marinate.

This is the reason I espouse explaining versus justifying KM. KM is not some external activity that an organization can opt-in or out of at their leisure, it is a reality of doing business that it is embodied in all of the processes and activities that inform and influence how human and technology resources are utilized, developed, and leveraged across the organization.

Awareness of the role that KM plays in the organization
Fundamental KM belief #2: Good KM professionals should, ideally, be working themselves out of a job. While there may be an on-going need for someone to manage KM systems and routine activities (knowledge audits, data analysis and reporting, etc.) at some point, once the task of facilitating the cultural adoption of KM is complete, these activities should be able to be absorbed by other functional areas (preferably, at the executive level).

Of course, for most organizations, I don’t see this happening any time soon. Why? Because KM confuses the heck out of people!
With all of the different activities that support and enable KM – many of which are valid disciplines in their own right – it’s easy to see why. So, when making the case for KM, it’s necessary to focus on the added value that KM as a whole (not just its various enablers and activities) brings to the organization.

As a field, knowledge management is rooted in the following core values:

• KM is strategic (mission and goals-oriented, tactical, agile)
• KM is about sharing (collaboration, partnership, active participation)
• KM is about community (mutuality, trust, respect)
• KM is about innovation (growth, adaptation, change)

And, in addition to being warm and fuzzy, KM also provides a holistic lens through which policies, practices, and strategic goals and objectives are analyzed to determine how fully people, process, and technology are being engaged.  This is a critical aspect of KM that is often ignored.  Typically the KM function is engaged to assist in determining how KM systems might be used to facilitate a particular goal or objective, but rarely is KM engaged to evaluate the actual goals and objectives.  “How can KM support this initiative?” should give way to “How feasible is this initiative from a KM perspective?”

Cost and benefit(s) of a strategic approach to KM
Fundamental KM belief #3: KM is taking place – like it or not – and if you're not addressing it directly then you're missing out on a golden opportunity to shape and direct how it takes place and benefits the organization’s bottom-line.

Regardless of how you choose to make a case for KM you’re going to be asked to justify (there’s that word) its cost and demonstrate its benefit(s). If you’ve successfully established KM as an existing and on-going organizational practice then consider yourself halfway home, if not, you’ve got an uphill battle ahead of you. But, a smidgen of wisdom, a pinch of logic, and a dash of courage might be enough to pull you through.

1. The actual cost of KM
Whenever the subject of the cost of KM rears its head, it’s decidedly in reference to the purchase of some behemoth enterprise system promising a revolution in the management of information resources. In actuality, aside from the cost of the human resources required to implement a KM strategy (and, if applicable, to manage whatever technology resources are already in play) the most common cost of KM is a factor of the time involved in strategy, process, and educational development and delivery activities. (Any other costs to be considered should be outlined and presented in a comprehensive KM strategy based on the results of a formal knowledge audit. At which point cost can be considered a determining factor in the prioritization of KM activities.)
2. The cost of doing nothing
I have yet to come across an organization that doesn’t want to improve something about itself or see some inefficiency in how it operates. Find these “open flaws” and exploit them. It isn’t necessary to bombard stakeholders with a litany of corporate transgressions and misdeeds that KM will (attempt to) “fix” (that’s me being sarcastic). Instead, focus on the top three to five regularly voiced concerns and suggest how a strategic approach to KM can mitigate them then posit the cost of continued inefficiency in the face of a valid solution.
3. Satisfaction with/usage of enterprise systems
You don’t need a full-scale knowledge audit to do a word of mouth survey or 100% participation for the feedback to be valid. The goal here is to present a snapshot of how people get at and share critical information and how they regard the systems available. Focus on the people who influence the flow of money – sales, product development and support, and client-facing professionals. What are the sundry information needs of these key players and how do they describe their experiences filling these needs in the current environment?
4. Rate of failure of new initiatives
Simply put, compare the number of new initiatives that were introduced to the company in the current year (or recent years) to the number that are still standing as an indicator of change fatigue or cultural resistance to change. (Try to emphasize the initiatives that were reasonably intelligent or worthwhile; failure of the stupid ones tend to speak for themselves). And, if they’re still around, enhance your findings with qualitative “lessons learned” feedback from initiative sponsors/champions.
5. Rate of new hire acclimation
Work with HR to seek out both new hires (at varying lengths of employment) and hiring managers to obtain feedback on how quickly new hires have been able to get up and running in their roles, get at critical information, and accomplish (relatively basic) work-related and HR tasks.
6. Resource/succession planning policies
Is there a set of policies to plan for the loss of critical organizational knowledge and leadership? Have these critical organizational roles been identified? If yes, is the plan active and effective? If no, bad ju-ju.
7. Quantity and quality of documented best practices
Successful companies share and institutionalize the knowledge that makes them successful. One of the best indicators of how well an organization is (or isn’t) managing its knowledge is the quantity, quality, and ease of access to internal (and industry) case studies, best practices, and lessons learned type documents.

In his 2005 Projectified blog post, “KM and PM: The Redheaded Step Children of all Organizations?,” Brian Kennemer insightfully writes, “PM [project management] and KM ‘systems’ are about people being comfortable with changing the way they do things.” The best approach to making a case for KM lies in making people aware of and comfortable with KM; helping them to understand the way(s) in which they are currently engaging in KM activity and illustrating the types of adjustments that can be made to shape their behaviors for a targeted result.

Sound like a tall order? In my experience, not so much.

Blogroll: Week Ending 1/31

So, as things settle down (whatever the hell that means) with my current KM project I'm trying to do a better job of keeping up with my blogs - this one and the one I started for work.

That means making more time to review KM literature and what other practitioners are doing/writing. These 'Blogroll' posts are meant to show my love and support for the KM blogging community and present my thoughts on the blog posts that catch my eye and get me riled up.

Today's catch includes:

• APQC's KM Edge
• Mark Pollard's blog
• Lee Romero's On Content, Collaboration and Findability blog; and,
• Matt Moore's Innotecture blog

---

On KM Maturity Models...
I have to admit that I’m not the biggest fan of KM content to come out of APQC (mostly because a lot of their stuff seems too structured and process-oriented for my tastes and I find that while they may not be replicable or ever designated ‘best practices’, many of the most effective KM solutions I’ve delivered are born “on the fly”) but that doesn’t mean I don’t keep up with the work they are doing in KM. And, I’m certainly capable of giving credit where credit is due.

Dr. Carla O’dell’s SlideShare presentation on 5 Ways KM Supports Innovation is great material to incorporate into one’s KM ‘sales’ pitch and/or service offerings.

On the other hand, APQC's Knowledge Management Maturity Model, is exactly the kind of thing I rail against. Not APQC’s model, specifically, nor maturity model’s in general, but in the application of maturity model’s as a benchmarking tool. In theory, I think that maturity models are great for providing overall guidance to any type of project, essentially establishing informational markers along ‘Route Km' ©. But, using maturity models to benchmark the progression of KM activities and behaviors is dangerous to the success of a KM strategy because it’s easy to get caught up in trying to conform the strategy to the model rather than utilizing the model as a purely supportive tool (one of many) to assist in maintaining the focus of your strategy.

Imagine that a physician has prescribed a course of treatment for an illness that results in side effects not outlined in the literature documenting the treatment. And, even after reviewing the prescribed treatment (as a good Doctor should) decides that instead of exploring and pursuing alternatives to address that patients particular situation and response to the treatment, the Doctor decides to continue aggressively pursuing the treatment outlined in the literature. Obviously, this example makes some huge assumptions and I don’t mean to oversimplify things. I’m simply pointing out that, as a patient (if you’re prone to trusting your Doctor implicitly), the idea that your medical professional would stick to a course of treatment that clearly isn’t working for you simply because that’s what the literature says, even though the literature doesn’t cover all of the crap happening to you, rather than saying, “Hmmm, maybe I should look at some alternatives”, would, no doubt, be extremely discomforting.

If you feel that, then, hopefully, you can feel my pain about maturity models.

Of course, maturity models (and medical treatments) don’t apply themselves and organizations (unlike patients) don’t have the ability to seek out a second opinion or switch Doctors, which is why it’s important to have leaders capable of making the distinction between a strategy (which may need modification, on the fly) and support tool that provides guidance, not instructions.

And, for those of you inclined to roll your eyes and consider this post one of my “duh” moments since you share this wisdom and already “get this”, please realize that there are a lot of folks working in our field who don’t. Sadly, I’ve seen folks base entire strategies around hitting maturity model milestones without ever really addressing their most critical KM needs.

---

On Community...
You gotta love it when thoughts and ideas ignite a firestorm of dialogue. Mark Pollard's point-in-post comment on the "antithesis of anonymity to community" (nestled in a well written post entitled "7 Things You Can Learn From Hip Hop...If you want to build an online community") led to a debate that has produced some provocative and worthwhile reading. Click through the links to the following posts and join the discussion!!

• "My Ignite presentation about building communities" (Markpollard.net)
• Not all interaction is created socially (Markpollard.net)
• enemy public? (Engineers Without Fears)

---

New KM Role: Search Analyst
I’ve been working with my boss to improve (read: gut and rebuild) the Search functionality of our Kbase so I’m particularly keen on the idea of having a dedicated resource (even on a part-time basis) and Lee Romero’s post defining the role of a Search Analyst was truly timely and appreciated!

---

Pimpin' Knowledge Management
I’m fond of telling folks that being a successful knowledge manager involves wearing many hats and taking on a variety of roles: strategist, analyst, salesman, marketer, facilitator, psychologist, therapist, statistician, database manager, project manager, hand holder, and con artist among them. For those folks working towards their KM Merit Badge in Sales, Matt Moore of Innotecture (who's steadily making strides towards becoming my new KM crush) has prepared a short white paper on Justifying Your KM Program.

As I learned myself (only a few years ago, really), when you are selling a product, any product, you are basically selling yourself – your experience, your passion, your ability to make their investment pay off (just check out the BBC show Dragon's Den). And, don’t get it twisted, when you’re seeking out executive and/or financial support for a business initiative, the same rules apply! In his paper, Matt outlines the three things you’ll need to make your KM pitch work. This information, coupled with the wonderful ideas proffered in his July/August ’08 KM Review article, Closing The Deal With The Help Of Knowledge (with Keith De La Rue of Acknowledge Consulting), serves as a solid “bootcamp” on selling your KM strategy for practitioners.

Everyone say 'thanks Matt'. “Thanks Matt!”

Click here to access the wiki version of the Justifying Your KM Program paper and here to access the PDF version.

Click here to access the PDF version of the Closing The Deal With The Help Of Knowledge article.

And just for good measure, a link to one of my personal favorite reads on the subject of sales and networking, Jeffrey Gitomer's Little Black Book of Connections. Jeff has written a Little Red Book of Selling, but I think the Little Black Book is the better starting point since it focuses on networking and building relationships (which is an essential part of the KM role, in my opinion). As Jeff writes, "The questions that you ask, the ideas that you bring to the table, and your communication skills, combined with your passion, belief, and attitude, are the fundamentals of what it takes to connect."

Cross-Posted: The Wisdom of Crowds Reigns Supreme

“Generally, no one person is smarter than the collective wisdom of the group," James Surowiecki, author of The Wisdom of Crowds

Before leaving my post at the CDC a few weeks ago, I snagged the following article which was posted to the CDC intranet. It's a brief article that I thought contained great insight for KM professionals. In 2004, Dave Pollard presented a model of how to implement Surowiecki's principles which can be found here.

The collective wisdom of diverse crowds generally gets it right, was the message of best-selling author James Surowiecki, who gave the opening plenary address to over 950 attendees at the recent CDC-sponsored National Conference on Health Communication, Marketing, and Media. Longtime HIV/AIDS activist Sandra Thurman was also a featured plenary presenter. Both speakers had important messages about expanding our traditional methods for all CDC staff in addition to attendees.

The Wisdom of Crowds: Tapping Collective Wisdom of your Organization

In the opening plenary, New York Times best-selling author James Surowiecki mentioned several key points from his book The Wisdom of Crowds, subtitled: Why the Many Are Smarter than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations. “Tapping into the collective wisdom of your organization can radically improve your ability to solve problems, make forecasts, and think strategically,” he said. “Under the right conditions, groups of people can be very intelligent and can be smarter than the smartest person among them.”

As an example of the wisdom of crowds, Surowiecki talked about finance professor Jack Treynor’s classic jellybean experiment of having students guess the number of jellybeans in a jar. The group’s guess was 850; the actual number of jellybeans was 871. The number of people who did better than the group: 1 out of 56. “Generally, no one person is smarter than the collective wisdom of the group,” said Surowiecki.

In another example, Surowiecki made reference to the TV show, Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? whereby contestants can get help in answering a question by phoning an “expert” friend in a particular subject, or polling the audience. The friend gets it right 65 percent of the time. The audience: 91 percent. “Even as problems get more complicated, we can see this phenomenon take place,” Surowiecki said.
To make crowds smarter, and to take advantage of the collective wisdom of crowds, Surowiecki mentioned three things that are needed:

1. A tool or method to aggregate lots of individual judgments into a collective one. Aggregation matters.
2. Diversity — The more diverse the group, the better the decisions it will make, and the less likely that everyone in the crowd will make the same mistake. The errors people make will cancel themselves out. Diversity should expand beyond background and experience to cognitive diversity, which relates to how a person represents a problem and solves a problem.
3. Independence — People like to think of themselves as independent thinkers, but oftentend to follow the imitation route. Imitation can be rational, easy, and safe, but if everyone is imitating, they’re not tapping into the wisdom of crowds. Genuine disagreement is needed for the wisdom of crowds to emerge.

Surowiecki reminded the audience that knowledge is often located in places they may not usually consider. “So look beyond the surface when you think about who should be among the crowd.” Attendees buzzed about the need for expanding our traditional “crowds” and tapping into the larger group’s wisdom.

'Green' KM?

It's official, I have achieved Olympic burnout. After watching the Games non-stop on three channels, day and night, I've just gotta catch some zzzz's. I'm still trying to watch some of the Track and Field events, but no more qualifiers and heats for me...gimme the medal action only so I can finally get rid of these bags under my eyes!!!

Anywho, a few months back I was interviewing for a KM spot with a design firm when I was asked about my familiarity with working in a 'green' environment. I haven't had the chance to work in such an environment and I wondered if, for the purpose of KM, it really even mattered. I mean, when I think of a 'green' environment, off the top of my head I think about making the workspace environmentally friendly (recycling bins, oxygenating plants, maybe a little feng shui in the layout of the space). Integrating a 'green' approach into a design philosophy? I can see that, but 'green' KM?

Then, a couple of weeks ago, I was reading some random article on organizational ecology and I wondered if this was (or somehow related to) 'green' KM.

Fingers tapping on the desk...still wondering.

So then, I started working on this post and, originally, I was just looking to explore possible connections between organizational ecology and 'green' philosophies and the implications of being 'green' on KM. But, when I really got into it, I started to realize the potential value of taking a 'green' approach to the implementation of a KM strategy, much in the same I've utlized a 'guerilla' approach in past assignments.

While there seems to be plenty of wrong ways to implement a KM strategy, I certainly don't believe that there is any one right way. It all boils down to the type of culture your dealing with and who you are as a Knowledge Manager. And now I'm eager to explore other socio-political approaches to "selling" KM to an organization and achieving cultural buy-in and adoption. I'll be sure to post here as I discover them.

The 'green' movement - so you don't have to open a new tab and google it - revolves around the promotion of an ecosophy and the adoption/application of environmentally responsible practices and behaviors in order to protect and respect our natural environment. These practices can include using alternative energy and fuels, green building and remodeling materials and practices, organic and natural foods, natural medicine and health, hybrid and electric cars and motorcycles, forestry management, natural body care, recyclable carpet and clothing, eco-friendly diapers, wind-powered appliances, solar water heating and much more.

Politically speaking, Greens, focus on ecological and environmental issues, as well as civil rights and social justice.

So, can KM be 'green'? I'm starting to think yes! In his Lifehack article, Getting Green Done, Dustin Wax suggests that David Allen’s Getting Things Done: The Art of Stress-Free Productivity is a good guide to Green living "since the principles of Green living are not all that different from the principles we use to help us be more productive."

He goes on to propose these 6 Principles of Green Living:

1. Simplicty: more stuff means more complexity — more upkeep, more keeping track, more things to do.
2. Fairness: we consume so much because we can — and we can because we don’t deal fairly with everyone involved.
3. Community: too much of our world market is out of sight, and therefore out of mind.
4. Sustainability: a system is sustainable when the negative outputs of that system are accommodated and turned into positive outputs. most of our global production is not sustainable!
5. Planning: planning means looking ahead towards a desired outcome; it also means thinking a little bit about the community that isn’t here yet and dealing fairly with them. creating sustainability requires planning!
6. Transparency:decisions these days are made behind closed doors. a green society requires the active involvement of all its participants!

By the by, I encourage EVERYONE to read this article. Not only will it provide more context for these principles, but it's a quick read that will give you something to think about.

Dustin sums up his manifesto with a potent declaration to those who are truly committed to going 'green': "...we can’t do all the work. We can’t even do a tiny fraction of the work. We can suggest, prod, provide tricks and hacks, but in the end, you’re going to have to make some decisions, to think about how your actions fit in with you values, whatever they are."

This statement, which echoes current KM crush Heifetz's views on adaptive leadership, applies equally to the person(s) responsible for developing and implementing KM strategies and the organizational community (both the leadership and the rank-and-file). Ironically, this seems to be one of the biggest challenges for organizations, not just with KM, but with any initiative that seems to clash with or challenge the bottom-line goal of profit. Unfortunately, "profit" is not a value. Although, perhaps organizations need to take a look at what they're willing to do (actions) in the pursuit of profit and how well it squares up with their actual values.

Now, let's apply these principles to KM! And, there's no real order to these, just keep them in mind as you're developing your strategy.

Simplicty
I'm sure most folks are familiar with the KISS methodology - 'Keep It Simple Stupid'. Greens would equate this to measuring and, subsequently reducing, your ecological footprint, which is the impact you have on the natural environment. In terms of KM, I define it as being stealthy and minimally invasive in your KM efforts. One of the ways I attempt to achieve this is by integrating existing technologies that work, rather than trying to introduce a radical new technology or process. When new processes are necessary, recognize and appreciate the potential for disruption, and roll them out in steps.

Fairness
Almost all of the KM strategies I've been involved with and have discussed with folks are developed, exclusively, from the perspective of the organization and seen as a benefit to the organization and, subsequently, to employees who live to see another paycheck, but a 'green' approach invites you to take a closer look at your strategy and ask (1) how well it acknowledges the true value - to the holder - of the knowledge/information you're asking folks to share and, (2) what your true intentions are with regards to that knowledge/information. It's one thing to say knowledge sharing doesn't diminish an individuals value to the organization, but do you really mean it and do your policies/practices actually support this statement? Be honest, because if you're not sure, then it's likely your employees don't believe it either and that will result in a poor knowledge sharing community or, at best, an immature one.

This is why I preach the merits of KM participation as a means of developing one's Personal Competitive Advantage (PCA). I believe it's critical to help an organization's workers/employees become aware of what this is and how they can and should develop theirs. Being aware of the real value of one's knowledge and the personal benefit of knowledge sharing can only enhance KM efforts. Moreover, organizations that want to remain competitive need to quit "shuckin' and jivin'" and start dealing more fairly with their workers in terms of salary and work-life balance. Contrary to popular opinion, the rank-and-file aren't stupid; they simply give as good as they get. Which, when you think about it is pretty smart; why sweat blood and tears for a business you don't own, that has no loyalty to you, so that someone else can get rich? It's appalling how little regard people can have for others in pursuit of the almighty dollar. The bottom line: as long as your bottom-line is money, don't expect your KM efforts to bear anywhere near the kind of fruit they could be bearing if your bottom-line was people (and that means people other than you, lol.)

Community
Get in the trenches! I know that I'm in love with my knowledge audit and not everyone does one (or, necessarily, needs to) but I'll be damned if it isn't the ever-lovin' dumbest thing in the whole wide world to come up with a strategy from on high at a distance.

Or, maybe that's just how I see it.

After all, I tend to see knowledge management as community development, so I can't understand for a minute how, on Earth, someone could come up with a strategy to develop a community without getting in the trenches with said community. Knowledge management is dependent upon sharing information and resources in community. for this to happen people need to develop relationships with one another predicated on mutual trust, respect, and recognition of their interdependence; the Knowledge Manager should be a force for building that type of community. And, by doing so you can greater insight into how your KM strategy will be most effective.

Sometimes perspective makes all the difference.

Sustainability
Truly, Dustin says it best:

A system is sustainable when the negative outputs of that system are accommodated and turned into positive outputs. Think about your working life — if you weren’t getting paid, would you work so hard? Your hard work — a negative thing — is converted into something positive — a paycheck. Your employer turns the negative output — paying more money — into a positive input — increased revenue. The system sustains itself — or it collapses. If you aren’t getting paid enough, you quit working hard, revenues shrink, the employer goes out of business. Or they start putting in more and more inputs; using military forces to compel labor is not unheard of. Eventually those systems collapse too, when the cost of maintaining them outweighs the benefits produced by them. And they often collapse violently. Most of our global production is not sustainable.

It's not enough to develop and implement a KM strategy, it needs to be sustainable beyond anyone acting in an official Knowledge Manager capacity. In order for that to happen, it needs to accommodate the negative outputs of the organization (knowledge hoarding, fears of diminished value, layoffs/downsizing, change fatigue, working more for less, etc.) and turn them into a positive output (increased Personal Competitive Advantage, ease of access to information needed to complete your job, better workplace relationships, stronger market position of the company which must lead to increased financial rewards for everyone, less stressful work environment, improved work-life balance, etc.).

Ask yourself, how long your organization's formal KM strategy would last if the KM team were no more and what it would take for your answer to be 'indefinitely', then make it so.

Planning
As Dustin writes, "creating sustainability requires planning".

I'm reminded here of work I've done establishing mission and vision statements. The mission is what you intend to do; it describes your goals and purpose, your intentions. The vision describes what you'd like to achieve; what the results of your efforts might look like in some utopian future.

The mission is more matter of fact while the vision doesn't necessarily have to be realistic or achievable. In fact, some believe it should have a certain unattainable utopian quality to it, representing the highest ideal and providing a lofty goal to aspire to.

The combination of mission and vision is what drives an organizations goals from quarter-to-quarter, year-to-year.

Planning a susttained, strategic KM initiative should follow similar guidelines.

Operate in the present with your eye on the future, thinking in terms of changes and innovations in technology, the workforce, politics, market forces, the environment, and social movements and the impact on your organization and how you might respond strategically.

Here, I like to think of the impact of file sharing on the music industry. I remember back in the mid-90's when Blockbuster was large-and-in-charge with both music and video stores and they had announced a plan to burn CD's in-store, allowing customers to buy both regular and custom CD's, charging by the song. And then, without explanation, the plan fell through, most likely because the larger recording industry wanted to control the market as much as possible to generate as much profit as possible.

The result: within three years file-sharing had become rampant. And, within ten years, despite a lot of those early lawsuits against universities average Jo-ann college student, file sharing has become the norm and you can hardly find a store that deals exclusively in CD's and records.

The lesson: Change is inevitable no matter how much you want to be in control or "manage" things. Trying to maintain too much control might just cost you big in the long run. Sometimes all you can do is keep an eye on the future and have a plan for riding the wave. The good news is that forward-thinking organizations who keep up with the trends are often able to capitalize on them and set a few of their own.

Transparency
Two years ago, I was interviewing for a consulting job with IBM and - no lie - I was asked to give the most convoluted, technical definition of knowledge management that I could come up with.

I couldn't believe it.

Especially since, after years of having to explain KM as simply as possible to professors and classmates...my family...I sorta prided myself on being able to keep things simple and create some sort of understanding of what KM is (loosely speaking) and what it can do.

Idealism aside, transparency in business isn't always feasible and often many stakeholders are asked to participate in the operation of an organization with limited knowledge and involvement. Like it or not, "sometimes it be's like that", hahaha. However, KM doesn't have to be one of the areas where transparency is an issue, particularly if you're dealing with change fatigue and a general suspicion about what KM is and its impact on an individuals value to the organization. As a self-professed authoritarian, I understand that many times it isn't that we can't bring everyone into the decision-making process, we just don't want to drag the process out by being overly democratic.

But guess what? Cultural changes are made and driven by the culture. Ya-huh.

Besides, the goal here isn't so much to give everyone a say and put every decision up for a vote, it's to adopt a protocol for sharing information that supports full disclosure. After all, it's the responsibility of each stakeholder to make themselves aware of what's going on with KM, but it's the Knowledge Manager's responsibility to make that information available, accessible, and digestable (understood) and provide a vehicle for responding to any and all questions, concerns, and comments. It's this approach that promotes and develops community which promotes sustainability.

So, whodathunk it, 'green' KM.

Now, I've got that line from the G.I. Joe PSA's that used to air after each episode stuck in my head: "Now we know!" "And knowing is half the battle."

So funny.