KM: The First 90 Days

NOTE: Not 10 minutes after publishing this post I hopped over to Green Chameleon to get my weekly 'fix' and sure enough there was a post (from Monday) on Cory Bank's First 180 Days. Now that's synchronicity! Take a moment to check out Cory's 'Corz and Effect' blog. (8/31/08)

Yesterday, I was working on a blog post for another topic, thinking about the process of selling KM, when it came to me (through a series of incidental thoughts) how the thing that would have been most helpful to me with my earlier positions in KM would have been a plan for my first 90 days on the job.

Hindsight is 20/20, unless the alcohol blurs the details or you just don't want to remember, but I do recall, several times, starting out and wishing that I'd had more direction...more strategic objectives...to kick-off my KM efforts (and make me look like less of a bumbling idiot).

In one position, I remember receiving my 90-day evaluation and, despite having completed all of the documented goals that had been set, being taken to task for not acheiving a bunch of unspoken expectations (both of me and KM). Following this experience, I came to realize...okay, immediately following this experience I was looking crazy as hell, but several months down the road what I came to realize was the importance of truly owning a project - being thorough and ambitious in setting goals beyond, even, what might be formally agreed upon; reading between the lines and intuiting as much information as you can from what isn't said; and, most importantly, establishing yourself as the expert.

Nowadays, whenever I begin a KM project, I go in with two things (three, if you count my quirky personality): a KM roadmap, which I pass out like candy to everyone in the organization with even a passing interest, and my 90-Day Plan Checklist, which I keep taped (and hidden) inside the cover of my little notebook/planner. Regardless of what goals I may set with the person or people to which I report (these tend to be a bit on the conservative side), my checklist is on and poppin' and focused on the following goals:

Goals For The First 90 Days

• Market KM - Create a 'buzz' around the organization and build some interest, excitement...or both!
• Demonstrate your value to the organization - Reaffirm the organization's investment in and commitment to you!
• Develop a strategy - One that spells out both short-term and long-term KM goals!
• Produce a deliverable - At least one, but the more the better!

90-Day Checklist

1. Complete your Knowledge Audit
It's basic business sense that every good project begins with a good evaluation of the situation. A comprehensive knowledge audit provides all of the information needed for creating a KM strategy. Components of the audit include:

• Auditing existing knowledge assets, learning systems, organizational practices and behaviors
• Identifying and evaluating organizational needs and challenges
• Mapping knowledge flows (how information is shared across the organization)
• Understanding and setting expectations of KM
• Defining and documenting the scope and vision of/for KM
• Aligning KM strategy with business strategy; and,
• Achieving buy-in of the KM vision/scope

2. Know the political landscape and confirm at least 3-5 allies
Understanding the environment and the culture in which you are working is critical! There are so many 'X-Factors' that can jack up your KM efforts and a lot of them have to do with political forces that existed long before you came on board. Add to that any lingering change fatigue and the geneal uneasiness of either a new or resurrected strategy that might be perceived as a distraction from getting work done or a stab at someone's power base and you've got a potential hot potato on your hands.

By confirming at least 3-5 allies - people who understand and believe in what you're doing - you're beginning the process of building your own power base. And trust me, eventually you're gonna need it!

3. Convert 1 Skeptic
It's extremely rare not to have any naysayers. These are people who either don't believe in the utility or credibility of KM or who simply don't think you're up to the task. When faced with these folks resist the urge to tune them out. There's no better marketing tactic than turning your haters into supporters (even if it's begruding support). Just remember not to be to ambitious on this point. The deeper the cynicism, the more time involved in conversion; save your biggest critic for the next 90 days!

4. Complete your strategy blueprint
I tend to take a consultative approach to the interview process, so if and when I get a job it's usually based on the high-level strategy overview that I present to prospective employers (the result of early interviews and some deft research into the organization, its industry, and competitors). Because of this, I always have the shell of a strategy just waiting for the results of the knowledge audit. However, even if you're starting from scratch, after 90-Days (depending on the size of the organization) you should be ready to present a detailed strategy blueprint for review. You KM strategy blueprint should:

• Document and outline the KM/Change strategy
• Set goals and establish pre-implementation ROI metrics (e.g., Potential for improved performance, Estimated implementation costs, Worth analysis - verifies the worth of implementing KM/Change initiatives by comparing costs against potential outcomes)
• Define critical success factors and key performance indicators (KPIs)
• Identify, prioritize, and estimate functional requirements
• Document and outline branding strategy (Comprehensive marketing and training plans to support deployment)
• Design the KM team
• Identify the tools and resources needed to implement strategy
• Determine “build (internal) vs. buy (outsource)” with regards to KM applications/tools
• Evaluate availability and efficacy of both internal and external resources/tools

5. Market KM
If you ask me what I think are the three keys to a successful KM strategy I'll tell you this: (1) a knowledgeable, assertive, dedicated KM professional, (2) a committed, supportive, and invested organizational leadership, and (3) a rock-solid marketing plan.

KM has to be managed like a product - one that know one really understands and which folks are prematurely led to believe they won't like. Think about a movie that you are dead-set against going to see (maybe the reviews were bad, maybe the previews weren't flattering or appealing), but then someone drags you to see it and, surprise, you love it! That's exactly what you're dealing with and, with a kick-ass marketing plan and a smokin' KM strategy, hopefully the end results will be the same. (Note: All of the marketing in the world can't fix a bad strategy. Your marketing efforst will be for naught if, as author, entrepreneur and consulting guru Rob Ryan says, "the dogs will not eat the dog food.")

How do you market KM?

• Within your first week have HR or your boss email an announcement on your appointment with a brief description of your duties and background
• Hold one KM brown bag each month
• Claim some "real estate" on the corporate intranet site for KM messages and announcements
• Host a company 'networking' mixer for employees
• Establish and publish a weekly or bi-weekly e-newsletter highlighting current organizational activity (folks love to talk about themselves even if you have to spend time alternating between being Sherlock Holmes and Lois Lane)
• Establish and publish regular KM 'Impact' Reports which, rather than focusing on organizational activity, provide a brief summary of the economic (impact on the bottom line) and social (influence on the culture) results of KM efforts.

6. Solve a couple of minor problems and pluck some low-hanging fruit!
Lately, I've been hooked on the Facebook application, Mob Wars, the goal of which is to rise up the criminal ranks from petty criminal to head of a mafia empire (none of that Sonny Corinthos bubble-gum mafia for me!) Surprisingly, I'm addicted. The quickest way to make money, build experience, and move up is to complete relatively minor 'jobs' (muggings, burglary, liquor store robberies...that kind of stuff). Tackling 'low-hanging fruit' in your first 90-days is pretty much the same deal. Problems are identified easily during routine "getting to know you" conversations with folks. Even if these problems aren't exactly KM-centric, your ability to satisfy their need is what will win them over and ingratiate you. This is what builds a power base.

And sure, you want to avoid being some kind of corporate 'cleaner' that everyone runs to for all of their miscellaneous needs, but that's a problem for the next 90 days (or the 90 after that), in the first 90 days your goal is simply to be recognized as a problem-solver who adds value to the organization.

Hope this helps someone to avoid some of the mistakes I made starting out.

Cheers!

Commentary: Is KM Dead?

"Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated." - Mark Twain

Though I'm not usually one for "blurb" blogging, I was planning on doing just that with this video gem (click the title of this post to access) of my current KM-crush, Patrick Lambe, discussing whether or not KM is dead (or dying) with KM gurus Larry Prusak and Dave Snowden.

While the video features a provocative discussion for the entire KM community, I was initially intrigued/humored by the comments on the management aspect of KM and Dave Snowden's mention of his dressing down by Peter Drucker with regards to Frederick Taylor because I just blogged about putting the 'M' back into KM and happened to vilify Taylor and Taylorism all in the same post. Coincidentally, Peter Drucker considers Taylor to be the Father of KM. Based solely on the principles of scientific management, as I understand them, I'm not sure how comfortable I am with that idea. I am willing to concede that these principles (with some tweaking, in certain types of organizations) miiiight make for good management (so noble of me, I know), but good knowledge management...ehhh. Anyway, I've downloaded copies of The Principles of Scientific Management and also Shop Management to read in their entirety to see if I can be persuaded otherwise.

Just as a side note, my overall issue with scientific management is that I feel that it reduces people to cogs in a machine rather than lifting them up to their potential. Take McDonald's, for example: several years ago they started using cash registers with pictures of food items instead of the names of menu items or numbers(?; I'm still hoping they have numbers). That's classic Taylorism - you don't have to read or be able to do rudimentary math anymore, just look for the picture! Think about that and tell me how this style of management is supposed to make us more competitive and cutting-edge as a nation in the global knowledge economy.

Blame it on my adult education background, but I think that scientific management reinforces and perpetuates a poor work ethic, a negative (cultural) mentality about work, in general, and stifles creativity. Some may say that's not the goal or purpose of management, I say that neither is objectification. Understanding people and managing accordingly is smart business. (Yes, that's a simplification, but I'm not trying to get into a big discussion on this point right now).

Ironically, the structure of scientific management is exactly what a lot of organizations are seeking in a KM strategy largely because it's familiar and comfortable to them; it's easier to bend KM around what they know, than to explore new (untried, risky, possibly flawed) ways of thinking and doing business. Going back to Roger Martin's eye opening article on making design work, Tough Love - what I still believe is the new guide for understanding how to make make KM work - the reason "why most executives prefer the known to the unknown...it's a lot easier and safer to run a billion-dollar business than it is to invent one." Amen brother. Cogs don't innovate, people do.

I told ya, don't get me started on Taylorism.

Anyway, now that I'm worried Peter Drucker wouldn't come to my dinner party (if I could invite anyone who ever lived....everybody has a list like that, right?), I was, as I wrote earlier, initially intrigued and humored by the discussion, but then I started getting pissy.

First, there was Lambe's comment about the "lack of a coherent practice community". A couple of months ago I blogged about the need for KM certification, KM-specific continuing ed programs, and the establishment of an oversight board to develop generally accepted KM standards/practices. When I set out to get feedback on this idea from various practitioners, I received a dressing down of my own. I was utterly shocked by the vehemence of the responses (against the idea) and yet, I've been hard-pressed to find strong communities of practice that have been successful at organizing their own knowledge resources (that's called irony...you know, because some of us get paid to create CoP's for a living). Rather, I tend to find pockets of like-minded folks who work in the same industry (or for the same employer) who more or less bitch-and-moan/sympathize/commiserate with one another over their trials and tribulations (not unlike the ladies of Sex & The City, though probably less fashionably).

The "lack of a coherent practice community" comment led to a comment about the average lifespan of a knowledge manager being 1-2 years. If you've read my blog posts about my frustration with staying inspired within the field then you should know that I'm not surprised by this at all. If someone like me, who's entire academic career and subsquent professional career has revolved around knowledge management; and I mean, entering directly into the field of knowledge management, not tangentially, has experienced burn-out within just a few years of graduation, it's not hard to imagine what other practitioners are feeling.

Which of course, begs the questions: (1) If there were a such a community, might there be less turnover within the field, a weaker perception of the field-as-fad, and more interest in KM as an acceptable business practice? And, (2) Would anyone be asking if KM is dead? If the answer to the first question is somewhere in the neighborhood of 'maybe' ('maybe not' for the second) then why the hell am I getting flack for suggesting some structure to the field?!?!?!

The more I watched, the more I upset I became, not necessarily because of anything specific that was said, but because, as a practitioner, I'm in the field everyday; I deal with organizations that need the understanding that I bring to the table, but are hard-pressed to reframe their perceptions of how businesses should operate, even as the markets they operate in swifly change around them. And, when there is still so much potential for KM to realize, so much opportunity for growth within the field, two of the fields most recognizable names (and my KM-crush) are speaking of its death. And, not even because KM has outlived or outgrown it's usefulness, but because misconceptions and misapplications of KM have failed to bear fruit.

How indeed is the community supposed to survive, when its leaders are sounding its funeral knell?

Clearly, I don't believe that KM is dead? Battered, beaten, tortured, viciously maligned and left on the side of the road to die maybe, but not dead.

And there are no walking dead, either.

What we have are organizations who have identified and acknowledged needs who continue to seek out solutions to their problems (and people to develop them), even after other such persons have been driven off (fairly or not) - Frankenstein-style - with pitchforks and torches. Even when KM (either as they've defined it or as it has been sold to them) is pronounced a sham, the need that originated their interest in KM still remains.

In my opinion, the issue that most organizations have with authentic KM (as a fundamental business process, not an off-the-shelf, replicable solution), is their general unwillingness to construct and invest in KM as a business practice that forces them outside of their comfort zones. The field of KM has become fragmented, as discussed in the video, as a direct result of organizations attemping to hijack (and circumvent) KM and break it down into smaller, structured, more palatable, and more controllable (scientifically managed) components that allow them to continue doing what they do (in a slightly different way) without having to completely invest in KM, which they don't understand. As a result, any change is minimal or purely cosmetic. In general, I don't see fragmentation alone as a bad thing - these can all be aspects of KM and a KM solution, adopted as the organization becomes comfortable with proposed changes. It's only when folks try establish these fragments, these singular aspects of KM as wholly knowledge management that I see a problem.

Furthermore, I think that this is a problem that practitioners allow to fester when we refuse to step up and organize ourselves in order to manage perceptions of what knowledge management is (and isn't) and what Knowledge Managers do. Now, I'm not saying that we need to have strictly defined roles and labels for KM professionals and KM activity, we know that the work we do involves wearing many hats, but we need to be able to explain, at a minimum, what knowledge management is, what a Knowledge Manager is, and what separates vastly different knowledge management professionals from one another (e.g., knowledge architect vs knowledge librarian vs knowledge analyst).

There is a tremendous lack of information about, oversight and direction for the field of KM. And, many of the KM strategies that are being developed and implemented are done so in the absence of this information and direction. In the absence of firm definitions and a defining concept of KM, organizations operate under misconceptions that are not well-founded/grounded and ultimately fall apart.

As to KM, in general, while the term knowledge management may be recent (relatively speaking), the central idea of knowledge management (managing the sum of your resources for better, more efficient use) has been around for a long time. In this regard, I am willing to acknowledge the influence and historical relevance of scientific management. However, 'managing' knowledge isn't like herding goats or building a better lemming, despite the fact that some businesses continue to operate as though we were in the middle of the industrial economy (and others, the agricultural economy). And, it's attempts at syncretizing KM with the principles of scientific management that have left us discussing whether to burn or bury.

I say, for now at least, pass the torch to the next generation and let's see what we can do with KM before writing the field's obituary.

Putting the 'M' (Back?) in KM

OR, "Everything I Ever Really Needed To Know About Management I Learned Captaining a Tennis Team"

Wow, I can't believe it's almost been two months since my last post. In June, I was working on a Gossip Girl inspired KM post to mark the end of the series' first season, but between the untimely passing of a good friend and drama surrounding the project I'm currently working on, I haven't had much desire to blog. This past weekend however, the dark clouds of my project have passed over and I'm gradually becoming a little less melancholy about my friend.

It also helps that the Summer USTA and ALTA season's have come to an end. I'm always excited at the start of each tennis season but, to be frank, I'm equally excited when it's over. Captaining one team is like holding down a part-time job, captaining two teams is stressful as all-get-out! Being team Captain though (and interacting with all of those other captains) has emphasized for me how supremely easy it is to be a crappy manager (regardless of results) and, also, how little recognition good managers can receive from their 'troops', superiors, and peers. Sometimes, I think that good managers don't truly get noticed and appreciated until the shit hits the fan and their skills and experience come to the rescue.

That's actual skill and experience I'm talking about...not luck; know the difference.

At the same time, I've been on the receiving end of some really bad management with my current project (micro-management, bureaucracy, poor planning, tunnel vision - the works). So, my work and play activities have coalesced into this commentary on the importance of management in knowledge management.

Most Knowledge Managers, at some point, have been (or will be) asked how exactly one manages knowledge. For my part, I'm able to recognize when this question is a genuine attempt to understand what KM is all about and when the inquirer is asking solely to be an argumentative ass. Still, I think that it's worth pointing out the need for Knowledge Managers to perceive of and conduct themselves as managers in every sense.

With KM, it's easy to get caught up in strategy design, systems design, processes, taxonomies and a range of tasks - big and small - associated with capturing and organizing information and knowledge-based activity and resources. So much so that the term 'manager' in KM is used more often as a verb than a noun. But, regardless if you are the sole KM resource in your organization or you have an actual staff working with you, shouldn't it be both?

Putting the 'M' (back?) in KM, emphasizing the management aspect of knowledge management, is critical to promoting a sense of empowerment among KM professionals. As Dr. Gerard Blair writes in his article, What Makes A Great Manager:

"When you become a manager, you gain control over your own work; not all of it, but some of it. You can change things. You can do things differently. You actually have the authority to make a huge impact upon the way in which your staff work. You can shape your own work environment."

A manager has influence and authority. A capital 'KM' Knowledge Manager is a change agent; a lower case 'km' knowledge manager is a functionary. It may seem like semantics, but how we are perceived (by others and ourselves) can have a tremendous impact on how we perform, what we feel capable of achieving, and what we actually accomplish.

Despite our designation, Knowledge Managers are not exclusively managing knowledge or information (even though that's clearly a responsibility of the job). We are also in the business of managing relationships that influence how information is shared; how shared information becomes (and generates) knowledge; and how the combination of relationships, knowledge, and information can be leveraged for a variety of purposes (and if you're not, then you should be!)

How each of us achieves our KM goals will vary greatly - that goes without saying - but principles of good management are universal and an important factor in the success of KM...if not the strategy itself, then at least the person/people guiding the strategy.

In his critical reflection, "Confessions of a Reformed Manager: Seven Principles for Becoming a Good Manager", Leadership Trainer & Coach, Randy Siegel offers the following seven principles for becoming a good manager:

• Good managers know themselves.
• Good managers share themselves, as well as their knowledge.
• Good management is servant leadership.
• Good managers manage the whole person.
• Good managers thrive on feedback.
• Good managers constantly check in with their intentions.
• When good managers make mistakes, they correct them fast.

By inserting 'knowledge' before manager in each of these statements, we begin to see how relevant these principles are to the work we do as well as the way in which we do it.

For my part, I'm not sure if I would describe myself as a great manager (that's like describing yourself as looking "hot" or being a "great catch"....conceited much?!?!) and I'll refrain from climbing up on my usual soapbox and 'enligtening' the masses with Management According to Christian. There are, after all, thousands of books and articles on the subject just waiting to be read. However, in closing, I will share what I've learned about being a manager from my role as team Captain.

Everything I Ever Really Needed To Know About Management I Learned From Captaining A Tennis Team

Communication
You can post messages on the team management site (that everyone knows about because you badgered them to log-on and setup their profile), send out the most carefully constructed, colorful, catchy, concise and detailed emails known to mankind (twice), and a supporting text message, for good measure, and it's still a sure bet that the night before your match more than one person will be clueless as to whether or not they're playing, when, where, and what food contribution their meant to bring.

In your personal life, over-communication may be relationship suicide, but in tennis and business matters it's better to over do it than get caught ass-out. The trick is to understand the variety of ways you have access to your people and treat each critical communiqué as all out war.

Or you could pull a 'Miranda Priestly' and just have everyone be deathly afraid of you and hang on your every word.

Yeah, that works too.

Leadership
As Salt 'n Pepa so eloquently rhymed in their 1995 Grammy Award-winning song, 'None of Your Business', "Opinions are like assholes and everybody's got one".

So harsh, yet so true.

Ironically, while few want the responsibility of leadership (even less so once they realize what the work involves), almost everyone wants to tell you how to do your job. Often, it seems like you spend more time managing criticism than anything else.

While being a great manager involves eliciting and considering feedback, it's important to remember that, ultimately, the buck stops with you and your level of accountability is the highest of your team. So, set boundaries and heed your own counsel (unless you have a poor track record of making good decisions, then don't).

And, when able, always make leadership decisions that minimize your personal levels of stress and aggravation. Don't go putting yourself out unnecessarily; masochism is so '80s.

Vision
A good Vision is contagious.

I have a vision that one day my team will not only be recognized for the outstanding food and hospitality we offer our opponents, but will take the State championship as well. I'm still waiting for that day to arrive (hopefully before Hell's wildly anticpated freezing over), but for now I'm content with the reputation that my team has created for being fun-loving, amiable, and fantastic hosts! Teams in other divisions talk about us and even players who leave my team to join others or create their own take that vision with them and try to emulate it. In business, that kind of buy-in is priceless.

The key: keep it simple, make it achieveable, and, most importantly, believe in it yourself!

Planning
Hard to believe, but playing League tennis has done wonders for my planning skills. Not surprisingly since, quite literally, you have to begin planning for the next season as soon as the current one begins (at least with ALTA).

As a result, you come to understand that planning is an on-going process. Short-term, you're planning each week's matches, lineups, and practice sessions (which are driven by the previous week's performance); simultaneously, for the long-term, you're planning the next season - securing courts, recruiting new players, maybe trying out new coaches; and all of this planning activity is interconnected and under the umbrella of your overall vision for the team.

While your team members are focused on the very next match they are going to play, you have to be able to see both the details and the bigger picture. In the beginning, it's daunting, to be sure, but blessedly, it can all be learned. Which is a good thing too, because the workplace is significantly less forgiving environment to learn some lessons.

Motivation
Ah, now we come to the area that most challenges my leadership skills. All I can say is Thank God IRB approval isn't necessary to be Team Captain 'cause I'm sure I'd be sitting before a tribunal by now facing some sort of ethics charges. Okay, maybe it's not that bad and I'm certainly no B.F. Skinner or (IMO, the anti-Christ of knowledge management) 'Dick' Taylor (don't ever get me started on my utter dislike of scientific management/Taylorism, but trying to understand what motivates the variety of players on any team - work or play - and then implement motivational techniques/strategies is enough to drive anyone bonkers. I've tried various incentives, disincentives and positive and negative reinforcement tactics; next season I'm even pushing the team up to a higher level of play to encourage a stronger sense of competition.

I suppose, if I've learned anything about motivation it's that you have to start by recruiting team members who have a good attitude to begin with. And, you have to be willing to get rid of people with a bad attitude. Again, it sounds harsh, but in the long run you aren't doing yourself any favors by indulging the whims of divas and "Bad Andy's". Beyond that, focus on developing people's potential; the more success they lay claim to, the more they want and that can be priceless motivation.

For example, I have players on my team that started out with little or no tennis experience and no one wanted to play with them (as a doubles team). Less than a year later they are, undoubtedly, they were (and still are) the most popular players on the team (as well as some of the best). Contrast that with the players who came on board as self-styled 'rock stars' who are definitely good players, but their egos take up so much room on the court that few people want to play with them. Each season I've had to uninvite at least one of these folks from the team. It's hard to 'fire' folks that don't fit the team you're managing, but at all times you've got to do what's best for the team.

Strategy

"What's the use of running if you are not on the right
road?" - German proverb

For the purpose of full disclosure, I must admit, modestly, of course, that I'm fortunate enough to be something of a strategist, naturally. While my duties as Captain have benefitted from this skill, it's my on-court time that has helped to sharpen them.

During a match, too many players (even some of mine) enter into play with Plan A and when that falls apart so does their game. You see this happen with business strategies all the time. If you're a smart cookie, you learn the art of continuously developing strategies - from Plan A to Plan AAA - re-evaluating your options and taking a new approach to your game, as needed and on-the-fly, for the duration of your match.

Of course, sometimes you just get out-played, it happens. But, in either sport or business, having a quick mind and being able to keep your wits about you in stressful situations is what keeps you one step ahead in the game.

Accounting for KM: I ♥ Patrick Lambe

If you can't tell from my blog, I'm pretty irreverent.

While there are a few things I like to keep traditional (NY-style cheesecake sans toppings, Sunday Brunch, Gin Martini's, Presbyterian Church services with classical hymns - none of those contemporary services for me, bub!), I'm otherwise a white-after-Labor-Day wearing, sex-politics-religion talking kinda guy. Back when I was a student at Georgia State, absorbing anything and everything KM that I could get my hands on, it's my irreverence that I credit with helping me to separate the wheat from the chaff of KM lit as well as seek inspiration from other sources/fields - Psychology, Economics, Marketing, Education...Pokémon.

Yes, Pokémon.

I wrote a paper entitled "Pokémon As a Metaphor for Knowledge Management: Gotta Catch 'Em All!"...hardly worthy of KM World or InsideKnowledge, but I got an 'A'! (If you think that's interesting, I got my one and only tattoo just for an Organizational Devevlopment class project in which we had to present analyses and comparisons of three businesess in the same field. We chose tattoo parlors. And, again, got an 'A'. When I get my PhD I'm going to get something pierced, lol.)

Yes, I rock. I know. Totally OOC (out of control).

Anyway, having read a lot of crap on the subject of KM, I'm not one to fawn over the rockstars of KM (even though I have the list). Usually, I'm so critical of the literature that it's rare for me to put anyone on a pedestal, but I'm putting Patrick Lambe on one today.

I don't know Patrick, personally, and I was only recently introduced to his work and thoughts last week when I was researching KM certification and came across his 2006 article, "KM Competencies: Is Certification the Way to Go?".

On Tuesday, I was Googling 'sunk cost' wiki-style (you know, when you start on one page reading something and then 2 hours later you've clicked your way onto some completely tangential topic?) when I found myself at Green Chameleon reading Patrick's 2002 article,"Accounting for Knowledge Management"

Hands down, it's the most brilliant piece on KM that I've read in 2008 and, maybe, for the last couple of years. And, it's useful. Not in some academic, theoretical, abstract sense, but practically useful. It's not a 'how to' manual though (so don't go gettin' all excited), but for those of you grappling with the development of metrics and tools/processes to measure the value of your KM efforts, Patrick has written an intelligent, insightful (and interesting to read) article that provides both history and perspective on accounting for knowledge-intensive businesses and activity.

It made me think of my first knowledge audit and how it took me just a hair over six months, several (almost) pointless AEA (American Evaluation Association) conference modules and sheer gumption to design and then implement what I hoped wouldn't be a capital-F failure. The end result, my 'State of Knowledge' report to the company, has become a regular deliverable in every KM engagement with which I'm involved. Just as Patrick touches on in this article, it may not provide the hard numbers and precise statistical figures associated with modern accounting methods, but it does provide an account - annually - that represents to management, the leadership, investors and the organization, in general, the value derived from investments made in human capital and KM efforts.

So, after reading this KM chef d'oeuvre I cyber-stalked Patrick via Google, nosed around Green Chameleon for a bit, and read several more amazing articles:

• Why KM is Hard To Do: Infrastructure, KM and Implementing Change, June 2006
  
• Knowledge and Tragedy: or why we shouldn’t share knowledge, July 2003
  
• The Knowledge Wizards: Hope in a Time of Darkness/Playing the Knowledge Game, December 2002
  
• Fashion, Magic and Knowledge Management, January 2000
  
• The Autism of Knowledge Management, July 2002
  
• A-Z of Knowledge Management, September 1999

There are many more, so you'll have to check out the website to view them, but I love these articles mostly because even the ones written 7 or 8 years ago still ring (prophetically) true today.

Thanks Patrick! It would have been nice to have had your insights when I was in school, but I'll happily share them now that I'm in the field.

Article Response: KM Is Both The Process and The End Result

I hadn't planned on posting a blog today, especially since I had one of those weird, job-in-jeopardy-dreams last night (because I didn't bring 15 sub sandwiches to an office event...even though, in my dream, I didn't know I was supposed to bring anything). Some people dream of being naked, I dream of not bringing subs to an office party...tomato, tomata. Anyway, I figured I'd just focus on work today, but as I was doing my daily news/blog reviews, I came across the article, Tapping Into Knowledge Management at CIO Insight by John Parkinson.

Mr. Parkinson's main point is that KM "isn't something you do. Rather, it's the result you get when you do a lot of other things right."

As both the title of this post, and my response below indicates, I'm not in total agreeement with this statement. Please access the link above to read the article (it's brief) and read my comments below.

Cheers!!

"What fascinates me most about a lot of the KM literature that I read - it sets KM way up in Mount Olympus and then gives the most dodgy, convoluted, wordy directions to getting there. Still, as a KM practitioner, I'm not completely on board with the idea that knowledge management isn't something you do", preferring to believe that it is both the process and the end result.

"As a student of Obvious Adams, I am in total agreement with your skepticism of a big, expensive, capital-letter KM engagement. Particularly, since it sounds to me like you really just need to introduce a forward-looking process that provides a forum for capturing the knowledge/information you're after and then either hiring or tasking a dedicated resource - someone familiar with your industry, work environment, products, and projects - to analyze and report on the information being shared.

"I say forward-looking, because it's important not to get caught up in trying to capture past behaviors/practices - if that knowledge is still relevant, it will come, if it isn't, then it's useless anyway.

"And, yes, there's always a learning curve and there are always folks who are either late to the party (late adopters) or who never arrive (non-users), but you can increase adoption through a combination of marketing (an internal 'viral campaign' and word-of-mouth via early adopters/advocates) and by making use of tools/resources that are already being used. In most production environments, people are already sharing information using some form of e-tool, be it email, IM, wikis, etc. or some combination and, it's likely, either the information that you're looking for, or the path to those with that knowledge, is there.


"As, to the busy-ness of people with the valued knowledge, unless your KM is Charles Xavier you're never going to get it all anyway!

"However, by having specific needs and focused questions (using the aforementioned process) and leaving the analysis of that information to someone well-suited to the task, you make the process minimally invasive, minimally irksome, and, most importantly, relevant.

"My personal experience is that it's not sharing that people have a problem with, it's having to info-dump, indiscriminately, AND, do it in tidy little chunks, easily digestible by the masses; make the process convenient and intelligent to the full range of your consumers and you just might get somewhere. After all, everyone has a use for useful knowledge.

"Good luck!!"

What's your take?

Knowledge Management: The Organizational War Chest

OR, "How To Survive Being 'Voted Off The Island' During A Recession"

What's this?!?! Two posts in a month!?!?!? Shocking, I know :-D

So, after a weekend of exceeding my insanely frugal budget, I finally got around to completing last Friday's checkbook reconciliation on Monday. Imagine my surprise when I discovered I'd received an additional tax refund. Of course, it took me a while to realize it wasn't a mistake and that I'd actually been given a Stimulus Refund (whew, 'cause it would have sucked to have used that money towards my airline ticket to London for Fiona's wedding and then have to give it back). I guess this is the downside of not watching the evening news and mostly reading the entertainment section of the newspaper. But, hey, with my crazy work and tennis schedules, if I've got to choose between Gossip Girl and CNN clearly, I'm "movin' on up to the upper East side".

Anyway, as I wiki'd the Stimulus Refund while on hold with Sprint to order a new Palm Centro to replace the one I've only had for five months, yet still managed to brutalize (because, apparently, I'm hell on cell phones) I started thinking about the general crappiness of the economy which is resulting in an increasingly crappier job market and wondered about the role of KM during this downturn.

Considering how much Economics confuses me (especially those friggin' graphs), it's hard for even me to believe that I have a BS in Urban Policy Studies and that I was just two or three courses shy of getting a minor in Economics, but I do seem to remember that one of the major effects of a recession is unemployment. Not that I'm saying we're in one, just that the signs we're headed in that direction have been hanging in the sky for a while now. Of course, if you're getting an economic outlook from me, then you clearly have deeper issues.

It's ironic that in the information age, people are both an organization's greatest asset and greatest liability. At any rate, the massive loss of talent, experience, knowledge, and information that companies suffer during a recession is just one of the many reasons organizations look to KM as a strategic solution.

Unfortunately.

I say 'unfortunately' because downsizing and layoffs have the effect of transforming KM from a suppportive, cultural change strategy to a gestapo tactic operating in a culture of fear.

Even under optimal conditions, it's difficult to shift employee practice from knowledge hoarding to knowledge sharing but, during an economic downturn, when few are certain of their place in an organization (or the ability to find a new position should the need arise), it's down right impossible. At least not in a positive, reaffirming way. I mean, you might see an increase in accessing/downloading information from your knowledge base as employees "stock-up" in anticipation of a pink slip, but the uploads might be a little skimpy. After all, a good majority of folks derive a significant amount of their identity and self-esteem from their careers and when they feel threatened about the security of their job it's kinda hard to get them to participate in any process that diminishes their perceived value.

And, this isn't just about non-KM folks either. Having experienced the joy of being laid-off during rough economic times (and knowing other KM professionals in the same boat) you can bet your sweet patootie that unless KM is a money-making venture and/or you have friends in high places (i.e., social capital), your department and KM efforts may - in homage to Survivor - have it's torch extinguished.

This is one of the reasons that I don't like the "one big family" metaphor that too many orgs like to bandy about. Because, inevitably, when the hard times come, the ties that bind are hardly familial.

So, the point of all of this rambling is that a well-conceived, well-implemented strategic KM solution is a war chest that organizations can lean on, particularly in times of economic uncertainty. KM professionals need to be prepared to help their organizations navigate such waters while also demonstrating/confirming the value of KM AND building social capital, 'cause you can never have enough clout, baby!

How, you ask?

1. Be aggressive and proactive in addressing the challenges facing the organization and in offering strategic solutions
   To paraphrase President Kennedy, "Ask not what KM might could do for your organization, get off your butt and show them" (yes, the bad grammar is intentional). It's possible that your organizational leadership will seek out your input on an impending economic downturn, but there's no guarantee. A strong sense of self-preservation is necessary, so don't play wait-and-see. Take initiative! And, if for some reason, they are hard-headed and don't want to listen, that should be your first and last clue to get out of Dodge anyway!
   
2. Be a part of the process of assessing the organization's vulnerability to a recession and contingency planning
   If it turns out that such an assessment has already taken place, identify ways in which KM can be utilized and sketch out action plans for presentation to the leadership.
   
3. Establish or strengthen critical partnerships
   Particularly with Sales, Product Development and Finance...especially Finance...and, also with HR. By understanding and successfully helping these departments to meet their KM needs during a time of crisis, you're not only making them KM co-champions, you're generating social capital among those who hold the ear of the-powers-that-be and, hopefully, elevating yourself into that role as well.
   
4. Look for ways to leverage organizational knowledge
   I had a manager once who chided me for suggesting that we should build and sell our custom KMS to our clients as a new product offering. I understood his reasons for being against the idea, namely that the primary function of KM in that company was as a support service, not a revenue generator, but I disagreed. I still disagree.
   
   For me, what differentiates a Knowledge Manager from a corporate librarian (information 'gatekeeper') is the ability to take all of the knowledge and information resources that are being captured and shared, analyze it and develop strategies for leveraging it to improve an organization's market share and position. This is the holy grail of KM. Color me crazy, but in a bottom-line business what better way to demonstrate value than to have a direct impact on the bottom-line? Even though I know for many it isn't, in my opinion, this practice should be a regular part of a KMer's job. If it hasn't been, a recession would be a good time to demonstrate KM's ultimate value. (If you're doing your job correctly) You've got access to vast organizational information resources - use it!!
   
   As Carl George, Chairman of AICPA's National CPA Financial Literacy Commission posits, "Somebody's always making money, even in a recession, so if you can find out where those pockets are and if you have services you can provide to them, maybe you want to expand those services."
   
5. Stay the KM course
   This is more for the leadership than the KM professionals. If you want people to continue their participation in KM intiatives, even with a cloud of doom floating above their heads, then continue to support and promote your KM initiative. Clearly, putting your KM strategy and/or professionals on the chopping block suggests that either you weren't really serious about KM in the first place or that the KM strategy you were working with sucked...I mean, it wasn't working for you.

Lastly, I came across this little gem of wisdom from Mark Riffey's "Business is Personal" blog:

"If an economic recession does occur, choose NOT to participate. Everyone else will be cutting back, weakening their companies. They will let go of people who might be hungry enough to be your next superstar. The weakest of them may fail, or come close to it.

Almost anyone can run a company successfully during good times. During less prosperous times, the real management shows itself by preparing for the next boom and strengthening themselves."

Outwit. Outlast. Outplay. Survive.

KM Standards & Certification As A Professional Compass

OR, "Benny Medina, Will You Represent Me?"

Wow, it's been a dog's age since I've posted anything on here! I have to say, I'm always impressed by people who are able to blog regularly. Not just the act itself, but the variety of topics as well.

Anywho, I've been doing a lot of research lately on KM certification and (KM-specific) continuing ed programs as well as the establishment of an oversight board to develop generally accepted KM standards/practices (similar to the FAF/FASB/GASB) and I'd be interested in hearing folks' opinions on the subject.

Many of the blogs and articles I've read on certification in the last two weeks have been a few years old with the authors largely coming out against certifcation. In his article, "KM Competencies: Is Certification the Way to Go?" (2006) Patrick Lambe eschews certification in favor of professional societies as a means of KM practitioners acquiring the requisite KSAs (knowledge, skills, abilities), and desired support(mentoring/coaching). In a 2006 blog posting, Dave Snowden provides a nice overview of previous efforts to "standardize" the field of KM and ends by asking the following questions:

• Have standards just become a commercial venture?
  
• If so (he believes the answer to be yes) then how can they be objective?
  
• Can you create standards for a developing field before it stabilises?
  
• How can you take a standards model devised for goods (fire safety equipment) and apply it to services (knowledge management?
  
• And, finally, what is truth?

There's more stuff out there to Google on the subject, but I'm exploring this topic from the average practitioner's viewpoint and I honestly haven't come across any responses that discuss the matter from our perspective.

First off, let me say that I do not possess any certifications other than my university degrees and I'm not convinced that (CKM) certification, as it exists now, is either necessary or critical. It certainly ain't cheap!

However, we live in an age when businesses look to (best) practices that are quantifiable, predictable and replicable with verifiable outcomes and they love, love, love employing folks with various certifications - though not always paying for it - because, in their minds, it means you know something, even if you don't. Although, as I previously posted, KM utilizes a valid process (one that responds to an individual organization's needs) rather than a reliable process, that doesn't mean you can't (or shouldn't) have some form of structure or standards.

In his article, Patrick provides this brief list of reasons that folks would want certification:

• Novices would like a quick and reliable grounding in general awareness and core concepts
  
• Practitioners would like to have their own practice validated against professional standards and commonly agreed approaches
  
• Practitioners see career opportunities from acquiring professional recognition embodied in a certification process
  
• Consultants would like a qualification that gives them a competitive selling edge

I would definitely have to agree with these reasons and I don't see why this has to be a bad thing or makes those of us in this group misguided in seeking out certification and standards.

What I love about KM is the opportunity it presents (and sort of demands, in a way) for out of the box thinking, developing strategic solutions in much the same way that a marketing executive would develop a new campaign or a designer, a new or enhanced product.

What I hate is that I don't have a foundation upon which the strength of my peers and leaders in my field can back me up when I'm doing KM work and the skeptics I work with/for (who may or may not be signing my paycheck) are out to prove I'm a grifter selling snake oil.

After all, marketing campaign - either they like it or they don't; ultimately, the proof is in the pudding and your effectiveness will be determined by how well the target audience responds to your message - which doesn't require years of cultural change, a sample pool will do just fine. And designers - either the product does what you say it will or it doesn't, a simple trial run is all you need.

But KM? The long-term benefits of KM take time. We know this. And, depending upon the situation your organization is in, the quick wins may not come so quickly.

Now, do I believe that having certification and standards is a magic pill that will turn you into the Wizard of Oz, pre-curtain check? Hardly. The success of any educational program, no matter how illustrious the institution or instructor, still depends heavily on how well the student learns and applies the information (which, itself, is influenced by a combination of context and opportunity - what kind of work they're doing and what opportunities they have to utilize what they've learned). And of course, we all know that there are people with Ivy League degrees who are clearly not as bright as their pedigrees should indicate. But, that doesn't mean there isn't any value in certification or standards or that programs aimed at providing certification and continuing education can't be developed using an approach that reflects the actual needs of KM professionals.

As to the utility of professional societies, I'm in the process now of trying to set up a local Chapter of KMPro because I recognize the importance and value of networking with other professionals, but, even then, most of these societies are the same ones selling certification - expensively, I should add - with prices ranging from $575 to $3200. Some organizations I've looked at have membership fees in excess of $1,000 dollars. And don't get me started on the costs associated with participating in the various KM conferences, particularly if you don't live in an area where they are held and you don't have the benefit of a company budget to finance your attendance. Huge barriers to entry, I tell you. And sure, you can interact online with professionals from around the world, but how exactly do I express that interaction in my credentials or on my resume? Yes, you could also write articles and blogs, assuming one has the time, what with being busy trying to do (and keep) the job that pays your bills, puts a roof over your head, and funds all of the other things you do in your daily life.

I could go on and on here, but my point is that every option has its good points and its flaws. Rather than engage in an endless debate about what is best in one's own opinion, why not build and implement solutions, organically, that address the most common needs of KM professionals as we understand them; going outside the box, as necessary, and using the resources available. I mean, isn't that what knowledge managers do?

This is definitely not the end of this discussion for me, but I can't close this post out without attempting to answer Dave's questions:

• Have standards just become a commercial venture?
  For some organizations/groups, absolutely! And, in fairness to those orgs/groups, since we do live in a capitalistic society, if those best equipped (with passion, intellect, ingenuity, commitment, vision, and a sense of social responsibility) to drive a sincere campaign for standards don't or won't step up to the plate, then why shouldn't someone motivated by the almighty dollar make a buck? Over the years, I've learned that people in this field, both the novices and the experienced professionals, are looking for some structure and stability they can lean on and use to drive both their KM efforts to success as well as improve their career opportunities. Having standards is meant to provide that structure and stability. Should these standards come at a cost? No, they shouldn't, but the lack of standards definitely costs us (the field) in terms of professional credibility.
  
• If so, then how can they be objective?
  Clearly, I don't think that standards should be a commercial venture, but assuming that it currently is, I would stress two adages: "You get what you pay for" and "We set the standards for our own performance". If you've paid top dollar for a CKM certificate and you suck as a KM professional, it doesn't really say too much about your abilities or the organization who certified you, does it? Ultimately, in any situation, it's the responsibility of every organization's membership to police the organization to which they belong in order to maintain its integrity and objectivity, because if they don't then they suffer the consequence of their inaction and apathy. (Hello, Bush administration anyone?!?!)
  
• Can you create standards for a developing field before it stabilises?
  I think that this field has been around long enough and received enough press and consideration now that, until we have some standards in place, it won't ever properly stabilize and grow roots. Particularly, since so many organizations these days are taking it upon themselves to define the field in terms of their specific needs and then promoting their strategy as KM whether it is or isn't. The result: a multitude of definitions of KM that makes the field seem panoptic and unfocused. Which is not to say that whatever standards and guiding principles are adopted should narrow or restrict the concept or application of KM, rather, they should guide the growth of the field...like dental braces.
  
• How can you take a standards model devised for goods (fire safety equipment) and apply it to services (knowledge management)?
  You can't and you shouldn't (at least not at this stage of the game). Whatever moronocito decided to attempt this approach was clearly a friend of Tina. Seriously though, a good set of standards and guiding principles should begin much the same way as the 10 Commandments or Seven Virtues - you don't have to be a Christian or religious at all to appreciate their simmplicity and wisdom. Likewise, KM standards should provide us with a professional compass, not step-by-step, etched in stone instructions. And, a governing body, to oversee those standards, to shape and authorize certification and continuing education within KM is as much a marketing tool as it is a professional and educational resource; it's like having Benny Medina as your talent agent...okay, nothing could be better than having Benny Medina as your talent agent. I mean, if he could take J Lo from video 'ho' to superstar and bring Mariah Carey's career back from the brink of a mental meltdown and expulsion from Sony...the man's a genius.

Okay, that outburst was pretty much my cue to be done.

So, what standards or guiding principles, if any, do you think should be universally adopted for the KM field?

Oops, I forgot the last question:

• And finally, what is truth?
  Duh, Benny Medina. Ask a stupid question...

Critical Issues of KM in 2007-08

I've been working on a paper exploring five critical issues of KM from a practitioners perspective and since I haven't had time to blog I figured I might as well pop these out here and see what kinda feedback/responses I get. The paper (and research) is in process so these are just the issues I've decided to focus on - thus far - with comments from my notes (so please don't anyone try to break me down).

My overall goal with this paper is to examine ways in which to shift the field away from being too heavily driven and influenced by the demands of a market that neither fully grasps the concept of knowledge management, nor is completely cognizant of its own KM needs in order to further establish and legitimize KM.

1. A governing body to market and endorse a universal definition of KM and guiding principles for the field.
Because all organizations and their knowledge management challenges are not the same, “rules” for developing and implementing KM strategies are superfluous. However, “guiding principles” establish a set of standards for the field; illustrate the values of KM to which practitioners should aspire; and, provide organizations with an introduction to the scope and scale of KM.

2. Eschew KM as “business as usual” in favor of “business by design”
Efforts to sell KM as a quantifiable, measurable and replicable practice, producing proven, predictable results are misspent and wasted often resulting in a failure to launch any (worthwhile) strategy at all. Rather, the focus should first be placed on “producing a spectacular solution” that addresses the organizations need and then determining ways of measuring impact and fiscal value.

3. Minimize the continued emphasis on IT
Though IT may offer to provide the quantifiable, measurable and replicable solutions that speak to business “traditionalists”, in the knowledge economy innovation, not technology, is the means by which market advantage and increased profits are achieved. While KM strategies can be made more efficient and effective with an investment in the right technological tools, they are made successful with an investment in the right people development tools.

4. Expand the concept of knowledge workers
Organizations that aspire to become true thought leaders need to redefine internal business roles and relationships to see all employees as knowledge workers and organizational talent, removing the talent “class” ceiling. All employees have knowledge that is valuable to the organization. Certainly, higher value is associated to employees who require less development and management, but the question to be asked by organizations needs to be, ‘How how are we developing all of our talent resources?’ Particularly, since employees with a greater awareness of their higher value and its marketability are typically the first to leave in search of greener pastures. Conversely, talent requiring more development and management are more likely to aspire to greater things when the ceiling is removed.

5. Branding KM
There are many reasons KM initiatives fail to have the desired impact or simply fail altogether – even those bolstered by considerable executive, financial, and technological support. One of the most common reasons is that most, if not all, KM strategies are developed purely from the perspective of the organization’s self-interest and rarely, if ever, take into consideration the employee’s perspective, despite the fact that the initiative’s success hinges upon their collective buy-in and participation. Such strategies fail because they attempt only to answer the question, “what’s in it for me” and not, “what’s in it for them”.

Branding knowledge management is an attempt to redress this disparity through the strategic application of marketing techniques and learning tools that enable organizations to promote the relevance of KM to an individual’s role while firmly establishing the value and criticality of KM to the organization.

Building A Better Knowledge Manager: Love Is A Battlefield

"We are young, heartache to heartache we stand, no promises, no demands
Love is a battlefield
We are strong, no one can tell us were wrong, searchin' our hearts for so long, both of us knowing
Love is a battlefield"

I've spent the months since my last post trying to solve the riddle of how to regain my passion for KM and deciding whether or not I even want to continue in the field and all I can say is that it sucks to give up something you enjoy especially when you're good at it (and invested four-and-a-half years of college and five years of sweat). Sometimes the only thing you can do about a situation is to learn from it so then, I guess the only real option I'm left with is to pick my bruised ego and wounded pride up off the floor and resume my KM journey.

Since it turns out that Forrest was right and life is eerily like a box of chocolates, I'm not quite sure if I'll make it to the KM Valhalla I envisioned when I was a college sophomore starting down this path, but WTF, too much certainty is bad for the soul, right?

At any rate, as I'm now committed to developing myself into a better Knowledge Manager, I've determined that the first step is ditching the spirit of fear and frustration I've acquired and reclaiming the spirit of adventure that attracted me to KM in the first place. An excellent source of inspiration in this endeavor is an amazing article on making design work written by the Univerity of Toronto's B- School Dean, Roger Martin, for my business bible, Fast Company. In my opinion, this article should be de rigueur reading for every KM professional.

In providing his keys to making design work, Martin provides a description of design that illuminates the field of knowledge management.

"Corporate types, by and large, seek to fuel growth by building from bulletproof, reproducible systems; designers generally attempt to do so by imagining something new, different, better. That difference can be seen as a trust in reliability on the one hand and in validity on the other.

"A reliable process--which tends to attract folks in finance, engineering, and operations--produces a predictable result time and again. This is business as algorithm: quantifiable, measurable, and provable. It hews to that old management adage, "What doesn't get measured doesn't get done.

"A valid process, on the other hand, flows from designers' deep understanding of both user and context, and leads them to ideas they believe in but can't prove. They work in a world of variables: the unpredictable, the visual, the experimental. Great designers worry less about replicating a successful process than about producing a spectacular solution…Valid thinking demands an inspired leap of faith. Before John Mackey launched one of the country's first supermarket-style natural-food stores, for example, nobody could prove that Whole Foods Market would succeed at all, let alone become the most profitable food retailer (in terms of profit per square foot) in the United States. But Mackey did it anyway.

"As the computer scientist Alan Kay put it so memorably, 'The best way to predict the future is to invent it.'"

KM is a field in which a lot of new ground is being explored in understanding, identifying, managing, capturing, and leveraging information, knowledge, and the organizational relationships that generate and share information and knowledge. Like design, the best strategic KM solutions utilize a valid process – one that is developed in response to an individual organization's needs. And, like design, this approach comes under steady fire from traditional business leaders who seek a reliable process that is predictable, quantifiable and replicable.

In the article, Martin goes on to discuss how utilizing both approaches leads to business gold, and obviously, that's the goal, but for most organizations that synthesis must wait until a sustainable KM effort is in place.

The key for KM strategists? Education, education, education. It doesn't help many of us that there is so much information and misinformation about knowledge management floating around cyberspace, readily available to folks in need of a solution. Even when you attempt to set realistic expectations about developing and implementing KM solutions, it's hard to get past misleading service providers who claim their OTS (off-the-shelf) application is a one-stop solution in a box for all/most KM needs or that hard-headed executive who reads one article on the potential benefits of KM, but who fails to consider the depth and detail of the work involved in bringing those benefits to fruition. And for the KM's themselves (speaking from recent experience), the pressure to conform to a way of doing business that, while being familiar to the "traditional" exec, limits the success and challenges the integrity of a successful KM strategy, is stifling.

Love is a battlefield and so is KM. Let's do what we can take to stay the course.

Keeping The Faith: Bouncing Back From Losing Your Passion For KM

It’s been months since my last blog and even trying to write this involved taking days off from work and tossing and turning in bed several nights.

After years of trying to blaze a KM trail I’ve lost my passion. Truth be told, my passion was less “lost” and more pounded out of me. Surfing the rough and tumble corporate waters, I suppose it was only a matter of time before one too many waves took its toll on me and now I’m struggling to find my “mojo” and get back out into the water; that is, if I want to get back out there at all.

The experience has me wondering how you keep going in this field when you’ve lost your passion. Over the years, I’ve read several articles about the value of maintaining your sanity as a KM professional and keeping your head up in a business world that doesn’t always understand or appreciate you. Now, going through my own professional crisis, I can’t help but wonder how many of those authors remained in the field after their literary purge.

For me, the biggest challenge has been staying inspired. I mean, I still love KM; it’s certainly not that I don’t care about KM anymore, but I don’t feel the same level of inspiration that motivated me to study the field and transformed me into a proselyte. In the absence of this inspiration, I am confronted with exactly how important passionate adherents are to the future of this field; more so than is currently discussed in the existing literature.

Yes, you need awareness of KM, understanding of organizational dynamics, executive support, access to tools and resources, blah, blah, blah, but none of that means much if you don’t have someone passionately championing KM initiatives in an organization. And more than a budget or carte blanche, that person needs to be supported and encouraged in the work that they do. What's more, KM professionals also need to be able to maintain their own level of passion and inspiration.

Anyway, in the hopes that this literary purge doesn’t herald the end of my own KM ambitions, I reflected on some possible tips for getting back into the swing of things and re-discover that old KM magic.


#1: Remember that KM is change. KM involves uncomfortable changes in the way people communicate and relate to others in an environment where their financial security (and a huge part of their identity and self-esteem) is at stake – and you’re the point person! Regardless of how necessary or beneficial the changes you propose, they will most likely be met with resistance and, perhaps, counter measures. Understanding this won’t make you feel any better when you’re under attack, but hopefully it will give you some insight when launching your own counter attack.

#2: Maintain strong, reliable social and professional networks. Having folks around you that not only understand you as a person, but what KM is and what you do professionally is truly a beautiful thing. People who know you as a person will help to keep you grounded and (hopefully) prevent you from going postal in the workplace, while people who understand what is that you do (or strive to) and who can relate to the challenges, victories, and defeats you encounter as a KM professional help to take the edge off and are able to help you come up with potential solutions to professional dilemmas.

#3: Maintain your spirit of adventure. True KM folks are not only strategists and creative problem solvers, we are entrepreneurs and risk takers. We’re the folks who don’t stop at whining about a problem, we set out to resolve the problem. We’re not afraid of a challenge or even the little failures along the road to success. Still, we’re not undefeatable or indefatigable – consistent blows to our spirit can diminish our confidence as it would anyone elses. The key is to find some way (a totem, a mantra, prayer…ecstasy – just kidding…a little) to stick to the road less traveled for the duration of our KM adventure, even when the urge is strong to temporarily stray from the path to clock a naysayer.

#4: Do you. As a college Junior, what drew me to a career in KM was the opportunity to pursue my combined interests in strategy, organizational development, marketing, psychology, and party planning – hey, I’m a social butterfly. The icing on the cake was working in a developing field with the potential to be someone who shapes a new way of doing business. Years later, I find myself having had to narrow or completely sacrifice my scope and vision of KM to satisfy organizational leaders who are either afraid of change, lacking in vision, or who, ironically, also suffer from having had their passion for what they do blotted out. In business, it’s not uncommon to rationalize that certain “sacrifices” must be made in order to make the deal, satisfy the client, walk away with the “win”, etc, etc. My only thought here is a biblical one: “What does it profit a man to gain the world yet lose his soul?” So, I say, “do you.” Follow your bliss. Don’t be stupid, blind, or naïve about it, but don’t be so quick to change your path to accommodate those who lack the vision, courage, or conviction to chart new waters. Hell, that’s supposed to be the American Way.

Well, this blog was definitely cathartic. I’m curious as to what will come next. If I can find a way to get back on the path, re-discover my “mojo”, re-ignite the flames of my passion and forge ahead on “Route KM”.

Let’s hope so.

Laborious Thoughts: Sleep, pee, eat, watch 24, repeat

Over the Labor Day holiday I was anything but laborious, enjoying a lazy weekend of sleeping, snacking, napping, and playing solitaire on my laptop while binging on Seasons 1, 2, and 3 of 24. I didn't get into the show when it first aired, but having the opportunity to watch it straight through from the beginning, I have to say I'm hooked. I'm only on Season 3, disc 5 so I don't know what happens from this point on, but I have to say that Sherri Palmer has become my favorite love-to-hate character.

Anyway, I've finally broken free of my "sleep-pee-eat-watch 24" cycle to write this blog on reruitment and retention (R&R), hallelujah!

For the last few weeks, I've been fascinated with the impact of KM on R&R and exploring the influence of the KM function in how organizations acquire and develop knowledge - not just in knowledge capture and delivery.

It occurs to me that for most organizations, KM is utilized primarily as a loss prevention mechanism, with the intention of preventing as little information from escaping the organization as possible. I've read articles, online discussions and threads that focus on the need to capture critical knowledge and information in an employee's exit interview (and in the days/weeks/months leading up to the exit) and the role of KM in those efforts (unfortunately, I didn't think to grab links to those sites), but I've yet to read any literature that describes the potential benefits of KM as a recruitment tool.

In today's increasingly tech-savvy economy too many companies have become tech-lazy. HR recruitment functions have been relegated to automated systems that identify candidates through stringent keyword filters based on narrowly defined job descriptions that, often, HR representatives themselves don't understand. Recruitment and selection for most companies is a joke - I say this as someone who, just four or five years ago participated in campus and city job fairs as an exiting college student only to hear from each and every recruiter "check our website for jobs and submit your resume online". Sometimes they took a hard copy of your resume, gave you a card, and discussed your career goals, but always they sent you online, even though I'm pretty sure every student at those fairs had already been online and was standing in line to get a job - not the run around. Unfortunately, talking to recent graduates and experienced job seekers as a recruiter I hear the same stories today.

How do organizations improve their recruitment strategies? Trust me, it ain't with Monster! You need a clear grasp of the organization's long-term strategic direction and a firm understanding of the knowledge, skills, and abilities that will get you there, that's KM baby! It's not just about what you know, but what you need to know to get where you're trying to go.

As to retention, once you've captured the knowledge and information you're after, and let's say, for arguments sake, that you even got a lock on some of that difficult to acquire tacit knowledge - what then is the incentive to retain the individual(s) who provided the knowledge? I mean, I know what the theoretical textbook response might be ("knowledge development is a continual process, and 'high producers' have value beyond what they may share or contribute at any one point in time"), but let's be honest - do we really believe that the leadership in most companies today has achieved that level of awareness? Do we accept that organizational leaders are progressive and/or focused enough to see any individual employees value beyond either the job description or their (the organizational leaders') perception of an employee's (potential) skills, ability and knowledge?

Knowledge management needs to inform the Training & Development function, just as much as it does recruiting; taking the lead in influencing the cycle of knowledge dissemination and innovation. All too often, KM professionals ask, "How do you get people to participate in the knowledge sharing process?" You do it by integrating KM into an organization's overall development strategy.

When I sketched out my very first graphical representation of KM as a college Junior, I envisioned it existing at the intersection of IT, HRD (Training, Education, and Development), and HRM (Selection and Recruitment, Placement, Benefits and Compensation Administration). Over time, within the context of an all-out guerilla KM strategy, I've pondered the subsumption of these functions by knowledge management. Perhaps this concept is a bit premature given that so many organization have such limited awareness (if any at all) of KM, but I think that with increased awareness and adoption, the merger of these functional areas will create a powerful vehicle for creating fundamental changes in how organizations acquire, capture, manage, and leverage knowledge and human resources.

Faith-based KM: Sometime You've Just Gotta Believe

My next post was actually going to be on the impact of KM with regards to employee retention & recruitment (I'm in full recruiter mode y'all - but the cold calls still suck, hehehehe), anyway, I was responding to Jim Lee's most recent post and liked what I wrote enought to re-post here.
______________________
Hmmm, a couple of observations on "valuable content"...I think its important when attempting to promote knowledge sharing activity that people are given a certain amount of latitude in what they share - many people don't immediately recognize the value in their contributions and often wait to share something "special" (and end up not sharing anything at all); I tend to favor encouraging sharing even when it's not particularly valuable just to get people in the habit of sharing.

In terms of identifying value in knowledge, in my opinion, that's part of the role that the knowledge manager plays - identifying areas for further/deeper exploration and becoming involved in the process of building the value of the knowledge base/repository. For all knowledge content, you have to read between the lines and ask "what value does this information have?", "how can this information help the organization achieve it's goals?" - and whether you yourself have any answers (or not), kick it back out to the masses and invite them to answer those questions, as well.

Too many organizations just expect that people know (1) the value of the knowledge they possess and (2) how to communicate that knowledge. This is another important role for knowledge managers - educating people on how to share, in addition to why, what, when, and where (without being too restrictive, limited, or controlling - all of which are counter-productive).

It's interesting here to note that while blogging reflects people's willingness to have a voice and share the contents of their head (however redundant, idiotic, shameless or sardonic), so many organizations are afraid of encouraging the practice internally, because they don't know what they'll get (or, more precisely, they know exactly what they'll get and they don't want to deal with it).

Something to think about: the more you attempt to control the process (and content) of knowledge sharing, the less sharing you're likely to have; and while the narrow focus may have its benefits, are you getting all the knowledge you need/want? I say worry about implementing "controls" after you've created some solid momentum.

As for measurement, I don't know if Stan intentionally or unintentionally left measurement off of his list, but I think it is a topic that gets too much attention. I absolutely see the value in incorporating measurement protocols into your KM strategy, but too much time is expended on trying to quantify the value and the benefit and to what end? Is it helping to get KM up and running? For most organizations, the inability to adequately develop measurement standards prevents KM from even getting out of the gate. I'm not saying it should be a free for all (you can have basic metrics tied to your overall goals), but perhaps organizations should try a more faith-based approach to KM and just go with it until there's actually something to measure.

Sometimes you've just gotta believe.

Applicable Knowledge: Culture audits and inter-departmental relations

Once again, BtoB magazine delivers some thought provoking (to me, at least) articles in its most recent issue.

The first article, CMOs, CFOs work on ROI, relationships, examines how these two departments are now coming together to improve their relationship and better demonstrate the value of Marketing. From a KM perspective, there's obviously tremendous value in building these types of bridges. Unfortunately (in my experience), since most KM strategies are managed, funded, and operate within the organization in which it was established (i.e., Operations, Strategy, Contact Center, Marketing, etc.) KM professionals tend to stay pretty close to home and leave the bridge-buidling to whomever is heading up their deparment. If you don't happen to be the primary contact with key executives like the CFO, CMO, COO, and CEO, then begin by creating a plan to acquire some political "juice" and position yourself - as the KM professional - as the go-to person on all things knowledge management. Most of these folks don't really want all of the day-to-day details, but they like having periodic updates and knowing that there is a person (or persons) they can go to with questions or for information when needed. Building this type of "equity" is also a powerful benefit when growing a KM strategy; what I like to call "guerilla knowledge management".

Trying to figure out where to start with your plan? Education, baby! Remember, "an educated consumer is your best customer." Start by - lightly - educating key execs on your company's/organizations KM efforts: KM goals and vision, key deliverables, challenges, opportunities, lessons learned. If you're publishing a KM e-newsletter, be sure to include them in your distribution list - don't assume that they are receiving this information.

Also, if your execs are local (or if you have the opportunity to travel to HQ), take some initiative and introduce yourself in-person. Try to schedule 15 or 20 minutes with each of them to say 'Hi', put a face to knowledge management, and pick their brain on KM and how they see its strategic direction within the company.

I thought the second article, Does your company need a culture audit?, was especially cool because in my last post I suggested formalizing the Knowledge Audit process within the KM field. In the knowledge auditing process that I use I do include a cultural component that attempts to gauge attitudes about knowledge sharing, but it could (and should) be ramped up a bit to cover general attitudes/perceptions of the overall company culture and mission. After all, corporate culture will either kill or save a knowledge management effort, in most instances, (the exception, I think, being Contact Centers) and attempting to generate buy-in without assessing the culture can result in a disastrous faux pas like trying to sell pork rinds to Muslims. Knowing your audience and understanding the boundaries you are working within is critcal.

Wanted: Free Knowledge - Apply Within

Two posts in one night....ooooooohhh, hehehehe.

Last week, over at my highly off-color Friendster blog, I recounted my experience interviewing for the KM spot at one of Atlanta's pharmaceutical companies. Mostly the interviews went (IMHO) very well, but the last one sucked big honkin' rocks and became the inspiration for the post "So what does a knowledge manager look like, exactly?".

Inspired by my recruiter training and looking back on this interview and at least one other, I came to an interesting conclusion: I was had! It occurred to me that what was for me, an interview, was for the company, a consultation. They were using me (and everyone else they interviewed) as unpaid consultants to help them determine what type of KM strategy they needed and what direction they should go in.

Ain't that a blip!?!?!

Now, I don't have any proof and I'm not naming any names and someone could accuse me of being bitter about not getting an offer - which I'm not; after my experience with Brierley, I've become very good at interviewing the organization as thoroughly as I'm being interviewed, and if they decide they don't want me for one reason or another, I take that as a sign of a poor fit, not a lack of qualification (unless I've been told otherwise) and a good fit is a necessity for me these days.

Anywho, I came to this conclusion because at least two organizations re-issued revised position descriptions following multiple rounds of "interviews" with yours truly (and others, I'm sure). I'm not saying there is/was anything unethical about this or that specific ideas I presented found their way into these revised descriptions, I just think that large, multinational corporations should (and can afford to) hire one of the many qualified and respectable consultants in the field to perform a Knowledge Audit and assess the organizations needs before attempting to fill a KM post. The final assessment should provide the basis for the KM strategy and vision, identify the skills and experience needed for a knowledge manager in that particular organization and, among other things, function as a recruiting tool.

After all, every knowledge manager brings a unique set of skills and experience to the table, which is a beautiful thing because every organization needs something different. However, it is exceedingly rude, disrespectful, and just plain cheap to waste someone's valuable time engaging them in an interview process that can't or won't be consummated because the organization doesn't really know what it wants.

This is why I stress in every interview and conversation I have on KM that a knowledge manager has to be a consultant and not a salesperson. You have to be capable of diagnosing the organizational situation and prescribing an appropriate course of action - maybe you're the right person to tackle the situation, maybe you're not; that is each knowledge managers ethical dilemma - accept the challenge or take a pass. But it is unwise and poor knowledge management to go in selling a solution based solely on what you've done in the past or around a particular set of applications you're experienced using. Large consulting firms do this all the time and I challenge anyone to justify the validity, logic, and, more importantly, the success of mass-produced KM systems/strategies.

At any rate, this whole experience and line of thinking gave me a great idea for carving a niche in the KM market - selling my services as a combined Knowledge Auditor and Recruiter - perform the audit, flesh out the overall strategy, identify the skills needed in the top KM spot, then go out and recruit someone for the job.

And, in line with that statement, I think there should be Knowledge Auditor certification training; just like accountants go through to become CPA's...a CPKA. That would be cool and worth going back to school for but then, what isn't?

I'm such a geek.