Out of The Box - Week Ending 9/26

Well, considering I'm knee deep in acquainting myself with SPAWAR's KM strategy and trying to understand OracleAS Portals (and why anyone would choose OracleAS to build out a knowledge base in the first place), I'm surprised I have the time or energy to spend on my blog, but I'm trying to avoid being a flogger ('flaky blogger') and get back into the swing of things. At least I was finally able to get my Gossip Girl/KM rant posted!

Unless you live under a rock (or in Iraq...chuckle...it's only funny if you pronounce it properly) you know that most of the news these days is either politics (yay politics) or the economy (boo economy)...or some combination of the two. Between the impending election, the bail out of AIG, and the fall of WaMu (which, as a customer for the last 12 months really didn't shock me - contrary to the commercials that woo'd me, WaMU was almost as bad as Verizon in the customer service department) I haven't read much this past week that sparked any KM-interest.

Not much, but enough to kick out an OOTB post for this week.

• No time like a crappy time to get creative and take stock of business practices and technologies. Check out these Tech Trends.
• No duh! of The Week: Clay is gay. Shocking. Really.
• Quote of the Week: "Business success isn't about having better technology; it's about using technology better."
• "With economists predicting one of the weakest Decembers since 1991, merchants must put their best foot forward for top customers" and knowledge management professionals can gain insight from these tips to keep the sharing flowing by targeting top contributors.
• How To of the Week: How to Persuade People With Subconscious Techniques.
• It just so happens that I love my new job, but what about when you don't? This podcast offers some advice on steps to take when the honeymoon ends before the ink isn't even dry on your offer letter.
• Cool Tool: Apture. Click on WaMU above to check it out in this post.

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.

What Gossip Girl Has Taught (and Reaffirmed For) Me About Sharing Knowledge

I recently received (and accepted) an offer for an exciting KM gig and that's kept me pretty occupied for the last few weeks so I haven't gotten around to doing much blogging. many articles last week. On top of that, when I haven't been interviewing, negotiating the offer, or apartment hunting online I've been sitting on my duff religiously watching the US Open and working on increasing my ability points on my new Facebook obsession, "My Heroes Ability".

Anywho, I haven't put much thought into my latest blog topic (though I'm sure the next few weeks will bring much blog-worthy activity) and I wasn't quite sure what to write about, but then something happened that was more compelling than hours upon hours of tennis, more nerve-wracking than apartment hunting via Craigslist, and yes, even more exciting than my new job offer.

Season two of Gossip Girl.

When the first season of my current pop culture fetish came to a close, I had hoped that immersing myself in ALTA and USTA tennis and hanging out in our rooftop 'japoozi' admiring Atlanta's cityscape would be enough to stave off the sadness of being without the weekly exploits of my fictional Upper East Side set.

Then I got it into my head to commemorate my affection for GG by writing a KM-related post about the show, but the untimely passing of my friend Fiona zapped pretty much any desire in me to do anything more than just get through each day.

However, now that my spirits are higher and I'm back on track with my blog and - praise Comcast! - GG is back on the telly, since I haven't prepared anything else worth blogging about, I thought I'd celebrate the return of my favorite guilty pleasure with a little light reading on what Gossip Girl has taught (and reaffirmed for) me about KM.

In true Adult Ed fashion I am a firm believer that every experience, relationship, situation, and tele-drama provides a teachable moment and learning opportunity, if only we're willing (and bent enough) to see it.

For the uninitiated, Gossip Girl is a popular TV Show, based on the NY Times bestselling series of the same name, that chronicles the lives of the young elite of New York's Upper East Side. At first glance, it hardly seems KM worthy, but when you consider the meteoric adoption rates (and out of the box usage) of social networking technologies by the show's characters (and demo audience) and adjust your perspective of the show's titular character from gossip columnist to an SME (subject-matter-expert) who manages knowledge and information on and about her "subject", then it's not difficult to see some valid take-aways.

When I initially had the idea to write this post one of the articles among that week's reads discussed a study of how young adult's consumed news and the way in which today's youth is bombarded by news they can't adequately process: "Today's youth receive their news from far more sources than older people, consuming modern media from "online video, blogs, online social networks, mobile devices, RSS, word of mouth, Web portals and search engines," according to the study findings. This glut of technological news sources has led consumers to experience an "imbalance in their news diet," specifically trouble keeping up with news stories that went on too long or were too in-depth.

The AP study can be found here.

While I challenge the idea that young adults are suffering from "newstritional disorder" as the Time's article suggests, (it's interesting to note here that, one, the study's primary focus is on how young adults access the news, not how they process it, and, two, the study has a very narrow definition of what is "news" and what young adults consider "news"), as a Knowledge Manager, I've certainly seen the problem of information overload with knowledgebases and content management systems. In this sense, access to too much information, coming at you from all directions, tends to turn users off to using the system entirely. The core of the problem lies with information managers and/or producers either disregarding or misunderstanding the information needed/desired and the way(s) in which their target audience shares and consumes information.

In its depiction of how young adults manage information, I think Gossip Girl certainly debunks the Times' pessissm. Furthermore, I think as people of all ages become more comfortable with technology that has become increasingly more inclusive...more plug-n-play, if you will...that they are taking more control over the information they consume, process, and share. The challenge then, for news and information providers, is to improve their target marketing strategies. In fact, Louise Druce, Editor of KnowledgeBoard.com, published an article on 'Target Marketing Through KM' just a few weeks ago).

Most importantly, I've learned (and been reminded) from Gossip Girl that when it comes to sharing knowledge and information, people will participate when the knowledge is meaningful to them, when both the knowledge and the act of sharing has value, and when they are free to use the tools that are most convenient to them

Gossip-Girl-as-knowledge-manager isn't just some all-knowing narrator that guides viewers through each episode. Though anonymous, she is an active character who serves as a valued information resource for the other characters, who, in return, participates in the knowledge sharing cycle by contributing to the body of information that GG manages, demonstrating both the culture of sharing and the value perceived in sharing. For her part, GG builds the credibility of her role as a knoweldge manager by managing, organizing, delivering, and validating "contributed content" (in the way one would expect from a primtime soap).

Of course, it might seem that her success and popularity is attributable purely to the often scandalous nature of the information she's sharing, I mean, people love to dish the dirt and, heck, even parents go to Gossip Girl to get the inside track on what's happening with their children and their children's friends. However, whether your pedaling the latest society dirt or spreadsheets replete with financial data, sharing is sharing!

1. Sharing when the knowledge is meaningful
Knowledge that is meaningful is relevant, it serves a purpose. This isn't knowledge for the sake of knowledge. This is knowledge that has an impact on a person's life, job, role or position. If people can't clearly identify the need or if you have to create meaning for them, odds are good that your knowledge sharing efforts will be for naught
2. Sharing when both the knowledge and the act of sharing has value
It's pretty obvious that knowledge or information considered valuable will be regarded as a commodity. People will want it, pursue it, hoarde it, and use it to achieve their goals. That's a no-brainer. What I find intriguing is the value placed on the act of sharing. This is a topic of much interest to KM professionals because understanding what motivates folks to share (e.g., peer pressure, self-interest, keeping up with Joneses, trendsetting, accountability, acquiring a sense of power and authority, etc.) is key to improving participation in knowledge sharing efforts. In my opinion, any perceived value of knowledge is secondary to the perception of the value of sharing. Why? For one, it's important to maintain the sharing-cycle even when the knowledge being shared is of little or no value; two, sometimes it's the process of sharing itself which gives knowledge value; and, three, knowledge only has value when it's used, 'sitting on it' merely renders it moot.
3. Sharing when free to use the tools that are most convenient
The Times' articles was absolutely correct that the modern information age provides far more media channels than the days of 'yore', but rather than being confusing and distracting, it simply provides a variety of options for content/information/knowledge managers to reach your audience...and for them to reach you! Not only does GG reach her audience via the web and a host of mobile applications, but her audience utilizes the same technology to share information with GG. Now, that's not a call to exploit the full range of available technologies in your KM endeavors. One of the biggest hurdles to KM efforts is the insistence of so many KM implementers on introducing new technology in conjunction with their KM iniative rather than relying upon the use of existing technologies with which folks are already comfortable. After all, one of your goals should be to reduce as many barriers to sharing as possible. Instead, consider incorporating existing practices/process for sharing knowledge and introducing new ways of using "old" tech.

Out of The Box - Week Ending 8/22

This week is dedicated to the letters 'K' for krazy and 'P' for patience, because that's what you need when life gets krazy, hahaha.

Sadly, with the exception of Kanye West's BeKanye advert, I had nothing too interesting in the way of celebrity gossip and I usually reserve camping out on Page Six and New York Social Diary for the days when my desk isn't covered in paper (since I can spend hours researching the social elite and their - sometimes sketchy, sometimes impressive, and always entertaining - ways.

Anyway, this week's 'Out of The Box' reads were a total mixed bag.

• Yet another article supporting the reason organizations need KM. Looking for a way to survive a talent shortage, consider including succession planning and knowledge transfers strategies(Training/Coaching/Mentoring) into your KM initiatives.
• The days of schmoozing clients may be over for sales-folks, but it can't hurt KM professionals looking to build social capital within their organizations.
• 'How To' of the Week: How to Hypermile


• Beacon wasn't such hit for Facebook, but can something like it help you to understand the users of your knowledgebase?
• Companies today seem to go overboard to stop employees from griping publicly, but knowing what is being said about your organization, inside and out, is part of managing knowledge too.
• Cool site: e-BIM enables you to share with your peers a method, a solution, a proven best practice that solves your specific problems when you need it solved. It's easy. It's fast. It's free.

'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.

Out of The Box - Week Ending 8/15

Has this week flown by or what?? My only complaint is that I've got bags under my eyes from staying up late watching as much Olympics coverage as I can coax out of my telly. Well, I do have one other complaint, about the Olympics: is it too much to ask to see a little more tennis coverage? I'm reeling from the losses of the Williams sisters and Fed, but can we see anything more than swimming, gymnastics, and boxing (that's on one of the 24-7 cable channels every time I fip over to it). Kudos to Michael Phelps though, always a pleasure to watch dolphin-boy tread water. And, passport or no, is it obvious to anyone else that at least two of the Chinese gymnasts are just out of Huggies?!?!?!

Quite coincidentally this week's reads seemed to provide a variety of ideas for KM practitioners looking to branch out into independent consulting or to expand your practice if you're already doing your own thing, as well as innovative marketing and branding tactics.

• Idea #1: Teach a KM class.
• WTF of the Week: Spray-on condoms!?!?!?! Uhh, okay.
• Idea #2: Conduct KM audits as supplements to business valuations.

• Strategm: Develop Your Competitive Advantage: In this whiteboard video, Erica Olsen lays out why you should define your competitive advantage and how to do it.

• Innovative Marketing Technique: How to Make Money Off of Free iPhone Games

Adaptive Leadership & My New KM Crush

OR, "Is It Time To Take Over The World Yet, Brain?"

Okay, so I'm trying to get into the groove of this whole, weekly blogging thing. Ironically, I'm crazy busy right now (still) trying to launch a city-wide KM survey all on my lonesome and planning a fundraising tourney for 2009, in addition to all that other stuff I do everyday (work, tennis...iron Emilie's linen garments), so you'd think I'd have little to no time to blog, but I suppose my thoughts are also racing and blogging is helping a bit to keep me focused.

Anyway, I was doing some follow-up research on ROWE earlier this week, first reading about why ROWE sucks and then how ROWE Aims to "Rock the Workplace Boat". It was in the latter article that I got stuck on (ROWE creators) Cali Ressler & Jody Thompson's comments on adaptive change vs. technical change and started googling "adaptive change" to get more insight into the theory. That search brought me to the transcript of a 1999 interview with Professor Ronald Heifetz who spoke on the subject.

Professor Heifetz, author of the best-selling "Leadership Without Easy Answers", is billed as one of the world's leading authorities on leadership. He is the founding director of the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. He's also a physician, a cellist, and, after reading this transcript, my new KM crush.

Awwwwww.

Though I'm fond of being the quirky oddball (you've got to keep a sense of humor if you want to make it in this world, period, let alone the business world), one of my core values, personally and professionally, is the development of human beings into their potential - spiritually, intellectually, and socially. Every situation is an opportunity to learn and learning is how we grow. Unfortunately, in a society that increasingly places money, "things"/possessions, and a quality of living that is exclusive, rather than inclusive above respect for life, the environment which life requires for sustenance, education and basic human dignity, I'm often left to wonder how the human race continues to thrive......I'm trying to think of a funny joke to support that statement, but the ones I typically use are either highly inappropriate, even for this blog, or just plain sad.

Anyway, the need to find creative avenues to promote and create change in how we perceive the value and worth of people - beyond their ability to make a profit, sell a product, or entertain us - and, subsequently, help people develop into their potential, is one of the primary reasons I was attracted to knowledge management. This is in the spirit of one of my literary crushes, Audre Lorde, and her call to forge new tools with which to create true change in the world.

So, when I have the opportunity to learn from folks whose message is revolutionary in its simplicity and application, folks like author and educator Parker Palmer who teaches in (one of my favorite books) "To Know As We Are Known: Education As A Spiritual Journey" that the origin of knowledge is love, whose message is revolutionary in its simplicity and application, I am inspired to improve myself as a student, a teacher, a professional, and a person.

I'm still swimming in the pool of Professor Heifetz's ideas a little too deeply to string together the best words to effectively present why I'm 'feeling' them so much, but I'll do my best (otherwise, what's the point of this blog!?!?!).

Professor Heifetz's theory of adaptive change is rooted in the principles of evolutionary biology wherein an organism makes determinations about what DNA to keep, what to discard, and what to build as it responds - adapts - to its ever changing environment. Likewise, organizations must make similar determinations with regards to business/cultural practices, processes, and products. Not rocket science, I know, but Heifetz goes on to highlight the importance of conservation - holding on to what works - in this process, and how frequently it is overlooked.

Leadership then, in Heifetz's words, is about the mobilization of adaptive work, rather than transformational change; "(E)ngaging people to make progress on the adaptive problems they face". In this regard, adaptive leadership is not, as I learned, unlike being a facilitator: helping folks to identify the challenge(s), creating an environment in which challenges can be resolved, providing tools and resources to assist in resolution efforts, enabling/empowering folks to be problem solvers, but not taking on the responsibility and burden of resolving the challenge(s) for them. "In adaptive problems, the people themselves are the problem; the solution, therefore, lies within them. If they don't change their ways, then you have no solution - all you have is a proposal." Considering that we live in a country (for those of us in the USA) in which too many folks are all too willing to throw their collective hands up and declare "you can't fight city hall" or "one vote won't make a difference" despite the fact that collectively we ARE the government, you can see how this process can be a challenge in and of itself. Still, I think it's spot on and overdue.

"The challenge with adaptive work, in biology and in organizational life, is to figure out how to capitalize on history without being enslaved by it."

This is an area that I work hard to address in my KM work and one that I often see ignored and disregarded. I stress, repeatedly, that regardless if the term KM is used in an organization or whether or not a documented strategy for managing knowledge/information exists, there is no such thing as an organization that does not have a KM strategy. Understanding in what form that strategy exists and how it exists, how it lives in an organization and is embodied in the culture is key to determining what is and isn't working and what innovations should be considered in helping the organization achieve its KM goals. This approach also makes KM less arcane to the organization and understanding lessens the fear and apprehension associated with change.

Although, after reading this piece, perhaps I should re-think how I use word 'fear' with regards to change. As Professor Heifetz states,

"The aphorism that is commonly bandied about is "people resist change," or "change frightens people." I think that’s wrong. I think that when people win the lottery and win a million dollars, or ten million dollars, they know their life is going to be enormously changed and they welcome that change. They don’t give the money back. Change is hard when it represents the possibility of loss. It’s the possibility of loss, and the apprehension, fear, and anxiety associated with that possibility of loss that generates resistance."

Heifetz goes on to discuss the lack of appreciation and respect given to "the pain of change".

I'm pretty sure I've been a capital 'A' ass at times in my efforts to penetrate organizational cultures and spread the 'good word of KM'. And, God only knows how many Pinky-and-the-Brain hours I've spent developing KM branding strategies. I even have a name for it, Guerilla KM. All of this, of course, isn't meant to intentionally disrespect "the pain of change", but, like many aggresive change strategies, it's predicated on the idea that those whose behavior I'm trying to change, are mostly lazy, selfish, self-interested, narrow-minded, stuck in the past, unsavvy, control freaks. In my defense, however, I do begin my KM branding efforts (Plan A) by educating folks on the relevance of KM to what they do.

Then I get my 'Brain' on.

Once decisions have been made about what to keep, discard, and where to innovate, Heifetz suggests the need for leaders (who themselves must have an experimental mindset) to "mobilize people for a set of innovative experiments," the goal of which is to "graft onto the best of the organizational DNA so that the organization can thrive in the future."

Heifetz makes a lot of really cool points (at least, in my mind they're cool) and you can read some of his thoughts here, here, and here. Ultimately, the goal of adaptive change and adaptive leadership is to "move people from an entrenched set of investments with an entrenched set of loyalties to a more curious, adventuresome, experimental mindset. Then, they are more willing to entertain opposing points of view without feeling that their most precious set of values are going to be lost in the process. With the faith in themselves that they can find and then hold onto what is most essential."

As knowledge managers, we can save ourselves a lot of grief and anxiety by understanding and addressing the actual needs of our organizations and heeding Heifetz's call to an adaptive leadership. Interestingly enough, even with this approach, you'll still get to be the cool kid problem solver. Holla!

I've got to get out of the office to get to a tennis match, so, I'll close with Professor Heifetz's 5 Principles of Leadership from "Leadership Without Easy Answers".

1. Identify the adaptive challenge (the issues, values and stakes).
2. Keep the level of distress within a tolerable range so that the group can do its adaptive work.
3. Focus attention on ripening issues, not on distractions.
4. Give the work back to the people, but at a rate they can handle.
5. Protect the voices of leadership in the community that are without authority.

Welcome to my crush crew Doc!

Out of The Box - Week Ending 8/8

I think this has to be the first time in ages that I've usd the phrase "Thank-God-It's-Friday", but this has been a totally 'OMG TGIF' kinda week! (I sound like I'm 12.)

Though work was unusually uninspiring, this week's readings hit the spot.

• From "Harnessing the Energy of Change Champions" to recognizing that "People Don’t Hate Change, They Hate How You’re Trying to Change Them", change seemed to be an industry-crossing theme.
• Chuckle of the Week: Powermascara Will Oscillate Your Beautiful Brains Out
• Tips For Your KM Tool-kit: Engaging Undiscussable Issues - Excerpt: "Handling an undiscussable requires an approach similar to how one would greet any formidable creature - use caution, show respect and exercise skill. Here are a few tips for how to approach the moose, gorilla or elephant in your organization.
• Cool Tool: Maintain and update all of your profiles across the web from one account with Atomkeep (with thanks to Social Web Tools)
• Logging On To Beat The Bullies, using KM software to report and record instances of school bullying in the UK.
• Small Business Advocate: Harmony built on trust in business - Excerpt: "Someone once said, 'Friends we choose, family we're stuck with.' But what about business relationships; we certainly get to choose those, don't we? So why are there dysfunctional businesses?"

ROWE v. Young: Work-Model of the Knowledge Economy?

OR, "Is This The Revolution I Ordered?"

"You say you want a revolution
Well you know we all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world..."

Okay, this work-week has been horribly dull. It's only Wednesday and instead of enjoying my usual hump day revelry I feel like I'm just listening to the ticks of the clock, waiting for the whistle to blow.

I did discover yesterday that my dream of living in a hobbit house is fully realizable - if I'm willing to move to Oregon. That would be a resounding 'No, thanks', but it had me all giddy, nonetheless. (Clearly the venture wouldn't be going belly up if it had been developed closer to the North Georgia Mountains).

Anyway, I suppose my pitiful work-state is the perfect occasion to post my thoughts on ROWE.

For the last week I've been reading and thinking about results-only (results-oriented) work environments and the implications of/on KM.

ROWE, for the uninitiated, is based on the idea of each person being free "to do whatever they want, whenever they want as long as the work gets done". The line of thought being that, especially in our increasingly tech savvy world, as long as folks are able to get their work done, they shouldn't have to be tied down to a specific location or for a specific period of time.

I came across an article on ROWE a little more than two months ago and my immediate response was, "hell yeah". I mean, this week is a perfect example. Are there things I could be doing in the office? Suuure. Do I need to be here for 8 hours a day doing these things? Noooo, not really, but try explaining that to my boss.

Anyway, while my immediate reaction was all, "hell yeah, right on, turn it up", I started thinking about the impact of ROWE on KM and vice versa and, well, to be honest, the jury is still out.

Right off the top ROWE clearly seems perfectly suited for knowledge intensive businesses and professionals - lawyers, engineers, consultants, and salespeople for example. In fact, you could argue that these folks have utilized this concept in some way, shape, or form for years before the concept of ROWE. However (and I'm thinking about my dad and his peers here), this is also during a time when knowledge hoarding was rampant and completely OOC and it wasn't uncommon to leave for a business trip on Monday working as a consultant or a sales guy for Big Blue and come back on Friday working in a similar capacity for Microsoft.

I'm not, by any stretch of the imagination, arguing against ROWE by suggesting that it will lead to employee turnover and disloyalty. On the contrary, I'm sure it could become a source of tremendous employee loyalty. I can't help but wonder, though, how successful ROWE is in organizations with a strategic KM initiative in place versus those without one. And, for organizations adopting ROWE without a formal KM strategy, how much more difficult will future KM efforts be?

It seems to me that, in the long-run, a successful ROWE implementation is dependent upon having both a strategic KM initative and a strong resource management solution. I don't think that KM is necessary to introduce ROWE to an organization, but, from a KM perspective, I don't know if I would approve of ROWE without it. For no other reason than it puts more pressure on "capture" component of KM. If an organization is already struggling with identifying and capturing information, ROWE is hardly going to make things easier, even though the demand for having access to and sharing critical knowledge and information will be bananas. And yes, it's possible that transitioning to ROWE could help stress the importance of KM, but that's kinda like recognizing the need for a fire extinguisher while your house is burning down.

On the flip side, adopting ROWE in an organization that has had some success with KM is a great way to demonstrate the value of knowledge management. Clearly, other success factors have to be taken into consideration (culture and leadership, for example), but having a managed strategy in place to coordinate a disparate, mobile, results-oriented workforce seems key to me.

I'm just saying!

Anyway, I still have questions about ROWE that I'd need to answer before I'm able to come to a comfortable conclusion on the concept (i.e., What are other organizations besides Best Buy that have had success deploying ROWE?, Does ROWE encourages employees to go above and beyond the call of duty? Or, is it better suited to the more ambitious employees?), but one thing that excites me about ROWE is its potential to become the work-model/management theory of the knowledge economy. Heck, I'm pretty sure that many of the strongest ROWE doubters are fierce adherents of Taylorism.

That is, assuming ROWE is about more than just working flex hours.

See, that's where I get stuck on the fence. I mean, ROWE was conceived as way of enabling folks to work in a manner/place/time-frame that best reflects their strengths, which, results in increased productivity and efficiency, then yeah, I'm down with that. And, I can see where this type of work environment not only promotes work-life balance, but has the potential to take the gloves off for what an employee can do in an organization and professionally, in general. Not the least by re-conceptualizing work and our cultural attitude about work - transitioning work from something you do to live, to something you live to do; because you enjoy it and because it gives you purpose, sense of self, opportunity respect...you fill in the blank.

Clarification: It may seem as if I'm saying folks can't change their concept about work on their. Not true. But our society, as a whole, does perpetuate a negative attitude about/towards work that is linked to competitiveness, issues of trust, equality, fairness, entitlement, and an overemphasis on the accumulation of material wealth. This behavior is learned and reinforced in the home, the classroom, on the playground, in church, and in the workplace. In the face of this cultural programming it's not only understandable that most people don't like 'work', it's almost suprising when folks do!

I think that having a new way of working goes a long way towards reconceptualizing attitudes about work. I once wrote a paper championing the idea of allowing employees, within an established budget and over and above any universally necessary org training (e.g., software training), to choose their own T&D/skill-building activities. The idea being that people are better able to learn from activities that matter to them and which they enjoy on a personal level. For their part, each employee must be able to share with their department and/or the larger organization (in their own way/words) what relevant lessons they were able to draw from their chosen activity. When I think about the potential of ROWE, this ability to make work meaningful, enjoyable...personal, beyond a paycheck, is what comes to mind.

However, if it's just about flex hours, mehhh, I'd be disappointed. I'd still see some value to overall work-life balance in ROWE, but I'm looking for a revolution not a reprieve.

Out of The Box - Week Ending 8/1

This morning, while doing some research on results-oriented work environments, I was inspired by Rosetta Thurman's 'The Friday Four' on her Perspectives From The Pipeline blog to throw a bit of weekly 'blurb' blogging onto my own site.

Every week I sift through dozens of miscellaneous articles and blogs which inspire thoughts and ideas on KM (and about a dozen more that serve no other purpose than to entertain me with a hearty helping of junk media).

So, while my lunch is heating up in the break-room (clearly not taking Rosetta's add-on advice to the BBC News Magazine article on how to make time to think; does it count if I blog while I eat lunch at my desk?) here's a list of the things that had me thinking out of the box this week (and tickled my funny bone)!

• Get Creative! Author and marketing and innovation consultant, Cynthia Barton Rabe, introduces the concept of 'zero-gravity thinkers' as a means of promoting creativity and rejuvenating the way organizations think. Rabe defines zero-gravity thinkers "as people
  who have psychological distance from the company or team, people who have Renaissance tendencies...'who think broadly and out of the box on a regular basis'".

• Cool Tool: Evernote (with thanks to C.C. Chapman)

• 11 Habits of the Worst Boss I Ever Had: A Manifesto of Poor Leadership from entrepreneur David Silverman.

• Celebrity Quote of The Week: "If you notice, since Britney started wearing clothes and behaving, Paris is out of town not bothering anybody anymore - thank God - and evidently Lindsay Lohan has gone gay, we don't seem to have much of an issue." – Los Angeles police chief William Bratton, linking a decline in problems with paparazzi to the good behavior of several high-profile celebrities, to KNBC-TV

• Tapping the Creativity of Downtime: Excerpted..."In its early days, Chris Wallace's company didn't always have enough work to keep its staff fully occupied designing interactive Web sites for clients. But it didn't want to lose any talent. So he and his co-founders decided to tell employees they could pursue their own interests in their downtime, doing just about whatever they wanted, on the clock."

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.