Back To Basics: KM and Adult Education

OR, "I Am A KM Snob"

Ohhhhhhh, so many things going on this week...apartment hunting in DC (major pain in the ass), trying to figure out Rita Ora's ethnicity....I mean, she could be Albanian like it says on her Wiki page but she looks at least half Black AND she dated a Kardashian and, except for Kourtney, we know how they roll.

What else...I am officially over these "idealist peddlers" harassing folks on the streets of DC to listen to their spiel about whatever organization they're repping.  They could take a few cues from their homeless competitors, namely, say your piece and keep it moving!  'Cause, let me tell you, you are taking your LIFE into your hands steppin' in front me to block my path to the Metro at 6pm to ask me if you can ask me a question - you just did!

Ain't nobody got time for that!

Recently, I attended the Global KM Health Share Fair hosted by  the Global Health Knowledge Collaborative (GHKC).  Since the field of public health is new ground for me in my KM career, I hoped to get some insight into the ways in which KM is is being used in the space to help me be more creative.  Unfortunately, my takeaways weren't quite what I set out to acquire.

For starters, I made the realization that I am indeed a KM snob.  What is that you ask? In a nutshell, if I don't feel that a person adds to my understanding of KM then I'm not interested.  If I don't feel like a networking relationship will help me to grow as a professional or individual then I'm not interested. And, if I don't feel that someones understanding of KM is consistent or in line with mine, then I'm especially not interested.  This might seem ironic - possibly, even moronic, considering that my entire profession is about promoting communication and knowledge sharing, but honestly, that's just where I'm at these days.  Over the course of my nearly 10 year career I have certainly put in my time meditating on KM and sharing my insights on the subject with anyone remotely interested (and several folks who weren't) but too often those conversations seem painfully one-sided (and not just because we likes to talk, which we do). At this stage of my career I need professional relationships that are equally give and take, not ones where I'm giving solely to help them grow.  Yes, it's nice to give but sometimes we wanna be Johnny at Christmas instead of being Santa all the time - milk and cookies ain't the same thing as a Samsung Galaxy 4S, I'm just sayin'.

My second, unexpected realization, was that folks in this space don't seem to do as much sharing as you'd think or expect. There was whining about competition for donors/funding dollars and the need to differentiate themselves from their "competitors" in terms of publishing research and program activity and maybe I'm just being an unsympathetic jackass but it seemed that too many of these folks were operating in a spirit of fear - yeah, I'm getting spiritual - that flies in the face of the work that they are doing. At the end of the day, we are working to save lives and, in some cases, eliminate illnesses in poorer, underserved populations that don't exist within Western nations. There may be competition for the limited resources to achieve these goals but collaboration is free y'all!

Interesting side bar: Considering how fearful some of these organizations are about sharing knowledge and information, sharing fearlessly is a great way to give visibility to those organizations willing to try something different.

Anywho, while I sat there feeling like a fish out of water because everyone else has their history and experience within the space in which they (and now "'I") work to bond over and I'm being a "judgey" KM snob looking down on them for not knowing as much about KM as (I like to think) I do and not trying harder to know more about KM or to develop innovative ways to approach KM I started getting critical of everything: the layout of the room, anything anybody said, what the girl next to me was eating at breakfast (and how).

To be fair, I did make an effort to share my thoughts in small group work sessions but, honestly, no one seemed very interested in what I had to say.  And while I'm willing (in the space of time it takes to write this post) to consider that it's because what I said wasn't particularly interesting, it's common knowledge that everything I have to say is, at a minimum, interesting, so I don't think that was the case.  I think it's because the reflections and contributions of other people, doing exactly the type of work that they do, frustrated by exactly the same challenges they are confronting, and saying exactly the same things they believe (not to mention all of those people who don't like to be aggressive about the truth preferring to sugar coat every bitter pill until they rob it of it's effectiveness), were more compelling than some dude who was, essentially, asking them to reflect upon how their attitudes and perspectives (read: bias) influence how they do their work and the results they see.

Yeah, real-talk, I was that deep.

But I couldn't help it!  Listening to some of the comments just had me on an Adult Ed rager.  I know that I'm probably the only (or one of a few) KM professional who went the route of an Adult Ed course of study, but I truly believe that getting anywhere from the intersection of KM Avenue and Public Health Street demands an understanding of these Adult Ed principles courtesy of Malcolm Knowles (with a little help from the Queensland Occupational Therapy Fieldwork Collaborative (QOTFC):

• Adults are internally motivated and self-directed
• Develop rapport with your audience and encourage a Socratic method of learning to encourage critical thinking and elicit participation
• Show interest in peoples thoughts, opinions, and feedback
• Provide regular constructive and specific feedback (both positive and negative)
• Encourage use of the range of KM tools and resources available within your organization
• Encourage individual KM activity that reflects folks' needs and helps them to achieve their own goals and objectives 
• Acknowledge folks preferred learning style of each member of your audience/team/staff
• Adults bring life experiences and knowledge to learning experiences
• Understand the needs and skills of your audience before attempting to secure their buy-in or commitment to something
• Facilitate reflective learning opportunities
• Adults are goal oriented
• Provide meaningful learning experiences that are clearly linked to your audiences goals
• Provide relate-able, real-life examples 
• Ask questions that motivate reflection, inquiry and further research.
• Adults are relevancy oriented
• Provide some choice in KM activities and tools so that participation - and learning - reflect the interests and habits of your audience
• Adults are practical
• When making choices about assessments, interventions, and availability of resources and tools, take the time to clearly explain and discuss your rationale
• Be open, honest, and explicit about the impact and usefulness of tasks and activities in which folks are engaged
• Adult learners like to be respected
• Take an interest in your audience
• Acknowledge the wealth of experiences that folks bring to the process
• Regarding folks as colleagues equal (and maybe even superior) in life experience
• Encourage the expression of ideas, reasoning and feedback 
• Secure buy-in at every opportunity

Your organization may have this massive need (directive and/or mandate) to improve how knowledge and information resources are shared but folks' level of participation reflects their individual need, not your wants.  People may put documents in the knowledgebase because they have to (and manage it when told to do so) but active engagement happens when they see relevance to their own work.  If you're not getting this type of engagement stop bitchin' about folks not beating a path to the wonderful system you've gifted them with (clearly, in a vacuum) and start asking them what it will take to make that system and the processes you've established into a tool that meets their needs.

Guerrilla Knowledge Management

OR, "How To Be a KM Revolutionary"

Soooo, 2010...
...
...
Considering how crappy the latter part of '09 worked out for me (what with that heart failure and all) I'm sure that I should be excited just to be vertical and walking, but I'm gonna hold off on any major celebrating for the moment and just see where this new decade leads. I'd hoped to end the year with a few new posts but I've been trying to shed the 30 lbs I've gained in the last 4 months from not being able to do any type of physically demanding activity (thank God for tennis)...and catching up on all of the shows I stopped watching mid-season 2009 (Is Vanessa Williams not the best reason to watch Ugly Betty?!?!)


Hey, I gotta broken heart; sue me!

Anyway, I hear confession is good for the soul and in the spirit of kicking off the year with a fresh start, I'm about to confess something that is so utterly embarrassing I've debated whether or not it should ever be committed to cyberspace. But, one day, when I'm in preparation for my confirmation as US Secretary of Knowledge, I might have to sit before a Senate sub-committee and spill my guts about these sorts of things so I might as well offer up some transparency now.

I rented Twilight.

I know, I know, the shame of it all! There are tacky and sordid hook-ups I'd rather spill my guts about, but there it is. I haven't watched it yet, but in my defense it was only a buck via RedBox and I'm curious to see what all the hype is about in a way that I was never curious about either sex or pot (my folks had a sure fire way to kill those curiosities - open dialogue! Thanks a lot mom and dad!)

Anywho, ever since my 2008 post on Green KM I've been itching to write one on Guerrilla KM. I coined the term years ago (for myself, at least, I don't know if anybody else is using it, although I'm familiar with Stealth KM) when I was a wet-behind-the-ears Knowledge Analyst at Ariba looking for ways to reduce my stress levels (that didn't involve a shotgun or Xanax) over my seemingly ineffectual efforts to promote KM.

The goal: "To increase knowledge sharing activity by any means necessary."

Yeah, I know, I was feelin' all "Knowledge Analyst X" at the time.

My initial strategy, which focused on coalition building and establishing an "army" of KM Champions across the organization, reflected my Adult Education and Policy Analysis studies more than true Guerrilla tactics, but I happen to see a lot of Adult Ed undertones in guerrilla warfare and the more I read on the subject the more potential I see for leveraging these tactics in a KM context.

While its possible (and advisable) to overtly pursue a "green" approach to KM, I definitely lean towards a more discrete use of guerilla KM tactics. Which is not to imply that these tactics are necessarily underhanded and shady, but nobody likes to feel as if they are being manipulated (especially if they are). In fact, stealing a page (or two, or three) from Machiavelli's The Prince might be just what your KM strategy needs to succeed!

In guerrilla warfare, a small contingent attempts to undermine a larger military force, usually in pursuit of a political agenda. Contrast that with knowledge management, in which a small contingent (maybe even a party of one), attempts to "influence" the larger organization, usually in pursuit of a politically and culturally charged objective.

For anyone who questions the comparison between 'undermine' and 'influence' and/or doubts the political nature of organizational change...get back to me when the green begins to wear off. Organizational change is inherently political and the more KM (or any functional area) attempts to influence (read: create change in) organizational behaviors, strategies, and policies the more likely it is to arouse the ire of any number of persons across the organization; making the use of guerrilla tactics an intelligent and savvy way to proceed in our line work. After all,

"the underlying strategy in guerrilla warfare is to harass the enemy (organizational leadership) until sufficient military strength (cultural momentum) is built up to defeat him in battle (influence evolutionary change in the culture) or until enough political and military (cultural) pressure is applied to cause him to seek peace (change strategies and/or policies).(Encyclopedia Britannica)"

Perhaps my favorite quote on the subject comes from Mao Tse-tung in his treatise "On Guerrilla Warfare" from which a lot of my approach has been derived,

"A revolutionary war is never confined within the bounds of military action. Because its purpose is to destroy an existing society and its institutions and to replace them with a completely new state structure, any revolutionary war is a unity of which the constituent parts, in varying importance, are military, political, economic, social, and psychological".

The effective implementation of knowledge management requires the use of a similarly composed strategy, addressing organizational politics, economics, culture, and psychology.

In developing a guerrilla approach to knowledge management, my biggest hurdle has been identifying a methodology that doesn't employ the negative tactics commonly associated with guerrilla warfare. Just because (the very "green" tactic of) transparency isn't necessarily a critical success factor in guerrilla actions (although, it can be part of the plan if it suits the agenda) doesn't mean that anything goes. As activist, writer, and Change Diva, Audre Lorde, wrote in her seminal essay "The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House”:

“The may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change.”

So, for my part, I prefer to rely on working with positive, lasting tools as a means of facilitating positive, lasting change, which takes tactics like ambush, deception, sabotage, and espionage entirely out of play (yes, even if Sun Tzu says it okay). Of course, this is just me – feel free to be as janky as you please.

Although, I might make an exception for espionage. I'm not morally opposed to a little clandestine intelligence gathering particularly if you're working in an environment where knowledge hoarding is the norm. I know from experience that sometimes, the only way to get at critical knowledge and information is to be sneaky about it - just be cautious about how you gather your intel. I firmly believe that in business, as in life, what goes around comes around and the people you step-on on your way up the ladder are the very ones you'll be seeing on your way down.

In his 2007 article, Guerrilla Warfare, Change and Innovation Agency founder Ken Miller offers up the following tips for creating change when you're not in charge:

• Find a supportive manager."Guerrilla warfare starts with two people — a brave change agent and an enlightened manager. No matter how backward your organization may be, there is at least one manager who "gets it," who wants to make her unit the best it can be. Find this person and indoctrinate her."
• Implement the change initiative in one unit. "Don't make the mistake of piloting the concepts on low-hanging fruit. Think big. If nobody notices what you've done, you've missed the point of guerrilla warfare. And if everybody notices what you are doing before you're done, you have also missed the point."
• Create a buzz. "If you have selected a high-impact, high-visibility system, you won't need to broadcast the results — people will notice."

Ken goes on to suggest some strategies for creating buzz, but to craft strategies unique to your organizational challenge(s) consider these 8 Principles of Guerilla KM. As usual, these are presented in no particular order.

1. Intelligence

Whether you're planning a long-term offensive or a strategic "hit", having the right intel is vital. In addition to having a thorough understanding of the organization's strategic goals (because, regardless of your approach, alignment with these goals is key to KM's credibility in your organization), it's also necessary to know where critical resources lie (human, technological, and economic), who potential allies (and enemies) are, and recognizing areas of opportunity (particularly ones that have been long ignored by the current régime). Being revolutionary isn't just about fighting with passion, it's also about acting with thoughtful deliberation.
2. Strategy

As a strategist, I'm inclined to think that this is the most important principle of all. After I've achieved some awareness and understanding (based on the 'intelligence' I've gathered) of the where the organization is at and where it's trying to go, developing a comprehensive strategy is a natural next step for me. It doesn't matter how well supported and/or funded your KM efforts are, there needs to be some sort of roadmap laid out that details what goals are meant to be achieved and provides a framework for making it all happen. Otherwise, it's like playing darts in the dark wearing a blindfold; you might hit something but it's a helluva lot easier to hit your mark when you can see your target.
3. Relationship Building (Networking)

When it comes to the Principe of Networking, there are two quotes that perfectly frame my opinon on the matter:

"The 'base of the people' is thus the key lifeline of the guerrilla movement. An apathetic or hostile population makes life difficult for guerrilleros and strenuous attempts are usually made to gain their support." — "Strategy and tactics of guerrilla warfare." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.

We all get by with a little help from our friends and making common cause with various organizational constituents and stakeholders (especially those who feel least appreciated) is a classic element of guerilla warfare aimed at getting that help when it's most needed!

"[T]he guerrilla fighter is a social reformer…he takes up arms responding to the angry protest of the people against their oppressors, and fights in order to change the social system that keeps all his unarmed brothers in ignominy and misery." — Che Guevara

"Angry protests", "unarmed brothers", and "ignominy and misery" might be a little 'dramatical', but I love this quote because it reminds me that I don't do what I do purely for myself; the work of KM is meant to benefit the organization. For the leadership that might mean improved efficiency and increased revenue while for the rank-and-file it could mean improved working conditions/procesess and increased opportunities for career growth. In order to realize these goals I need to build and maintain relationships that matter.
4. Mobility & Adaptability

One of the constant complaints I hear from KM folks is about the lack of pretty damn near everything - funds, staffing, exective buy-in, organizational support. My response: wah wahhhhh (you need an audio clip to really appreciate me saying that). Yes, it's nice to have those things, but ask around and you'll find that most people (in roles across the organization) had to make do (and do well) without the very same things you're whining about when they got started. The lack of these resources not only provides incentive for creative, out-of-the-box thinking, but it also affords a measure of mobility, both of which are invaluable assets. Working with a small staff means fewer chances for miscommunication and dropping the ball (who hasn't done that icebreaker?); working with a smaller budget also gives you a little less visibility and makes your accomplishments that much more impressive; poor or non-existent executive buy-in (with the proper spin) can actually help to legitimize KM efforts with change-weary employees...you get the picture? Guerilla KM sees the value in flying below the radar and looks for ways to capitalize on this advantage whenever possible.
5. Tactical Initiative

Typical guerilla campaigns involve the (quite annoying, from what I've read) use of brief, offensive strikes (hit and runs) that make the best use of a small, organized force with limited resources exploiting a high tactical initiative. In English - they study their enemy/situation earnestly, plan well (anticipating and mitigating potential problems), choose the time and place, and take advantage of the element of surprise. The ability to demonstrate high, moderate, or weak tactical initiative is a reflection of how much control you're able to maintain during a campaign; the better your plan (strategy), the greater your control and, thus, your success.

Oh, and it doesn't hurt to be able to pump out a few metrics to demonstrate the effectiveness of your campaigns just in case you piss off the wrong person (gotta remember to cover your boo-tay, KM revolutionaries still like a steady paycheck and benefits!)
6. Time

In my 7-plus years of KM I've never once heard it said that the time involved in facilitating change is a good thing, but for guerrilleros time is a friend. Since guerilla tactics focus on the bigger picture, not merely short-term gains, a drawn out conflict that takes its toll on the opposition is beneficial. Not so for most (if, any) business functions. However, it's past time for knowledge managers to reframe our perspective on the time factor; it's only an obstacle if you continue to see it as one. As Mao Tse-tung writes in his treatise, On Guerrilla Warfare, "Guerrilla strategy must be based primarily on alertness, mobility, and attack. It must be adjusted to the enemy situation, the terrain, the existing lines of communication, the relative strengths, the weather and the situation of the people." Using a guerilla approach, we mitigate the time factor by remaining diligently alert and continuously adapting our strategy to make use of the intel we're gathering. Unlike the bottom-line goals you're setting out to achieves, the KM strategy shouldn't be some static document that gets reviewed and modified once a year; it should be a living document that evolves in tandem with the various (and almost certain) changes happening across an organization. By staying on the grind, keeping abreast of what's going on in your organization and making the necessary adjustments to your strategy you are able to stay one step ahead at all times.
7. Leadership

In his treatise, Chairman Mao also provides some characteristics of the type of leadership necessary for guerrilla warfare:

"unyielding in their policies - resolute, loyal, sincere, and robust; well-educated in revolutionary technique, self confident, able to establish severe discipline, and able to cope with counter-propaganda."

While I think that all of these qualities are perfect in military leaders, we're not exactly running a Communist régime so 'establishing severe disclipine' ("share or die") might be overkill. Where Mao and I agree is that leadership should be models for the people, leading by example. Coincidentally, that's one of the reasons why I also propose discretion in the use of guerilla KM tactics. It may seem hypocritical, but as Desperate Housewives character Tom Schiavo extoled to wife Lynette earlier this season: "There are sometimes in life when you have to break the rules to survive." (I told you I've been catching up on my shows). Besides, it's not as if we're concealing any illicit activity (I hope), we're just not broadcasting behavior that might give the impression that anarchy is okay (even if we dabble in it from time to time).

Gosh, I'm starting to feel dirty now.
8. Promotions/Branding

One of the most well known - much maligned, though often utilized - aspects of guerilla warfare is propaganda (it isn't just for "commies" anymore). However, considering its unsavory connotations and applications, I prefer the terms "promotions" or "KM Branding". KM Branding is a particular passion of mine. I view the intersection of marketing and education as a critical component of any successful strategy. Unlike propaganda though, branding doesn't have to be fed on lies, half-truths or fuel dissent. On the contrary, KM branding can be employed using a very 'green' approach - openly, honestly and with much transparency - using marketing tactics and adult learning techniques to generating buzz around KM activity and build social capital. As retail entrepreneur Sy Syms sagely proclaimed, "an educated consumer is our best customer".

I'm working on an article explaining the concept of KM Branding more fully, but in the meantime guerilla marketing guru Jay Levinson is a fantastic resource for great ideas. Levinson coined the term in his book Guerilla Marketing as an unconventional - and unexpected - system of potentially interactive, promotions that rely on time, energy and imagination to create unique, engaging, thought provoking campaigns.

The net effect of this approach is to position yourself to deliver what Chairman Mao called The Lightning Blow, "select the tactic of seeming to come from the east and attacking from the west; avoid the solid, attack the hollow; attack; withdraw; deliver a lightning blow, seek a lightning decision." And, when you get right down to it, isn't this why most organizations invest in KM in the first place, to be stronger, more efficient, more agile? Clearly, the benefits of KM aren't strictly limited to improving how knowledge and information is shared.

Happy New Year!

'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.