Accounting for KM: I ♥ Patrick Lambe

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

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

Yes, Pokémon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers!!

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

"Good luck!!"

What's your take?

Knowledge Management: The Organizational War Chest

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unfortunately.

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

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

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

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

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

How, you ask?

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

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

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

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

Outwit. Outlast. Outplay. Survive.

KM Standards & Certification As A Professional Compass

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oops, I forgot the last question:

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

Critical Issues of KM in 2007-08

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Building A Better Knowledge Manager: Love Is A Battlefield

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Let’s hope so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sometimes you've just gotta believe.

Applicable Knowledge: Culture audits and inter-departmental relations

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

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

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

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

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

Wanted: Free Knowledge - Apply Within

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

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

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

Ain't that a blip!?!?!

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm such a geek.

Reflections of a...Recruiter?!?!

So much to blog, so little time in the day. Hopefully, I'll be able to write a couple of posts tonight before hitting the sack.

Well, last week I took the plunge and began training as a recruiter with The Bolton Group here in Atlanta. It's 100% commission which, on the one hand, is janky as all hell, and on the other hand, trés cool because it provides me with all the tools I need to learn the business while I (ethically) continue my search for a KM position. Besides, the ultimate goal here is to develop a niche within KM and that's the prize I have to keep my eye on.

As a people/community development centered knowledge manager this is probably a horrible thing to say, but recruiting over the last week and a half has brought me back to ancient (read: high school) wisdom I used to swear by: people are basically stupid.

With all due respect to corporate loyalty and to Accounting/Finance professionals who probably field a dozen calls from recruiters each month (many of whom are most likely obnoxious and sales-y), when someone calls you with nothing to offer but their phone number and email address in the event that you, or someone you know, might be interested in exploring a new opportunity, you don't hang up on them or turn them away; you politely take their information and tell them you'll call if you need their services. Of course, if they are an ass who calls you every week with the same sales pitch, feel free to give them a mouthful - a good recruiter should at least remember with whom s/he's spoken, but even then, you should feel good knowing that you have options and you're a valuable commodity in the job market - a lot of folks don't get to experience that.

Speaking for myself, I've pretty much ditched the script we've been given and simply use the networking approach - give out my name and company, explain that I'm a recruiter/headhunter and ask if they'd like to take down my phone number and email address in case they (or someone they know) might be interested in seeking out a new opportunity/situation. I say "hello" and "thank you" and ask them how they're doing (contrary to what the shady Brit who's instructing us has said). I don't ask them highly specific details about their current job (except their title) and experience, unless they engage me in a conversation and, even then, I keep my questions to a minimum out of respect for the fact that they are at work - and the fact that I've got at least sixty of these calls to make each day; if they're serious, they'll send a resume and give me a time to call them when we can get into all of that.

About half of the folks will at least take down my information or ask me to send them an email with my contact info, but the other half will tell me how happy they are and decline to take my information.

The recruiter in me is dumbfounded: exactly how many people does the average person have on their list of contacts and among their circle of friends that, if they decided to look for a new job/position for any reason, they could call up and have them be completely dedicated to finding said job/position (more than likely at an increased salary) at absolutely no cost to them???? I can tell you right now, I've got bupkiss - nada, no one. I've got folks who will "keep their ears open" but none who will do the job search and finesse the offer for me.

The knowledge manager in me is perplexed: if all of these folks are so friggin' loyal and happy why aren't most of 'em properly and adequately sharing their knowledge? Are these people the moth-eaten coats in your corporate knowledge closet that need to be cleaned out and dumped in the donation bin?

That's not completely fair, it is possible to be satisfied with where you're at and be a contributing member of that organizational community. I guess I'm just bitter because I don't have any recruiters blowing up my phone and all the ones I've worked with in the past were basically filling the position as a one-off for a client they'd previously worked with. They didn't understand enough about KM to effectively flesh out the job order or prep me for meeting with the company; same with HR. That's what I hope to change. Who better to help companies ascertain and retain the right candidate for their KM and organizational needs than a knowledge manager.

God, I love being an innovator! I just hate making cold calls! :-)

Applicable Knowledge: Improving Knowledge Base Search Functionality

Maintaining optimum performance of your knowledge base or content management systems search functionality is a critical factor (some might say the critical factor) in its effectiveness and utility. After all, users need to be able to find the content they are looking for quickly and easily, otherwise the system, regardless of how pretty it is or how much content it contains, is a bust and will most likely be abandoned in favor of other options.

Since working at B+P, I find a lot inspiration for branding KM from marketing literature. Strategies that revolve around promoting and/or improving awareness of products/services can often be applied to KM strategies as well.

In the July 10 edition of BtoB (which I picked up in my mail today - hey, I'm a busy boy), there is a nice article on Honing Your SEM Strategy. The article outlines 13 best practices for maximizing organic and paid search efforts.

I've used a couple of these practices (below) in my own efforts to improve the search functionality of knowledge management systems I've worked with and thought others - with a little tweaking towards KM - could be useful as well. Check out the full article to see what else might work for you!

• Track search terms and access patterns
  Periodically, look at the terms users are searching on and update your search engine accordingly. Pay particular attention to commonly misspelled terms. Also, identify patterns that indicate trends around types of content being accessed. In conjunction with tools used to track content hits/accesses/views, this information can be helpful in proactively capturing and promoting highly desirable content.
  
• Use multimedia replays
  Honestly, I've been scratching my head for the last 20 minutes trying to understand how replays can help promote search...period, but I know from experience that they are an extremely effective tool for sharing information. In fact, this same issue of BtoB offered very cool insight on the popularity of b-to-b podcasting, for example, delivering white papers or analyst reports as both documents and multimedia replays. The key: make it interesting! Users want dynamic and provocative, not droning and prosaic. Also, just as a sidenote from yours truly, even though podcasts are hot right now, replays should reflect a variety of formats (e.g., mp3, mpg, wmv, mov, avi, rm). It doesn't have to be ALL of them, just enough to provide maximum coverage.
  
• Provide a linked list of the top keyword searches on your site
  Every time I open a browser, my MyYahoo! homepage provides a rotating banner at top of the top searches across a range of interests for the day. This way, I know Paris Hilton was the most searched celebrity and Kanye West was the most searched musical artist. And, in case I give a rat's behind about these people, I can click on the link provided and search them as well. It's gimmicky, but effective. Not only does it provide a quick link to popular information, but it informs users of what information is most popular.
  
• Use editorial calendars to predict hot search terms
  Get a jump on keywords and buzz words by looking at major themes being presented in upcoming industry trades (publications). I love this idea because it rocks if your knowledge management system is internal only and it makes you look like a rock star (on the edge and in the know) if your system is also externally accessible.
  

Flip The Script: An Employee's Incentive To Share?

Writing this post has taken much more time than I thought it would. My thoughts have been all over the place with this topic and I'm sure it could easily be spread out over multiple posts (which I just might do), but since I have a tendency to go off on tangents, I wanted to be sure that I hit the most salient point first.

This post is written primarily for employees trying to understand how KM can benefit them, and less for practitioners looking for tips on achieving employee buy-in, but hopefully everyone can learn something valuable.

As any good professional must do, I was reading various KM-related articles and blogs last week when it occurred to me (not quite so suddenly; I've had this thought before, but now that I'm pounding the pavement I'm, perhaps, a little more sensitive to it) how very one-sided, arrogant, and quite possibly, unprincipled most, if not all, organizations are about their KM needs, and, subsequently, their KM strategies.

In so many of the articles/blogs/studies I've been reading, the focus (today, just as it was when I was studying KM 7 years ago as an undergrad) is on (1) how KM can benefit the organization and (2) implementing effective KM strategies that inevitably ask, "How do you get KM to work?" and "How do you get people to share knowledge/information?" All with very little, if any, consideration for the knowledge bearers in these organizations - the people they hope to get information from (and need to get information from in order for these efforts to be successful).

Anyone who works in this field should be acutely aware of the socio-economic and cultural landscape that has and continues to shape our attitudes about work and how we are valued at work (what I know = my value to the organization). The volatile and uncertain economy of recent years hasn't done much to change this attitude, on the contrary, it has reinforced it. While outsourcing, mergers, acquisitions and layoffs have driven organizations to seek out innovative and sustainable KM solutions, they have reduced employees' incentive to participate in them. And, quite honestly, why should they? What's in it for them?

I mean, if my company lays-off and/or outsources a section of its employees every couple of years then why should I care about their need to prevent valuable knowledge from walking out the very door they are holding open and possibly escorting me through? As long as I have the tools and resources to do my job, I'm good. And if I do find a pink e-slip in my Inbox, well then, at least I'll leave knowing those bastards don't have the benefit of my expertise and know-how - which I'll take to my next job.

And don't even think about asking me to train a replacement.

Harsh, I know, but this is the reality of today's workplace. Corporate loyalty died along with Customer Service. Unlike my parents' and grandparents' generations, people in my generation (That would be 'X') seldom stay in one place for the duration of their careers - both out of necessity (career and financial growth) and as a result of that volatile market I mentioned before. You're also competing - all of the time! Within your company you're competing for promotions and raises and exciting opportunities to demonstrate your value; outside of the company you're competing against people with either similar or more experience/education as well as folks with less experience/education than you who are willing to work for less! Reducing your personal competitive advantage isn't going to help you pay your bills or make it up the corporate ladder. Yet, in a roundabout way, that's exactly what most organizations are asking employees to do - give up some (or all) of your personal competitive advantage for the benefit of the organization.

And again, I ask, "Why? What's in it for them?" Organizations are fond of talking about corporate citizenship and employee responsibilities and quick to point out how knowledge sharing benefits the company "as a whole" (read: the people who realize the most financial benefit from the organization's success and prosperity), but the inability to answer the questions I posed previously, ultimately becomes the monkey wrench in the KM machine. That's certainly the case with the organizations I've spoken to.

My solution: self-interest and self-preservation.

Flip The Script
First off, most KM strategies I've come across aren't meant to directly benefit the employee. Oh sure, organizations want employees to have ready access to information so that they can be more efficient and productive employees, but they'd just as soon have you check that information at the door when you leave and re-acquire it again when you return to work. Fortunately, it doesn't work that way.

Knowledge managment is only partially about organizing information, the remainder of any good strategy is about leveraging that information - taking what you know and making it useful, beneficial, valuable. To "flip the script" and make KM work for you involves having a plan around where you want to go professionally and what you'll need to get there. Once you've got that in place make sure that for every contribution you make to the Knowledge Base, you take something for your self that takes you closer to your personal goals; call it a "user fee".

And don't think of it as stealing, because it's not, it's sharing. (This ain't like that Coca-Cola scam last month.) You are acquiring the skills you need to be a better worker, there's just no guarantee you'll be "a better worker" for that particular employer forever and ever.

Sharing Is Sensible, Not Stupid
It's a pain in the ass to let go of old habits and notions, particularly when it comes to our perceived value in an organization. After all, companies do pay you for what you know. However, that value is established (monetarily) when you're hired - the only (reasonable) way to receive a new and improved valuation is to increase what you know. (Certainly, you'll want to make more in your next job.) And, if the price of the new information is stuff you already knew, then share it already! Denise Rowe, one of my earliest mentors during my time with Ernst & Young, taught me that unless you are doing something no one else can do (and very, very few fall into that category) you are replaceable. It may suck to see you go, but if they can find someone else to do your job better or cheaper or both, they will. People who don't share, don't learn as much or as quickly as folks who do, so don't fixate on where you're at, focus on where you want to go.

Make A Plan and Follow It
My philosophy of KM is that the strategy should reflect the actual needs of the organization, rather than any industry standards or imagined needs. I know this seems pretty simple, but you'd be amazed how many organizations adopt strategies that don't follow this logic. When it comes to making KM work for you as an individual, I stress the same approach. In fact, that's how I achieve employee buy-in with even the most ornery folks, by asking, "What do you want?" and "What do you need?" (Every person, no matter how skeptical, has wants and needs, discovering them and putting a plan together around meeting them is the key to making a critic an ally). The central element of your plan needs to be understanding your career/professional goals. From there, identify the skills, tools, knowledge, experience needed to help you achieve your goals and determine how you can utilize organizational resources to this end.

Opportunistic much?!?! Hell yeah; better to be ambitious and opportunistic than complacent and bitter - and bitter is what you will be either watching other people assertively pursue (and get) opportunities you believed (the urban myth of) corporate loyalty would reward you with or standing in the unemployment line looking dazed and confused.

Sharing Makes You Shine
Now, with a sub-heading like that, you might be inclined to think I'm about to stab you in the back and give some sell-out speech on the Joy of Knowledge Management, but trust me on this. Just like companies who inform their industry are perceived as industry leaders, people who share most frequently are considered experts and "go-to" people. You want a quck assessment of your value to the organization? Take a look at who is coming to you for information and how often. You don't get that by passing the buck or playing stupid - in fact, you could be a solid performer, but when people can't or don't come to you with questions or for solutions, it's easy for you to become one of those people whose actual role everyone questions, "What exactly does so-and-so do?" Now, of course, you don't want to be a Stan (that's my imaginary know-it-all who is incapable of getting his own job done because everybody comes to him with their neverending questions).

And you don't have to be.

Stan's biggest problem is not that people come to him for everything, it's that he doesn't know how to manage people to prevent them from interfering with him doing his job. Share what you know, but share wisely. Besides, isn't that what the company's new KM system is for?

The implementation of a new KM system/strategy doesn't have to be a blight on the workplace. It also doesn't have to be just about what the organization hopes to achieve towards its bottom line. Developing your personal competitive advantage is an excellent individual benefit of KM for the ambitious, motivated employee dedicated to furthering the goals of their own bottom line.

So What Does A Knowledge Manager Look Like, Exactly?

It's pushing up on 2am in Atlanta and I've got the Rafael Lelis Club Mix of Christina Aguilera's "Ain't No Other Man" blaring so I can stay focused, write this post quickly and catch some Zzz's before berry pickin' down at Adam's Farm in Fayetteville in a few hours.

Though I've been something of a flogger this week, I have been keeping notes on topics I want to write about. I also decided that at least once a month, going forward, I'd like to start posting some ideas of how KM can be leveraged in various industries and companies. I was in Nashville's equivalent of Discover Mills last weekend and passing Old Navy reminded me of how stale the men's fashion industry is and being both a knowledge manager and fashionista I thought, "How can KM benefit Old Navy and the men's fashion industry as a whole?" (Who hasn't asked this question?!?!?!)

I'm always hearing folks question what the future of KM is and I think that in order for the field to grow there needs to be more practical application of KM concepts and processes; proactive vs reactive KM.

So, while I'm showing my age and cultural influences, I was watching Making the Band 3 last week and thinking about how much image is touted in the music industry and wondering how important image is within the field of KM and how often it (and salesmanship) override substance and what effect this has on the validity of (and respect for) KM.

On Tuesday I had my last meeting with the division head of one of the companies I've been interviewing with. I think it was a largely ceremonial interview, particularly since he really didn't have a clue about what KM was or even what he thought KM could/might be able to do for his division (that, and he nodded off a few times - soooo sketchy), but anyway, reading between the lines of some of his comments, it seemed to me that he was sort of doubting or disqualifying my ability to do the job because of my age and limited experience (4 yrs).

I got the impression that his expectation of a knowledge manager is someone much older than me with 10-20 years experience (no less than 5 years at any one company and not necessarily in KM), a PhD (in God only knows what), certifications from various organizations, and probably a few scholarly articles and/or books to their credit. (Mind you, this is not the job description). At any rate, he seemed quite dismissive which offended me since it completely ignored my education and experience (and complete overqualification for the position as described) and also because my presentation ROCKED and impressed the other 18 people I had met within the division.

Anyway, it had me thinking about a few things. Please keep in mind it's early in the AM and some of these might not make sense:

(1) The image of KM and how many folks (professional and otherwise) paint a pretty picture vs selling a solid strategy. And by "paint a pretty picture" I mean anything from trying to sell a concept of KM that caters more to an organizations ignorance about KM (as opposed to creating/setting realistic expecations which aren't always "pretty") to selling technology tools/applications as a definitive KM solution (totally ignoring the whole "culture/community development aspect of KM").

On the flip side - thinking about organizations that have pre-defined what they want KM to be - do you walk away when an organization is asking you to implement something that isn't necessarily KM or doesn't truly reflect the KM needs of the organization?

I wonder, if I took more of a sales and less of a consultative approach would I have been better received?

(2) Was is it really age-discrimination? I haven't been offered or denied the opportunity so this is not a legal question in the least, I'm thinking more about the fact that while KM is a really forward-thinking, visionary field there isn't any regulation or structure and it still has not hit the mainstream. If I were in Marketing, I might be seen as a young gun with exciting new ideas. If I were a physician or professor I would be considered completely green, no matter how brilliant or accomplished (respect comes with time and tenure in these professions), but in a field without any real structure or career path - with professionals that are both like me and those who actually fit the description above, isn't it easy to be dismissive of someone in my shoes as being more ambitious than experienced - regardless of what is in my resume or how flawless I present my strategy and recommendations?

Much like in Sales and Marketing I feel that to be successful in this field you have to be an innovator, entrepreneurial, you have to be on the edge, with an eye for new opportunities to grow the field and grow within the field. I'm not saying I'm more qualified than the next person (depending on who they are) but I certainly feel my age and focused experience within KM (in very different organzations) enhances my value as a candidate.

3) Touching on that last point, one of the concerns voiced was my length of tenure at each of the previous companies I've worked. I'm not even going to get into the generational comparisons of how long people stay at any one job these days versus the mid-20th century, but in KM aren't there advantages to experiencing the challenges and opportunities presented by various organizations? I'm not saying job-hop for the sake of job-hopping, but how can you grow in the field if you've only experienced KM in one setting, industry, culture, country? And, isn't that what career development is all about - chasing increasingly challenging and fulfilling opportunities and experience?

I'll let y'all know if I get offered the job ;-)

The Executive Exception

Thus far in my career, I've worked on two full lifecycle KM engagements and one of the (many) things that irks me is how Senior Executives (including the President and CEO) have been non-users of the KM systems I've been involved with. During my time with Ariba, I'm not even sure if our Sr. Execs even knew the company had a knowledge base (if they did, maybe they wouldn't have laid off half of the team....I'm not bitter, lol), but in my last position with B+P both the President and the company founder were aware that a system had been deployed, yet neither of them ever logged into it.

At Ariba, I challenged the argument that execs at this level should be exempt from having to manage their own content (usually submitted and managed by direct reports or admin) - to no avail. I wonder, however, if exempting Sr. Execs from knowledge management activity (even the mundane stuff - it's mundane for everybody) diminishes their awareness of the critical value of knowledge management and factors into why so many KM efforts fail; after all, if its not supported, in practice, by your senior leadership, then why should the rank and file give a hoot?

One could argue that the higher the position in the organizational hierarchy, the greater the responsibility to share one's knowledge and, thusly, demonstrate and model good knowledge stewardship.

Christian's Kick-a** KM Roadmap

I recently updated the Knowledge Management Roadmap I use to establish my KM strategy overview. I took some inspiration from the Roadmap created by Amrit Tiwana (formerly of my alma mater, Georgia State) in his book, Knowledge Management Toolkit.

I'm still figuring out how to attach the PDF to this post, but you can email me at youngde1@gmail.com for a copy.

Essentially, this Roadmap breaks-out into five steps the various processes I employ in my approach.

Phase 1: Knowledge Audit
Every KM strategy should begin with a knowledge audit. How elaborate the audit might be is driven by whether or not an existing, documented strategy is in place and/or the level of carte blanche held by the Knowledge Manager. On the one hand, if you're walking into an existing, documented strategy you might have to get by with a very informal knowledge audit while you wrap your hands around what's going on in the organization. On the other hand, if you're starting fresh - and you have the carte blanche and organizational support to do so, you might be able to conduct a wide-scale knowledge audit; it's important to establish how much carte blanche (or "juice") you have at the onset - nothing worse than doing something full-on only to have someone slam on the breaks.

Along with performing the knowledge audit I am usually understanding and setting expectations of KM (by asking - and answering - these questions of the stakeholders, "What does KM mean to you?" and "What do you expect from KM?"); Defining and documenting the scope and vision (What does a fully implemented KM strategy look like the organization?); and, achieving buy-in (something that never ends).

Phase 2: KM Strategy Blueprint
This phase is all about taking the information collected in Phase 1 and building out the KM strategy, establishing metrics (which correlate directly with the intended deliverables!); building out a functional requirements document (what does your KM system/application need to be able to do, as indicated by the information you gathered in your knowledge audit regarding the needs of the various stakeholders in the organization?); determine the human resources needed to make the strategy work; and, yet again, acheive buy-in of the the strategy you've devloped.

This is also the phase where I would be comparing off-the-shelf applications and understanding how each could be customized to suit the needs of the organization.

Phase 3: KMS Development
If you've never had to establish a content classification methodology then consider yourself blessed because this really is a pain in the buh-tocks. Not only is this methodolgy driving how content is captured and organized in your system, it's also driving your search functionality which is huge determinant of how functional your system is (if folks can't find content they won't like your system, and if they don't like it, they won't use it, and if they don't use it, you probably won't be that company's KM for very long).

Never fear, though, you're also doing plenty of QA, UAT, and bug-fixing in this phase before you get to Phase 4.

Phase 4: KMS Deployment

Each phase of this roadmap is critical, but this is really where you put your money where your mouth is! Not only are you rolling out your knowledge management system, you're also having to launch your branding campaign which involves all of the marketing and education around both your system and KM, in general.

More thought definitely needs to go into branding knowledge management. I think the traditional technology focus most folks take when thinking about and implementing KM ill prepares both organizations and knowledge managers for this aspect of KM. Neverthless, "pimpin'" KM is hyper critical to making it successful!

Phase 5: KMS Evaluation
This is both the end of the KM cycle and the beginning, because it will set the stage for the next knowledge audit (which I think should be done on an annual basis, but that's what works for me). Basically, this phase goes back to all of those goals that were set in Phase 2 and evaluates how well they were acheived based on the pre-determined metrics.

I know that at this point, the temptation to add a little gloss to the results might appeal to some depending on what they to work with, but my experience is that the only way to really make KM work is to be as critically honest as possible. Obviously highlight positives, but don't be afraid to emphasize negatives as well; providing reasons for why things did or didn't work along with recommendations for resolving issues and improving outcomes.

Honesty is key not only for professional integrity, but also because you can't truly address critical organizational issues if you're not confronting them - and somebody has to, why not the "knowledge manager".

KM Career Information/Resources

I was cleaning up my KM IE Favorites links today and came across some career resource information that I thought folks might find useful.

The International Center for Applied Studies in Information Technology at George Mason University has compiled a list of KM degree and certificate programs that can be found here. The site also features a list of KM-related dissertations (with downloadable topic list) as well as a list of priviate companies offering KM education.

Kent University, which offers an MSc in Information Architecture and Knowledge Management, offers a list of KM Careers and Resources (including professional organizations) to assist those interested in the field.

Although I've still yet to find any US search firms/recruiters that specialize in staffing KM positions - and by specialize I don't mean they've placed a couple of folks here and there - this article on recruiting brought UK-based TFPL to my attention. They focus on recruiting in four areas: KM, library & information management, records management, and web & content management.

Just a thought, I have seen the odd KM position (those leaning more towards knowledge librarians) posted by Library & Information Management recruiters, but I wonder if those agencies are the most ideal for recruiting KM positions, in general.

Thoughts on the KM Interview Process

Well, it's been months since I started my blog and I've finally come to the realization that I'm a total flogger...a flaky blogger. You say you're gonna write, you tell the world you're going to put in the time, and then you flake out, giving nothing to world but wordless disappointment.

So, in an effort to rebuild some of my unearned trust, I thought I'd finally create a new post.
______________________________________

Towards the end of February my dreams of bringing knowledge management to Brierley+Partners turned to dust when I was told the company could no longer afford to fund the project - which particularly sucked because I was told at the onset that funding was very much a non-issue. At any rate, I've relocated back to Atlanta and have been interviewing nonstop for various KM positions locally.

The interview process is interesting for a number of reasons:
1) I'm always curious about the background of other applicants. Although my BS is in Urban Policy Studies and my MSc (when I finish my thesis) is in Adult Education and Organizational Learning, I've focused my entire academic career in the field of knowledge management - every paper, (most) every project centered around acquiring and developing the skills I felt would be most beneficial to my career. I didn't have the benefit of any advisors or course selections throughout school and the literature I was reading was too academic and theoretical (and too heavily focused on KM technology tools) which pushed me to really develop my own theories and, in my opinion, has made me a better knowledge manager.

During at least two interviews I was asked about my affiliation with KM organizations such as KMPro , KM Benchmarking Assn (KMBA), and Assn of Knowledgework (AOK) or any KM certifications I held. I suppose because of the academic and career success I've enjoyed (despite being booted from B+P) I've yet to see the benefit of joining any organizations and I think 6 years of digging for, chewing up and spitting out every nugget of info I could on KM plus 3+ years of working in the trenches trumps the certifications currently available. Still, I know that many process-driven orgs like being able to see (and tout) certification, so I'm curious to know what if any, other applicants bring to the table, in addition to their academic and professional training.

2) I'm also curious about how other KM applicants approach the interview process. Typically, I take a very consultative approach. I use my initial interview as a means of acquiring enough information to develop a high-level strategy which I then pitch during the follow-up interview. Mostly, my interviewers are very impressed with this strategy, but at least one company still chose to offer the position to the other candidate. I wasn't upset about not being chosen (I kinda sorta didn't really want the job after doing a little more research into the company and uncovering some cultural similarities to my last job that were a little too close for comfort), but after my kick-ass pitch I wondered what could have topped it. Of course, I've interviewed for KM jobs in the past that went to PhD's and professionals with 20 years experience (not all within KM) so I can see how that beats my more limited experience, but when it doesn't, is it really just a personality fit? Does the company have more if an idea about what they need/want they are letting on in the position description and early stages of the interview process? Did I set the bar too high? Too low????

3) The other thing that intrigues me is KM recruitment. Since Atlanta is not really a hotbed of KM opportunities I've actually been exploring the idea of moving into recruiting. Part of the pain of job hunting in this field is that there isn't any person or organization that really focuses on recruiting within the field of KM. Many, if not most, of the current professionals have come into the field from other areas, usually in response to the specific needs of an organization (which they may or may not have successfully responeded to) and not always with a larger awareness of the entirety of KM. Outside of the "real world" (read: business world) there are a few KM courses cropping up here and there, but there isn't a prescribed path for pursuing a career in the field.

I find it ironic that when I was in undergrad at Georgia State, while I was given room to do my thing, there wasn't any real support for my studies. And then, less than four years later, fresh from my graduate studies and working in my first KM gig I was back at GSU giving a presentation on KM to a knowledge management class with my co-workers.

Still, today, KM is not often regarded as a critical strategic function that necessitates (a) dedicated resource(s) and requires, academically speaking, a multi-disciplinary background; effective knowledge managers are strategists, marketers, salespeople, financial analysts, techies, psychologists, web designers, statisticians, data analysts, librarians, researchers, entrepreneurs, reporters, secretaries, telemarketers, stalkers, hand holders, and babysitters all-in-one!

But I digress...

The point is that there isn't a generally accepted idea of what knowledge management is; there isn't fixed career path; typically only the hiring manager knows what s/he is looking for and the average (read: pretty much most of them) recruiter doesn't have a clue which, in my opinion, limits their ability to effectively fill the position(s).

I'd love to see some of the KM orgs out there begin to address these types of issues as a means of growing the field. In the meantime, if none of the KM opps I'm working on pan out, maybe I'll take up the recruiter challenge. Being a pioneer certainly suits me (as long as I can do it in capris) ;-)