by Jeff De Cagna, Ed.M., managing director, strategic learning and development, Special Libraries Association
We've all heard and read about how important "knowledge" is in today's organizations? But what does that really mean? What does it take for organizations to create meaningful knowledge-sharing systems and how can information professionals play a role in creating them? To answer these and other important questions, Information Outlook chatted with Professor Nancy Dixon of The George Washington University, author of Common Knowledge: How Companies Thrive by Sharing What They Know, published this spring by Harvard Business School Press. Common Knowledge reveals groundbreaking insights into how organizational knowledge is created, how it can be shared-and why transfer systems work when they do. We're sure you'll find Dixon's perspective as valuable as we did.
Information Outlook: What is common knowledge?
Nancy Dixon: Common knowledge is the organization's most important knowledge. It is the knowledge asset that makes it competitive in the marketplace. It is knowledge the organization creates from the experience of carrying out its own tasks and projects. It is unique to that organization, whereas much of the other knowledge an organization has is learned out of books, knowledge that its engineers learned in school, and so forth. But when people actually do a task, they learn what it takes, what equipment works best, where you run into problems, what can be done about those problems, and that knowledge is the "common knowledge" of the organization. It is knowledge gained from the experience of doing unique tasks.
IO: The question that immediately comes to mind-and your response will be of great interest to our members-is what is the difference between "information" and "knowledge"?
ND: The way I think about that distinction is that knowledge is actionable. Knowledge is something you can actually do something with, and that may mean that it is procedural in nature or that may mean that it is "how to" in nature, but it's of that kind.
I actually think that there may not be a huge distinction between the two ideas because, in some cases, what is knowledge to you may be just information to me and vice versa. In other words, if can take action on it I may view it as knowledge and, if as a result of your situation, you are unable to act on it, you will view it as information. So I don't think there is a huge distinction between the two in the sense that there is a clear line where you say, "Okay, information is here and knowledge is there," but it's helpful for me to think about knowledge as something on the basis of which it is possible to take action.
IO: If I may, I would like to explore that just a bit. [Leading knowledge management thinker and 1999 SLA Annual Conference keynote speaker] Laurence Prusak argues that if there is no difference between information and knowledge, then there is really nothing new in knowledge management. What is your reaction to that?
ND: Let me put it to you this way. I think that what is new in knowledge management is not necessarily the difference between information and knowledge or even being clear about that difference. I think what's new about the idea of knowledge management is our realization of the value of knowledge in helping organizations work more effectively. This is a new realization for many and it demands, therefore, that we think carefully about how to manage the knowledge resource.
Another thing I think is new is that, increasingly in organizations, what people do is create new knowledge or make use of knowledge. If we were to go back 50 years, 20 years, or even 15 years, what most people in the organization were doing was following someone else's instructions. From the time of Frederick Taylor forward, they were following what someone else said. They didn't need to bring their brain to work. They didn't need to make judgments. They just needed to do what they were told, and that is such a switch today because people in fact do need to bring their minds to work. Most of our work is judgment work. It is work about which we have to be thinking and really using our minds all the time to find new ways to be successful.
There are many causes for this switch, including the speed of change and the pace of a global economy that pushes us to come up with many new ideas. Another force is the speed with which products are being put out on the market and with which we need to react to them. So there is a great deal happening in our world culturally and environmentally that has urged us to put our focus on knowledge.
So, for me, that's the difference. We have always had, I think, this idea of needing knowledge and needing information, but it has grown so much now that we just can't get away without focusing on it. So, for me, what is critical about knowledge management is the emphasis we are placing on it, and our quest to figure out how to do it better.
IO: How do you overcome what John Seely Brown and others refer to as the "stickiness" of knowledge, that is, the tendency of knowledge to attach itself to its context and the consequent challenge in moving it from one part of an organization to another?
ND: Yes, stickiness is a real phenomenon. Knowledge has to cross many boundaries in order to move throughout the organization. These boundaries are often hierarchical and, whether up or down, they are very difficult for knowledge to cross. There are also geographical boundaries, boundaries of profession, boundaries of language, and certainly boundaries of culture. As a result, I do not think there is a single way to eliminate stickiness. We really need to pull apart this challenge and find unique ways to address each unique thread.
There is something else important about stickiness that I think needs to be made explicit. When you think about it, the idea of stickiness actually removes some of the blame that we often place on people for failures of knowledge sharing. I mean, we often criticize people for having a "not invented here" mindset or for hoarding knowledge, like it is some kind of character fault. Well, I don't think it is a character fault. I think it is a phenomenon of the system, and what I like about the word "stickiness" is that it is not value-laden. It doesn't place blame on people, which I think gives us more opportunity to think systematically about how to reduce "stickiness."
IO: In Common Knowledge, you talk about five different kinds of knowledge transfer: serial, near, far, strategic, and expert transfer (Please see the box for definitions of each type of transfer.) What would you like our readers to understand about these different types of knowledge sharing?
ND: Well, I think the most important thing is that Common Knowledge tries to "unpack" our understanding of knowledge, instead of looking for principles that cut across all different kinds of knowledge. My argument is that you really need to look at the type of knowledge that you want to transfer, and then figure out which of the five processes matches the characteristics of that knowledge. This is a different approach, and I think it is an important difference. Assessing the characteristics of a certain type of knowledge and then linking that knowledge with a preferred way of sharing it, I think advances our understanding of how best to accomplish knowledge transfer in organizations. Of course, we're only in the early stages of what must be an on-going effort.
IO: I'd like to dig a little deeper into some of the things you write about in the book. My first inquiry is around the "after-action review." What is it, how does it support "serial transfer," and what made it something that you wanted to include in your book?
ND: An after-action review is a learning process employed by a team at intervals throughout a project, as well as at the end of a project. It is designed to examine what was supposed to happen during the last action or event, a candid appraisal of what actually took place, and an assessment of what might account for any gap between expectations and performance. The goal is to use what has been learned right away in the team's next action or project.
We must keep in mind that it is not easy to learn from experience. You really have to reflect carefully on what has happened if you are going to develop valuable insights from your experience. When there is a team involved, this takes on added importance because what people know is embedded in their heads, and without the honest conversation, the probing and the challenging, that knowledge will not be accessible to everybody.
What the after-action review does incredibly well is make explicit everyone's tacit knowledge and, thus, it becomes publicly available to the entire team for use in the next action or project. Even though the team and at least part of the context will be the same the next time, the circumstances of the next action or project are likely to be quite different. This knowledge, now accessible to all, will be invaluable.
IO: "Near transfer" and "expert transfer" rely more on the use of technology than the other approaches presented in your book. What is your perspective on the appropriate role for technology in the sharing of knowledge within organizations?
ND: I think technology works very well when the knowledge can be written down in a procedural form. It is a quick answer to something, such as when I send out an e-mail to ask if anyone knows how to change the brightness of an old computer monitor, and someone knows the answer and e-mails me in return. It is with something that can be written
down--very explicit, concrete and clear knowledge--that I think technology is most useful.
Of course, technology is also useful in helping us locate people who may have valuable knowledge in response to a new or different problem you may be facing. Texaco, for example, has a system it calls, "PeopleNet" where you can enter 3-4 different criteria to locate someone, such as someone who speaks Russian, has skills in Unix, and understands marketing. It is a wonderful tool for finding those people, even though you can't directly access their knowledge by using it. You can call or meet them, however, and have a longer, more in-depth conversation. Technology helps us overcome distance. It helps us cross over the geographical boundaries that, as we discussed earlier, are a part of the stickiness of knowledge.
IO: With all the work you have done recently in this field, what do you think is the most interesting thing going on in the world of KM today?
ND: Well, we hear a great deal about the need to change the culture of the organization in order to make knowledge sharing possible. But I see just the opposite happening, i.e., sharing knowledge beginning to change an organization's culture. One of the ways in which I think organizational culture is changing is a heightened respect for local knowledge, which is created in the task of doing one's job. Local knowledge always competes with "sanctioned knowledge," i.e., knowledge that the organization has declared as valid. Sanctioned
knowledge may come from outside the organization, or it may come from internal experts or task forces.
Historically, managers have held very little regard for local knowledge, and instead gave prominence to knowledge created by individuals not directly engaged in the task. However, disregarding the knowledge garnered through work creates disrespect between management and employees. Employees see managers as removed from real work, while managers see employees as resistant to sanctioned answers.
Through knowledge management, however, organizations are now beginning to value the knowledge that individuals learn through their work experience. This cultural shift certainly is not something that knowledge management is bringing about all by itself, but it is exerting a strong influence. Most knowledge sharing is done between peers, and the organizational "sanction" for this kind of exchange, is an implicit recognition that local knowledge is important.
IO: Let me circle back just a little and ask you about something that I feel and that I have heard others say. It seems to me that the term "knowledge management" makes a fairly arrogant presumption, especially when you consider the various characteristics of knowledge that defy easy management. Do you have a thought on this issue?
ND: When I speak at conferences, I am going to guess that two out of three speakers say, "I don't like the term." Many people don't want to be associated with the term, but it is the term that is now in common usage.
I also don't like the term. I think it gives us the wrong analogy: managing. I much prefer the idea of mobilizing knowledge, moving it and so forth, but I think "knowledge management" is in our vocabulary. If you call it something else, then you have to explain it. We all recognize it really limits us in some ways. It is often a poor analogy for what we are doing. Right now, however, I think we have to live with it because it is there.
Now, I also think it is changing. You almost could say, well, organizational learning became knowledge management, and now we are hearing more about intellectual capital. Some people are now using that term interchangeably with "knowledge management." Other people will argue that intellectual capital is something quite different.
So I think we will continue to evolve the term, but for now, I think we are stuck with it, and we have to try to get around the limitations of the "managing knowledge" analogy.
IO: Given what you know about information professionals, in what ways do you think they need to develop themselves in order to actively participate in knowledge-sharing activities within their organizations?
ND: There are a number of ways in which information professionals might develop
themselves so that they can actively participate in knowledge-sharing activities. They can
become knowledgeable about various methods for sharing knowledge, such as those discussed in Common Knowledge, so they can help match the best sharing process with the knowledge. I also think information professionals must build their own facilitation skills, so they can help draw knowledge out of teams engaged in important projects. These skills encompass both asking the right questions, and discerning themes and patterns in the responses.
I also think that information professionals should build their understanding of how communities of practice work, including how knowledge is grown and vested in these communities. Information professionals can be valued members of every community of practice, and help to connect people and ideas. Information professionals are good at helping clients find information in journals, books, and databases, but knowledge sharing will require them to move from the periphery to the center of communities. They can serve as the link among interested individuals, groups, and existing and emerging learning communities.
IO: How can information professionals interested in bringing some of the ideas that you talk about in Common Knowledge into their organizations get started? What do you suggest as a first step?
ND: I think information professionals need to connect with groups or teams that are interested in sharing knowledge. It takes less time and energy to go where there is already an inclination to act, rather than to try to convince people that knowledge sharing would be helpful. If a group has expressed a desire to share knowledge it is probably based on some current need or some pressing problem they are trying to solve. Understanding what the group is seeking, and blending it with an understanding of meaningful knowledge sharing, is a good first step on the road to becoming valued as a "knowledge champion" within the organization.
INSET BOX WORD COUNT: 301
Common Knowledge: Five Types of Transfer
In her book, Common Knowledge, Nancy Dixon presents five types of knowledge transfer. Below is a brief summary and example of each type.
Serial transfer-The knowledge a team has learned from doing its task in one setting that can be transferred to the next time that team does the task in a different setting. (Example: a power generator team replaces a generator in a chemical plant. The team uses that knowledge when replacing a generator in a refinery.
Near transfer-The explicit knowledge a team has learned from doing a frequent and repeated task that can be reused by other teams doing very similar work. (Example: a team in an Atlanta auto plant figures out how to install brakes in ten seconds. A team in Chicago uses that knowledge to reduce its time by fifteen seconds.)
Far transfer-The tacit knowledge a team has gained from doing a non-routine task that is made available to other teams doing similar work in another part of the organization. (Example: peers travel to assist a team dealing with a unique oil exploration site. The collaboration provides new approaches.)
Strategic transfer-The collective knowledge of the organization is needed to accomplish a strategic task that occurs infrequently but is critical to the whole organization. (Example: a company acquires ABC; six months later another team in a different location uses what was learned with ABC to acquire DFG.)
Expert transfer-A team facing a technical question beyond the scope of its own knowledge seeks the expertise of others in the organization. (Example: a technician e-mails the network asking how to increase the brightness on out-of-date monitors. Seven experts provide answers.)
Source: Common Knowledge: How Companies Thrive by Sharing What They Know by Nancy M. Dixon, Harvard Business School Press, 2000 (ISBN 0875849040).
INSET BOX WORD COUNT: 246
SLA partners with Nancy Dixon
SLA is pleased to be collaborating with Professor Nancy Dixon on two exciting learning experiences based on her invaluable insights into knowledge sharing in organizations!
On December 6, Dr. Dixon will facilitate the final session in the 2000 Virtual Seminar Series entitled, "Share and Share Alike: Creating Knowledge-Sharing Systems." In this seminar, Dr. Dixon will explore more deeply the challenges associated with sharing knowledge and offer advice and guidance on how you can develop a knowledge-sharing system that will work for your organization. Tuition for this session is $145 for SLA members, $195 for
non-members. To register for this seminar, call KRM Information Services at 1-800-775-7654 and use seminar code SLA5779-0. (International members may dial 1-715-833-5426 to register.) Please have your SLA member number ready when you call to receive the discounted tuition!
Dr. Dixon is also serving as faculty director for SLA's Knowledge Champions Institute, to be held April 4-8, 2001 at the Hyatt Regency Crystal City, outside Washington, DC. We all know that information professionals are well positioned to serve as the "knowledge champions" that today's organizations need to help create and support knowledge-sharing systems. KCI will prepare you for this critical role, and will help you link your knowledge initiatives to the strategic directions and business challenges of your organization.
To learn more about these and other Strategic Learning and Development Center experiences, please call the Strategic Learning Hotline at 1-202-939-3627 or contact us by
e-mail at learning@sla.org.
****SUGGESTED FEATURE QUOTES (Pull quotes)
• I think what's new about the idea of knowledge management is our realization of the value of knowledge in helping organizations work more effectively.
•…we often criticize people for having a "not invented here" mindset or for hoarding knowledge, like it is some kind of character fault. Well, I don't think it is a character fault. I think it is a phenomenon of the system…
• We must keep in mind that it is not easy to learn from experience. You really have to reflect carefully on what has happened if you are going to develop valuable insights from your experience.
•…we hear a great deal about the need to change the culture of the organization in order to make knowledge sharing possible. But I see just the opposite happening, i.e., sharing knowledge beginning to change an organization's culture.
• Information professionals are good at helping clients find information in journals, books, and databases, but knowledge sharing will require them to move from the periphery to the center of communities. They can serve as the link among interested individuals, groups, and existing and emerging learning communities.
RSS
Feedback form
