Is There Life After Knowledge Management?
by Nigel Oxbrow
and Angela Abell
Nigel Oxbrow is founder and CEO of TFPL and Angela Abell is director of TFPL. During the past six years TFPL has been actively involved in the theory and practice of knowledge management.
Tools of the "Knowledge Age"
What is knowledge management (fondly known as KM to its followers) anyway? Think of it as a bar of soap because it is essential and slippery. If you use it sparingly you get predictable and acceptable results. If you use it to nurture and feed your skin you may get a glowing result. But if you squeeze it too hard it leaps away from you. The harder you squeeze the higher it leaps and the more it eludes you.
Some people love KM, some hate it, some claim that they have always done it, but few people have been able to ignore it. As a senior manager once said, KM is common sense but has not been commonly applied. The KM "movement" has been all about applying that common sense to enable society and organizations to operate effectively in a fast moving, changing and knowledge-based world.
How Did We Get Here?
KM is not a fad. It is a reflection of the world we live in, the organizations we work in and the people we are. Imagine the situation where people signed in for work before the whistle blew, stopped for lunch and returned to work when the whistle blew and stopped work for the day when the whistle blew. They used the tools and techniques they were given, worked with the material they were supplied and produced a product or service to a pattern or formula. This was the industrial agea controlled and controlling environment that is often used as an illustration of the world before "the knowledge age."
The knowledge age also has its tools (hardware, software and communications) and techniques (business processes and know-how). But these must continue to evolve if an organization is to change and adapt quickly enough to be effective in its market. And the raw material of the knowledge age (information and knowledge) does not decrease with use and is not itself shaped into a product or service. Even in the large information-provider industry, there is a difference between the information sold and that which enables them to sell successfully. The "product" and its quality is a feature of the provider's knowledge and information about suppliers, clients, processes and management.
They key element in all this is, of course, the people. The film Metropolis, made in the 1920s, imagined the world in the 21st century. In the character's imaginations, they had become automatonsperfect cogs in a mechanized world. Of course, that didn't happen. People have gained more personal and intellectual freedomnot less. They have become more, not less, individualistic. They no longer work to the whistle with defined hours or place of work. Contracts of employment and patterns of work have changed and are diverse.
However, it is also true that in many organizations a "long hours" culture has as its measure of success the ability to work dawn to dusk and the need to be a 24/7 employee. This is a reflection of the value now placed on "knowing" and being seen "to know." Organizations once measured the productivity of their workforce by tangible itemshow many units made, packed and distributed. The public sector would count numbers of people processed, taught and contacted. People felt their value was in their ability to use the tools and techniques. Automation began to change the balanceproduction needed less people and productivity became a function of man and machines. But the value of individuals was still associated with the use of those machines. As organizations move away from counting beans to assessing less tangible attributes (such as the quality of decisions or the ability to innovate), then an individual's value becomes associated with how much they know, how well they contribute and use that knowledge and their sphere of influence.
Hence the individual's need to feel indispensablethe need to be at the heart of everything and the need to control and monitor everyone's contribution and output. The quality of a tangible product can be tested and monitoredits faults and their owners identified. Knowledge work is more difficult to monitor. Just as it is difficult to exactly quantify the contribution or value of a "piece of information" or the advice and knowledge of an expert, it is also difficult to spot mistakes in the knowledge chain. So individuals hold on to the decisions, work harder and trust less. And yet, for a knowledge economy, trust is a core enabler.
Despite the long hours and the hard work; despite the connectivity provided by information and communications technology; and despite the quantities of information generated, stored and exchanged in and between organizations, we still see spectacular corporate failures and events in both the private and public sector. It is hard to judge if these result from a mismatch between information available and the ability to make sense of it. But it does appear that the problem of "drowning in information" continues to increase. Although there are many examples of the creative use of information, the wave of information and knowledge-led innovation, which the dot.com era seemed at one time to spearhead, seems a long time coming.
The Future Context
So where does that lead us? Well, many of the arguments for KM haven't changed and aren't likely to do so in the foreseeable future. Still, there are some trends that are quite clear. Perhaps the most significant is the beginning of "knowledge conscious management." Admittedly, it is not widespread but there is enough sustained discussion about knowledge management to indicate that the processes and approaches will become embedded in the way organizations work. There is a long way to go but the following are just some of the reasons why we think it will happen.
Dynamic Markets
We live in a volatile world. It is a world of dynamic market conditions, where speed and change have become truisms and organizations are adapting in order to function. Although all organizations will approach it differently, their focus will be on building an organizational capability to enable them to learn and adapt. "Chief Learning Officers" are as common as "Chief Knowledge Officers (CKOs)."
Complex Organizations
Organizations are already complex and will become more so in the future. For many years organizational structures have been challenged and the slow change in the 1990s to flatter structures and empowerment has given way to a rapid change to project-based organizations, matrix management, fluidity of staff structures and changing employment contracts. When you combine the change in supply chain management and increased partnerships, knowledge exchange and the growth of intellectual assets become very real issues.
The Quality of Decisions
Decisions run organizations, whether they are the decisions to invest or divest; to grow in old markets or enter new ones; to introduce social support or "make your own luck" policies; to select one supplier or another; to form partnerships, or pursue a competitive stance. Strategic decisions are about the organization's future; operational decisions are about its current success. In modern organizations a number of things are becoming evident about the decision making process:
1) The speed of decision making is accelerating. Timeframes are shorter than in the recent past.
2) A number of people are involved in the process but in the end the final decision is made by one person. The quality of the decision reflects the innate ability of the decision maker and how well contributions from a variety of experts can be harnessed.
3) Political considerations in all organizations will play a central part in decisions.
4) Strategic planning requires intelligent ways of predicting the future, while operational planning requires facts and focus.
5) Decision making is being decentralized. Corporate decisions are increasingly being pushed out to the operating unit closer to the market. The role of the center is becoming that of providing strategic leadership, direction and a common framework to enable communication, information management and common business processes.
Information Architecture and Content Management
Despite all the worry that knowledge management would become an IT solution looking for a problem, a human relations function or a way for corporate communications to make its mark, information management has become an acknowledged part of the picture. It is certainly not the whole picture, but many organizations recognize that excellent information management is the key to success for many of the things they need to achieve. E-business and e-commerce, planned improvement in health services and government services through the utilization of ICT and putting people in touch with each other depend on excellent information management. And excellent information management depends on information architecture and content management. Both topics, which are rapidly becoming features in the press, depend on standards and tools.
One example of this impact is the development of taxonomies. Indexing and classification was once the domain of the professional LIS community. But taxonomies are now being developed by organizations, from every sector and people from practically any discipline.
Knowledge-Conscious Management
A recession increases the importance and value of knowledge initiatives but also increases pressure to focus only on the bottom line. The trick will be to ensure that someone takes knowledge initiatives forward and demonstrates the impact they have on the bottom line. This won't be an easy task but the faster it is done, the sooner "knowledge-conscious management" will happen.
This means knowledge champions or knowledge leaders are needed more than ever, but they must be people who understand, and are part of, the business. It also means focus. Knowledge initiatives aligned with key business issues and corporate objectives are the only ones that will sustain management support and provide the needed impact. So a thorough understanding of business processes and the knowledge flow that supports them remain key. Knowledge champions/leaders will also need to understand and harness the "human glue" that provides much of the contextual knowledge in organizations and foster people-to-people communications.
But knowledge leaders will require two other essential elements in their organizations:
Competencies
The development of skills and competencies throughout the organization will become one of the key concerns of knowledge-based organizations. Many organizations have already developed their own competency dictionaries, which aim to define the competencies required for all roles. These competencies are defined as observable behavior and indicate the level of ability required. Thus they provide a means of assessing a candidate's suitability and the development needs of people or teams in post. This approach is likely to be the one that drives knowledge sharing and utilization forward as knowledge and information sharing and use begin to become embedded as core competencies.
This approach is also driving the learning organization method with its emphasis on the transfer of knowledge from "experts" to novice via a variety of coaching, tutoring and best practice mechanisms. In the UK, the minister for education is currently advocating re-introducing apprentice type vocational trainingan indication of how far the thinking on transfer of skills and knowledge has began to swing away from the "learning by reading approach." A legacy of KM may well be recognition of the variety of ways in which knowledge, skills and expertise is transferred.
Information
Information management as a knowledge enabler needs to have a broader remit. The majority of the effort in most knowledge initiatives is focused on the processes and pipes for creating, sharing and using. How information is structured for communication also needs to be evaluated. The diversity of language and its uses has been a key KM message and the focus on taxonomies is one indication that the message has been understood. But information quality and evaluation, and the means of sensing, synthesizing and recognizing significance are equally important. Informatics and competitive intelligence are two techniques that require wider attention. Equally important is understanding formats and document design for good communication.
Life After KM?
The question assumes that KM will go away, but that is unlikely. Unless the world economy returns us to a time when we have little choice for work and limited opportunities, it is difficult to imagine people returning to the industrial age style of employment. Some people may be still battling to get away from those conditions but we would argue that a critical mass of knowledge workers exists. These people expect to use their brains and do not make sharp definitions between work and non-work, home and office, employing organizations and partners or knowledge and information. They also expect to have stake in the outcomes of their work (whether that is financial return or recognition) and to contribute to decision making. They are also increasingly self-reliant.
Information and communications technology, and the impact of the connectivity it enables, has already changed the way organizations work. There is no going back to a pre-KM state. There will undoubtedly continue to be discussions about approaches to management. Academics, gurus and consultants will continue to examine organizations to diagnose real or imagined problems and propose theoretical and (sometimes) practical solutions. Most of these will have a short half-life, but occasionally one will emerge that has a lasting impact on the way senior management thinks and how organizations work.
KM is one of those pivotal themes. In fact, the remarkable thing about KM is the impact it made on people throughout organizations almost before it made an impression on senior management. But will KM itself endure? This model won't endure if its champions are successful in embedding the processes and thinking into the fabric of organizations and how they work. But some of the roles created to enable KM will. It is highly possible that the "CKO" will remain and become part of the senior management team. Perhaps not with that role title, but with the remit to ensure those knowledge and information strategies exist and are aligned to the business. How long the change takes depends on how successful current CKOs and their teams are at creating a knowledge-conscious organization. But we are already seeing a small number of CKOs demonstrate the reality of knowledge-conscious management by taking on the responsibility for corporate strategy.
There could be interesting differences between geographical regions in the next "knowledge" wave. Research included
| "Knowledge leaders have the real opportunity to increase the strategic impact of knowledge management in their organization in times of a recession provided that they focus their strategies and initiatives on the key issues facing the organization, its clients and its partners."
Quote from CKO Summit 2001
|
in the European Round Table of Industrialists' report, "Actions for Competitiveness Through the Knowledge Economy in Europe," indicated that the development of a knowledge economy in Europe and implementation of KM had been hindered by: a lack of investment in IT compared to the U.S.; diverse cultures and languages, which increases the challenges of communication; a less entrepreunial friendly environment than the U.S.; and less geographical and organizational mobility in the workforce than in the U.S.
Conversely, knowledge management in the U.S. has largely been an IT driven approach. It has reflected a commercial environment, which is dynamic in terms of risk, staff turnover and mobility. It relies on IT to capture the knowledge that new staff, new situations and new challenges need.
The next few years could see U.S. organizations reacting against large IT solutions, which have failed to live up to the promises made, resulting in the knowledge management trend going into reverse. As cultural interventions have been given less attention, the success or failure of technology approaches. So when they fail, it could be a case of throwing out the KM baby with the IT bath water. But in Europe there is evidence that the less IT-orientated approach is likely to endure and change attitudes. The cultural diversity is being harnessed to create innovative approaches to the management of organizations. The strengths of personal networking, a centuries-old European tradition, are beginning to underpin the way knowledge management is developed. KM is all about people. And Europe "does" people better than it "does" technology.
There will be similar diversity in other parts of the world as regions adapt to the knowledge era and develop ways of working that reflect their cultures. So the KM and IT community will be exchanging their experiences and issues from different perspectives, and global organizations will be looking for local solutions within a global framework for the management of their most crucial resource.
The Opportunity Is Now
The economic downturn suggests that KM will be shelved while management focus is on surviving the recession. But this isn't necessarily so. There are compelling reasons for organizations to accelerate their KM efforts rather that abandon them. The question is whether the downturn will be seen for what it isa critical point in the transition between the knowledge-based economy and the resource-based economy.
These opportunities are exciting and transformational. Consider the following:
· Executives will be concerned with working smarter. So there is the opportunity to move KM up the corporate agenda.
· A downturn can provide a period for reflection and stimulate creativity.
· Recession is an opportunity to re-configure your business (competencies, organization and processes) to prepare to be the big winner in the upturn.
· Long term productivity and competitiveness depends on investment and a systematic approach to growing knowledge assets. A downturn gives time to grow the knowledge base.
While there are examples of organizations pulling back from their KM programs, for many it is a question of alignment and refocus. The KM pioneers have shown the possibilities, the economists start to focus on return, and the impact of recession on KM programs will be related to their maturity and their costs. Established programs will continue if relevant, practical and embedded in the business. New high cost investment will be scrutinized for relevance and importance to the business.
The Information Professional in The Post-KM Era
A notable feature of organizations that are regrouping to function effectively in the 21st century is the crucial role played by business units, geographical locations and market facing departments. More support functions are being embedded in these areas, decisions are being devolved to them and they provide most of the knowledge and information on which the organization depends. Project- and team-based working is becoming the norm, with multidisciplinary teams bringing new insights and approaches to tasks, problems and decision making. We see this trend being supported, as observed earlier, by a centralized framework, which provides information and knowledge infrastructure, policies and process to enable sharing, core and common business processes and strategic direction and leadership.
In this scenario, knowledge and information strategies are crucial and will be developed. It is the ideal opportunity for information professionals to move closer to the core of the business and its future.
This scenario also opens up the structure of the teams within which information professionals may work. Being versed in various areas of expertise increases the likelihood that information professionals will find themselves working alongside IT, OD and HR professionals and those people who deliver the core business product or service. These teams will be seen as part of the business, not a service element.
These teams are also likely to reflect the centralized/decentralized model that organizations are adopting. We envisage a centralized team whose remit is to provide the information infrastructure. These will be the people who develop the information architecture, negotiate global contracts and develop common products and services. A second team, dispersed throughout the organization and integrated into business units, will be responsible for facilitating the creation and application of knowledge and information.
Perhaps the key development will be the link that these teams will form between the organizations, their partners and clients. As the knowledge and information exchange increases between organizations, information and knowledge teams will play an essential facilitating roledesigning the systems, monitoring quality and policing compliance. Similarly, as information is more freely available to clients and customers via the Web or other means, the question of content and its quality is likely to become the domain of knowledge and information professionals.
As the role of information professionals opens up, new knowledge specialist roles will emerge. Some of these will attract and be open to information professionalssome won't. Similarly, some information roles will go to people from other disciplines. It will matter less what precise discipline you represent than your understanding of the context, your willingness to develop and apply new skills and competencies and your ability to help build and sustain a knowledge friendly infrastructure.
What Next?
Organizations have always been forced to change and adapt to people. Current and future change will be information and knowledge centric, which could be an opportunity for the most adaptable in the profession.
If KM doesn't become embedded in an organization before its initiatives disappear, that organization is likely to struggle. Forget the name. Not only is "KM" a label that many organizations dislike, it also implies that it is a tangible thingsomething that you do to an organization. It isn't like that. An organization will either adopt ways of working that enable it to build, nurture and use the collective and individual knowledge of its people or it will drop out of the knowledge age. Business processes are now valued and understood, despite the term "business process re-engineering" being dismissed as the fad that didn't work. Life after KMforget it. Life is KM. Think of the bar of soap. It may be elusive and slippery, but it can be fun to find.
References:
Actions for Competitiveness Through the Knowledge Economy in Europe. European Round Table of Industrialists, 2001.
Scenarios for the Knowledge Economy: Strategic Information Skills. TFPL, 2001.
RSS
Feedback form
