denotes premium content | May 18 2013 Feature
posted 1 Jun 1998 in Volume 1 Issue 6
The ecology of a sustainable knowledge
program
“A
prince who is not himself wise cannot be wisely advised.”
This article aims to establish some principles
and guidelines for creating a sustainable and balanced knowledge programme.
David Snowden
identifies some of the key issues
that must be undertaken over the course of a knowledge programme. He concludes
that knowledge is an organic rather than mechanistic model, and can only truly
be achieved through the creation of trust, a vital prerequisite of knowledge
exchange.
Most management models post 1940 have assumed a mechanistic and
directive model of science and the firm. Like the Newtonian models of physics on
which they are modelled, they assume that sufficient data capture and analysis
will reveal universal laws, which will enable scientific management. The last
and most extreme of these models was Business Process Re-engineering;
originating in cybernetics it represented the ultimate manifestation of the
organisation as machine.
Knowledge management has the potential to be a quantum (sic) shift in
thinking, from mechanistic to organic models of the organisation and society. It
embraces the reality of uncertainty and enables the deployment of Intellectual
Assets - in particular tacit, community-based skills - to manage that
uncertainty for innovation and competitive edge. For this potential to be
realised we require new modes of consultancy practice and a change in corporate
culture to enable the creation of trust - the most vital prerequisite of
knowledge exchange. Given that this type of change threatens the financial
models of the major management consultancies, and contradicts the solution-case
basis of much Business School teaching, it won’t be easy. However, wisdom is not
achieved without sacrifice, and more importantly, wisdom can not be ‘bought in’.
As Machiavelli rightly advised - wisdom is a precondition of accepting wise
advice.
The seeds
of success or destruction are set in the early stages of a knowledge program. In
this final article of the trilogy1 an
attempt is made to establish some principles and guide lines for creating a
sustainable and balanced knowledge program.
In the first of this eclectic and
somewhat polemical series of articles I introduced a tongue in cheek matrix
based on two classifications of sin: mortal or venial; omission or commission.
In that article I explored a mortal sin of omission, namely the failure to
initiate tacit knowledge projects at the commencement of a program. A taxonomy
of tacit knowledge and some initial ideas on knowledge diaries led to the second
article in which I elaborated on the need for knowledge mapping and proposed two
business models:
1. an uncertainty matrix to determine the balance of explicit and tacit
knowledge in a particular decision context;
2. An idealised model for
understanding the principle practices of Knowledge Management which linked
knowledge mapping with competence creation, intellectual capital management and
tacit knowledge (or competence) management.2
In this final article I want to
explore what it means to create a sustainable ecology for knowledge creation,
exchange and utilisation. In doing this I will explore the other three segments
of the ‘sin matrix’. For new readers I should identify that mortal sins are
those that necessarily lead to damnation, whereas venial sins require a
prolonged period in purgatory - recovery is possible if painful. Sins of
commission are those that are deliberate acts, whereas sins of omission imply
some failure to act - going with the flow.
Venial Sin of
Commission
Creating a pilot project(s), not a program
The majority of companies in the UK
and US are now either running or initiating knowledge projects. Sometimes this
is an attempt to run a pilot project to test out what it would mean to use
intellectual capital. Frequently it may be simply a pet project which is tagged
as ‘Knowledge Management’ to gain funding. Particularly in the provision of
technology we see the increasing prevalence of ‘knowledge ware’.
One danger with
Knowledge Tagging is that it can couple knowledge management with a single
conventionally run project or a particular technology. Knowledge Management is
the collection of methods, tools and techniques by which we enable the effective
utilisation of Intellectual Capital. In creating a knowledge management project
(particularly the first) we are seeking to understand the potential use of
Intellectual Capital. In investing in financial assets, in particular stocks we
always try to achieve a balanced portfolio. Investors are discouraged from
putting all their eggs in one basket. The same is true of Intellectual Capital.
A single project is a dangerous start; a portfolio spreads the risk. However,
creating a portfolio requires:
1. Establishing a distinct language
and structure to enable the community to articulate the nature of knowledge
management activity that a particular project is intended to achieve. In the
first article of this series I used the contrasting dimensions of knowledge as
(i) an asset (held by individuals or communities), with (ii) the exercise of
judgement (balancing the use of tacit and explicit knowledge), to identify four
types of transitional activity in managing knowledge. These were: (i) sharing
explicit knowledge by distributing processes and procedures and association
database access either directly or via a catalogue to related information; (ii)
sharing tacit knowledge through institution of apprentice schemes, community
spaces etc.; (iii) making tacit knowledge explicit through process
re-engineering, documentation and data mining; (iv) and, potentially the most
powerful, creating a sufficient level of trust within the organisation to permit
the move of some decision making from an explicit basis to a tacit basis (most
often required in conditions of change, innovation, complexity and
uncertainty).
2.
Using the distinct language and structures thus created to ensure a balanced
portfolio of projects/pilots that cover in various combinations the four
transitional activities. Figure 1 shows this in a diagrammatic form. As can be
seen it is unlikely that a single project will be focused on one transitional
activity. However it will have a strong focus on some, with a weaker focus on
others. As projects are plotted onto the framework we start to see the gaps in
coverage of the four transitional activities. Provided that we have mapped the
knowledge assets of the organisation, we also are able to gain a sense of the
balance between the organisation’s most important knowledge assets and the types
of knowledge exchange that the pilots are targeting. A company with high tacit
dependency, running its first pilot in explicit knowledge exchange may be
getting the emphasis wrong - or, worse, may be confused. Ideally an organisation
should determine the investment criteria and success measures likely for each of
the transitional activities. If this is done before project selection it
provides greater stability in the corporate perception of the knowledge
program.
3. Reviewing other projects and
activities that may have an impact on a firm’s understanding of knowledge. Most
companies who are ready to commence a knowledge project will already be
undertaking activities which would be enhanced by an understanding of the types
of transitional activity implied by their goals. Inclusion of such activities in
the portfolio will increase both the understanding and visibility of the
program. Also it will identify common components - particularly in the area of
cultural change. This latter is critical, not to save cost (although that is a
side benefit) but to prevent confusing or contradictory messages, particularly
in the use of language. The “I’ve got a better knowledge project than you”
syndrome is already visible in some companies and is best avoided as early as
possible through the creation of a common framework, such as that suggested in
figure 1, together with associated education. The other key factor is the
creation of a part time core knowledge team, a subject addressed in the next
section of this article.
Critical to understanding this need for a balanced portfolio is the need
to appreciate that knowledge management is not a practice to be stacked up with
process re-engineering, quality improvement etc. It is a mind shift change that
will permeate the entirety of an organisation’s activities. While some projects
will be expensive and time consuming (the provision of a knowledge
infrastructure for example) many projects are relatively easy to put in place
and cost little or nothing for high returns. A spread of projects will assist
this understanding at all levels within an organisation.
Venial Sin of
Omission
Failure to act knowledgeably in the program
Hypocrisy is one of the great
management sins. “People are our most important asset” was the headline of many
a corporate report immediately prior to the decimation of crudely applied BPR
exercises. A precondition of knowledge exchange requires trust, all too often
lacking in the down sized company.3 I
have not carried out objective research to establish the following assertion.
However, I am pretty well convinced from practical observation that the true
intellectual assets of a company are often in its most loyal employees. The
career climbing manager - working from one short term engineered success to the
next on the corporate ladder - too frequently relies on this loyalty to sustain
his/her highly focused charge. It is unlikely, however, that such behaviour will
allow access to the underlying and hidden networks of trust and interdependency
that sustain most organizations. As Peter Druker asserts, the knowledge worker
is a volunteer not a conscript.
There is one underlying (but not
exclusive) cause for these tensions. Most management training relates to the
effective management of financial assets. Individuals are a cost of sale or an
expense. Measurement and deployment models for financial assets are based on the
unavoidable truth of depreciation and consequent rationing. In contrast
Intellectual Assets appreciate in use and depreciate if they are unused.
‘Rationing’ effectively stifles creativity and innovation. If we are to change
to a trusting environment it will require the creation of measures based on the
concept of appreciation rather than depreciation, and the permeation of
management training with these measures. Like most of the fundamentals of
knowledge management this requires a shift to thinking about the ecology of an
organisation, working from organic rather than mechanistic models of
measurement, goal setting and intervention.
It follows that in the era of
Intellectual Capital, value cannot be achieved without values. The creation of
values and consequent levels of trust is easily destroyed but difficult to
build. The early days of a knowledge program are the ideal time to set in place
the actions that will enable the creation of values. To do this requires an
organisation to establish a set of simple, memorable rules that can guide its
behaviour during the knowledge program. These rules need to developed by each
organisation at the start of its program. They need to be expressed in the
language of that organisation and each rule should be supported by a story that
allows the effective communication of the underlying values to the organisation
as a whole. This combination of rules and stories is effectively the brand of
the knowledge program. In the same way as a company protects its brand and
prevents any compromise (particularly during the early days when the brand is
not strong) so those responsible for the knowledge program must propagate and
protect their brand - they must prevent Knowledge Tagging. In helping companies
create a knowledge program I would generally start with a basic education
program in brand marketing. If the custodians of your knowledge program
understand what it is to create and sustain a brand your chances of success are
considerably increased. One general rule that I would always recommend as
essential is that all models will be simple and memorable. If your underlying
model (ideally expressed as a picture) cannot be repeated after one telling from
memory, then you will not communicate it.
Creating a team of people to create
and sustain the knowledge program is key to successful implementation. The way
in which such a team is created and sustained is one of the most powerful early
messages that an organisation provides as to the values it intends to propagate.
As the infrastructure supporting Intellectual Capital exchange increases, then
the program will require full time staff. However in the early days this should
be kept to a minimum. Even in periods of maturity organizations should avoid a
group of individuals being tagged as responsible for ‘Knowledge’. One of the
most fundamental shifts required is to make everyone aware of their
responsibilities to share, grow and exchange knowledge. At the same time there
needs to be a focus and a champion(s) for the program. One way to achieve this
is to allow the knowledge team to evolve. After all, we are working from organic
models: evolution builds a more sustainable - and self-renewing - environment
than mechanistic construction.
Building the initial knowledge map (or
sketch plan) of an organisation is one of the best ways of allowing a team to
evolve. I argued in both the preceding articles that mapping was an essential
(and preferably initial) knowledge management activity. In creating the map I
argued for a modification of the mediaeval craft hall as a means of exchange and
creation of knowledge in the map building stage. This is most effectively done
by providing for a part time - and open knowledge team. I would normally start a
knowledge mapping exercise with a team allocated to the project by the sponsor.
Aside from a project manager, whose role is principally administrative, such a
team should be part time - no more than 10-30% of their time. The reason for
this is two-fold:
1. If members of the core team retain their day jobs, then the
enthusiasm that they gain for the process will be communicated rapidly through
the co-dependency networks to which they belong. They will gain access to hidden
knowledge assets and to knowledge owners more naturally if they are not isolated
as ‘THE KNOWLEDGE TEAM’. As they mix their normal work with their knowledge
mapping responsibilities the basic messages - the values and branding - of the
program will be communicated tacitly as well as explicitly to the wider
communities that make up the organisation. They will also create new networks
and linkages between those communities. In these circumstances it will always be
possible to identify low investment, high return early win projects to include
in the balanced portfolio that the map and the mapping process will generate.
2. Anyone who is
really interested (as opposed to a knowledge tagging carpet-bagger) will find
10% of their time to contribute. New people can join the team - they can drift
into the craft hall. Team members uncomfortable with the process can drift out
without it being a major issue. Too many full time teams are inhibited by the
presence of someone who just doesn’t get it and whose cynicism inhibits the
team. Equally, key individuals may not be available for full time work, and
their part time presence in a full time team inhibits equal contributions. In my
view this type of organic, networking and fluid type of structure is at the
heart of an effective knowledge program. The structure of the team should
reflect the nature of natural knowledge exchange. It is equally true that as a
knowledge program becomes more mature the infrastructure and artefact storage
and propagation systems will require dedicated staff. The team thus reflects the
nature of knowledge. Explicit knowledge requires structure and full time staff;
tacit is about communities and networks. In the formation period, tacit is far
and away the most important.
The most fundamental point being made
here is that the creation of a knowledge program is a knowledge management
exercise in its own right. Creating such a program in a conventional, process
orientated way automatically creates a contradiction and tension with the goals
of a knowledge program. Formation of a knowledge program and its staffing must
be consistent - almost to the point of paranoia - with the principles of
knowledge creation and exchange. We must act knowledgeably in the creation of
our knowledge program.
Cartography as Virtue
Integrating the knowledge map to
the organisation as a whole
Before moving to the final mortal sin
of commission I want to complete the work of the previous articles by
identifying how we integrate the mapping of knowledge into the fabric of the
organisation. In the preceding articles I identified how we can discover
knowledge, not through asking people what they know, but through identifying and
tracking the decisions they make. From the decision clusters that emerge one can
impute the knowledge assets being used and classify them as explicit knowledge
(residing in artefacts) or tacit knowledge (residing in individuals or
communities). The process of identifying and classifying such assets is of
course continuous - a map is only as good as its last survey. Once we have
identified the knowledge then we have to do two things, one quick (but clean)
and the other more comprehensive and lasting.
1.Link the knowledge assets to
core processes
Knowledge does not replace process efficiency - it complements and
enables it. Accordingly, one of the last activities in the 6-8 weeks’ intensive
initial mapping exercise I identified in the previous articles is to relate the
assets discovered to processes. This also provides a checkpoint to ensure that
there are no major gaps in the map. The structure of that is illustrated in
Figure 2.
This model4 allows the knowledge team to provide
an assessment of the dependency of a particular process on a group of knowledge
assets. The team also needs to assess the effectiveness of the asset use. This
model then provides a powerful tool for cost justification and for project
definition. A core process with a strong dependency on a poorly utilised
knowledge asset is an obvious area of immediate action.
2.Create a classification
structure for knowledge assets
In order to sustain a mapping process
it is essential to create a classification structure that will sustain detailed
analysis as the map grows and matures. This is illustrated in figure 3.5 Domains are clusters of tacit or
explicit knowledge and associated information that have a strong relationship.
They are the most visible layer and articulation of Intellectual Capital within
an organisation. Below this is the type of asset which is likely to be
catalogued on the basis of the competence community which is the prime user of
owner of the asset - again these can be tacit, explicit or mixed. Finally, the
attribute reflects the details of what we need to know.
It is important to realise that the
assets will not necessarily correspond with departments, they will cut through
Organizational, divisional and geographical boundaries. The will cross cultural
barriers, ingrained practices and attitudes. As such developing the catalogue as
a ‘product’ can greatly assist in its propagation. By moving from thinking about
projects to a program that creates, maintains and generates a product will give
a greater sense of ownership to the organisation as a whole. For service-based
companies this product will itself be of major value. Prospective purchases will
be able to see tangible evidence that the ‘knowledge’ claimed not only exists,
but is catalogued and can therefore be deployed quickly and efficiently in their
service.
The
other major advantage of this ‘product’ approach is that the issue of valuation,
pricing and promotion can now be applied building on existing concepts and
understanding with the organisation and its partners. In the event of a merger
or acquisition we now have an ability to focus on Intellectual Capital, as well
as carrying out due diligence on financial assets. With our partners we can
create complementary products and services.
Finally, cataloguing and process
linking are key to valuation. Too many companies struggle with the concept of
asset valuation in abstract. It is very difficult to value something if you
don’t know what it is, where it exists and how dependent one’s core processes
are on its deployment. Once as asset is identified, most organizations can
readily find a common sense method of valuation. This is key as we move into the
next step change in Intellectual Capital Management with the emergence of
markets for knowledge and formal Knowledge Exchanges. If you can’t measure it
you can’t manage it, and if you don’t map it you will not be able to measure
it.
Mortal Sin of Commission
Fee generating management
consultancy fad
I do not wish to dwell in this particular sin. Its dangers are all too
self-evident. However, it does provide an opportunity to emphasis yet again the
organic nature of knowledge management.
Knowledge is not like the mechanistic
models that preceded it - one cannot mandate people to share knowledge. A
process improvement or quality management model could be imposed from the top.
Knowledge exchange is only achieved when you win hearts and minds at all levels
within the organisation. In this context hypocrisy is the worst enemy of a
knowledge program. Given that we are discussing sin, it may be worth continuing
the religious metaphor. The early days of any religious movement are
characterised by a degree of naiveté, but fundamentally by a set of easily
communicated values and beliefs that gain commitment - up to and beyond
martyrdom. As the religious movement survives and grows then the theologians
start to emerge and codify, structure and in most cases eventually control the
movement. In the case of many management concepts the reverse seems to happen.
The first to arrive are the modern equivalent of the theologian - the Management
Consultancy Firm - who arrive with ‘the method’. The method carries with it a
catechism which is learn by heart by the hapless victims of this ‘wisdom’ who
are reduced to parroting an ill understood and little comprehended form of
pidgin consultancy speak. The assumption is that belief will follow. By the time
people realise it will not the theologians have created a new movement -
generally without any associated value system and the whole cycle starts all
over again.
Fundamentally the practice of knowledge management is a process of
self-discovery. One needs a midwife to assist the birth, not a ‘consultant’ to
perform a caesarean operation. Surgery is an emergency procedure with a long
recovery period. It is occasionally necessary but early intervention is a
virtue. And virtue is the best protection from sin.
David Snowden is at IBM. He can be
contacted at:
snowded@uk.ibm.com
