Past present and future

A history of knowledge management

While there is still a long way to go knowledge management has come a long way in a short time. Simon Lelic talks to representatives from Cap Gemini Ernst & Young CIBIT Future Edge IBM ICL Pfizer and Unisys and discusses the history of KM with a view to developing a better understanding of the future of the discipline.

On the eve of KM Asia 2001 the largest knowledge management event ever to be held in south-east Asia KM as an industry and as a corporate discipline is growing faster than ever before. It seems that businesses and organisations operating right across the industrial spectrum have implemented some form of knowledge management programme and while the experience and progress of each differs immensely most have long accepted the association between effective knowledge management and sustained competitive advantage. But in the desperate race to stay ahead of the competition it is easy to forget the process by which the discipline has developed into its present form. And by taking a moment to explore the roots of knowledge management and to examine its evolution it should be possible to glean a better understanding of where we might go from here.

As Geoff Smith European head of knowledge and content management at Cap Gemini Ernst & Young says a case for knowledge management stretching back into the darkest depths of history would not be difficult to construct. “But for me ” he argues “KM builds on the themes that became familiar in the 80s and 90s – re-use best practice TQM capability development process re-engineering the learning organisation and so on. It also develops themes in project and programme management change management and methodology frameworks. The difference is that KM is a holistic approach that integrates the contribution of all the major areas – technology process people business and content – to deliver more effective solutions than any one of these dimensions can deliver alone.” Joyce Sharon an associate research consultant at IBM’s Institute for Knowledge Management also believes the intellectual antecedents to KM can be traced back to a number of other disciplines. She argues though that it was from the theories and concepts that characterise information management sociology psychology philosophy and economics that knowledge management took root.

A common suggestion among this month’s participants however is that the coming together of these disciplines to influence the development of knowledge management relied to a certain extent on some form of external impetus. For instance as Sharon says: “The globalisation of trade with its emphasis on innovation and speed to market has made the need for knowledge and knowledge-intensive skills increasingly important.” Similarly Tom Knight principal consultant at ICL who believes the origins of KM stretch all the way back to ancient Greece and the study of epistemology – the science of knowledge and perception – argues that it was the emergence of the world wide web that acted as a catalyst for the formation of KM as a discipline in its own right. While insisting that things have since moved on Knight maintains we would not be talking about KM in the terms we do if it wasn’t for the excitement generated by the potential of early corporate intranets. As Robert Taylor solutions director at Unisys puts it: “I don’t think we would have KM as we know it today without developments such as Lotus Notes and internet technologies in the 1980s leading to modern intranet applications. KM is not about intranets per se but I don’t believe that it would really have taken off in the way that it has without this enabling capability.”

In terms of identifying the earliest pioneers of knowledge management the names that crop up the most frequently include those of Tom Davenport Larry Prusak Bob Buckman Karl Sveiby Leif Edvinson Ikujiro Nonaka and Hirotaka Takeuchi all of whom are credited for putting knowledge management on the map in some way. And while organisations such as Buckman Laboratories and the World Bank draw praise for their innovative work in the field of KM Lisa Sasson an associate research consultant at IBM’s Institute for Knowledge Management and Jan Schuurman senior consultant at CIBIT both also highlight the role played by Japanese companies as practical pioneers of knowledge management. “Japanese companies’ skills and expertise at creating organisational knowledge distinguishes them from US companies ” says Sasson. “While US companies focus on creating and transferring explicit knowledge Japanese companies instead zero in on creating and transferring tacit knowledge.” Equally Taylor and Paul Flew managing director of Future Edge emphasise the contribution made by the larger consultancy firms in broadcasting the values associated with knowledge management. “Deloitte & Touche (then Touche Ross) was the first organisation that I was aware was consulting on ‘knowledge strategies’ for clients in the late 1980s ” says Taylor.

It was not until the mid-1990s that knowledge management emerged as a recognised corporate discipline however. This at least is the opinion of Schuurman Smith Sasson and Flew. As Flew says: “It was in the mid-1990s that the crystallisation of a number of disciplines – including training document management and corporate communications – and the advancements in technology allowed knowledge management to exist as a separate discipline in its own right.” Sasson points to the first conference dedicated to knowledge management held in Boston in 1993 and organised by Larry Prusak among others as being an important milestone in the history of the discipline. “Attracting more than 150 attendees the event aimed to differentiate organisational knowledge from data and information ” says Sasson. “The concept was new and untested at the time and discussion was therefore theoretical in nature. However with the emergence of Nonaka and Takeuchi’s book in 1995 (The Knowledge Creating Company) and Davenport & Prusak’s book in 1997 (Working Knowledge) knowledge management had been confirmed as a recognised corporate discipline.”

Yet Knight Taylor and Victor Newman chief learning officer at Pfizer take issue with the assertion that this step has already been made. “Most large corporations have some kind of recognisable knowledge programme underway but the focus varies enormously between sectors and within sectors between companies ” says Knight. “For some the focus is on learning and skills; for others the focus may be on things like customer relationship management. Many have still to make more than a token start (static intranets containing basic information for example). Those companies that have embraced various elements of KM (such as a focus on reuse) are often reaping benefits without always relating them back to KM as a specific discipline.” Taylor is also reluctant to describe KM as a universally recognised corporate discipline although he does admit that his money is on the long-term victory of KM as a formalised role arguing that the success of those organisations that have made KM work will provide examples for other businesses to copy. Likewise Newman believes KM could become a recognised discipline in its own right but as yet it is too early to tell. “I am coming round to the view that the best way of evaluating an organisation’s KM approach is to review its ability to learn from its projects and apply that learning productively in successor projects ” he says. “Looked at in this way few have been successful in transferring learning from project to project within some generic process structure.”

In a sense therefore it is hardly surprising that knowledge management has undergone something of an evolutionary process in recent years. Following on from his last point Knight argues that while KM cannot yet be described as a formalised discipline the proliferation of discussion groups journals and other publications conferences and events at least suggests a more mature and cohesive discipline than was apparent even a couple of years ago. And Smith believes that KM has moved on from its early focus on valuing and managing intellectual capital to the point where what really captures people’s imaginations are stories of real practical activities. “At Buckman Labs and BP for example KM ambitions rooted in real pressing business needs resulted in performance improvements and financial benefits that we could all relate to ” he says. “So for me the key evolution is in seeing KM as a front-line bottom-up issue rather than a theoretical and top-down aspiration. Today it’s about operationalising not evangelising KM.”

In Newman’s opinion though one thing that has not changed is the KM audience: “It remains both wonderfully naïve and unwilling to learn from its recent path ” he says. “The myth of the computer as the divine medium for managing knowledge remains powerful; its promise of universality and accessibility across cultures individuals and time is another version of the myth and e-learning is its latest child hiding its potential complexity under promises of long-term savings.” Yet Schuurman for instance argues that contemporary perspectives on knowledge management have achieved more of a balance with regards to the technical/people focus and this idea is backed-up by Sasson. “In the early years of knowledge management many organisations made the mistake of placing too much emphasis on technology solutions before understanding the human elements of knowledge management such as developing roles and responsibilities around KM ” she says. But organisations are she continues realising that it is when the capabilities of people and technology are combined effectively that KM provides real value to the organisation.

When asked which industries are benefiting most from KM – the sectors in which knowledge management has already made the biggest impact – it is interesting to hear the range of responses given. Knight Smith and Taylor suggest consultancies and professional services organisations have profited hugely from knowledge management while Flew believes the manufacturing and engineering sectors have been the biggest beneficiaries. But other industries mentioned include life sciences the oil and gas industry and the pharmaceutical sector. This of course reflects the individual experience of each participant yet it also reveals a pervasive acceptance of KM practices. As Smith says: “Today I think almost every sector could put forward good exemplars.” To an extent in fact this is something the continued success of this journal relies upon!

This is not to say that the potential does not exist for more widespread corporate buy-in to knowledge management. Knight for example predicts the civil service to be the next big adopter of KM practices. “Expect to see real pressure for change in the government arena with KM used as a tool to make change happen – delivering new behaviours new processes and a new focus on measurement of performance and benefits delivery ” he says. “KM figures heavily in the e-business strategy of most departments and a substantial effort is underway to get KM projects off the ground.” Similarly Taylor believes the financial sector continues to be uncharacteristically slow to implement KM approaches while Newman suggests the biggest changes in the way organisations operate will be seen in those operating in the medicine healthcare provision and pharmaceutical industries. And as Knight puts it: “In the private sector huge potential exists anywhere there are large projects – such as telecoms and utilities – where KM disciplines can deliver risk reduction through learning from experience and cost savings through knowledge reuse.”

The uptake of KM has so far differed in geographical terms too. But while conventional wisdom suggests the US has taken the lead Smith Taylor and Knight are among those who maintain that Europe is at least keeping pace. “The penetration of KM technologies is probably ahead in the US but I haven’t seen evidence that this has made a significantly greater economic impact than in Europe ” says Smith. Knight offers a similar view suggesting what he sees as the UK and European experience of smaller-scale departmental level initiatives which incorporate careful strategic thinking alongside targeted tactical intervention has made for a more interesting shape to the KM marketplace and “leaves less room for disillusionment when the hype dies down”. Other regions also appear to be catching up rapidly with both Smith and Sharon emphasising the progress made in the Asia/Pacific area in recent years which Smith believes stems in part from a merging of industrial academic and governmental approaches. In a sense though and as both Newman and Taylor point out advances in technologies and the relentless trend towards globalisation almost render national boundaries an obsolete concept when speaking in these terms.

Which brings us to the question of what next for KM? Having come so far so quickly there is a danger of course that the whole thing will eventually run out of steam. As Sharon says: “As with many disciplines the underlying concepts and theories can get distorted and diluted and eventually discredited as a result.” But there is clearly still a long way to go both for the industry and for KM projects on a micro level and the consensus among this month’s participants is that knowledge management will continue to grow. As Taylor says: “We have survived both the hype and the backlash and I strongly believe KM will mature as a discipline in the years to come.” Newman agrees predicting albeit tongue firmly in cheek a rash of KM films starring either Tom Cruise or Eddie Murphy as himself! Perhaps slightly more likely a Schuurman says is that the profile of KM per se will decline but only as the discipline is more firmly integrated into broader management practices and the way people work. In Knight’s words: “The phrase ‘knowledge management’ will pass away long before the disciplines associated with it.” And rather than being seen as a negative outcome as Sharon says this fate should actually be regarded as a positive one and something KM practitioners should actively be working towards.