Posted by Jack Russell on March 18, 2003 at 12:31:30:

In Reply to: Knowledge Dynamic posted by Iris B. on March 17, 2003 at 09:27:54:

Hi Iris (again)

You raise interesting points - and I am struggling to recall what Carla O'Dell et al had to say on this in "If We Only Knew What We Know", as I think they touched on these matters.

Without getting into semantics, I agree with you there are precursors for the development of an effective 'knowledge organisation'.

Perhaps, more simplistically, I see these as being environment and attitude.

By environment, I mean the organisational factors such as 'culture', the willingness of the organisation to grow/learn, valuing all in the organisation as "knowledge workers", understanding and accepting the benefits of change, continuous improvement and quality. For simplicity's sake, I see this grouping as being 'external' to the individual.

By attitude, I mean the approach of the individual to their work, knowledge etc. Implicit in this is an understanding and a willingness to share information and knowledge and contribute to the growth of new 'knowledge'.

Given that these exist to a sufficient level, then the situation is set.

You mention content as being a key ingredient in making knowledge happen, however, I tend to rate this low (please correct me if I am wrong) in the scheme of things. I think content is part always there when a group of people combine (either tacit or explicit) and that is is possible to create content as you go.

So, given that the 'environment' and 'attitude' are in place and in sync, then having the means to communicate/share is, or becomes, critical. In my experience I have found people to be extremely good at collecting and collating data / information / knowledge and translating this into knowledge outputs. Where things inevitebly 'fall down' is in the communication/sharing side. In a lot of cases this is because, perhaps, of the work organisation there things tend to flow up and down the line, and only laterally within small work groups/teams.

To create an more effective environment conducive to and supporting of knowledge sharing, there has to be an effective mechanism for allowing people to share what they 'know' obtain feedback, insights and other thoughts/opinions so that they can develop/redevelop etc. This may (or may not) be technology based.

OK - it is about here that I would go into my rave about KnowledgeWorker being the best thing since sliced bread etc etc .. :-)

So on to "how do you deal with knowledge sharing?"

My five cents worth says... given that the environmental, attitudinal and 'mechanical' (for want of a better term) settings are appropriate, then

1) All people within the group/organisation should have some level of common/shared understanding about the nature of work/knowledge as it relates to their collective mission.

2) All people should be valued (and value others)as knowledge workers and contributors/ components of the groups knowledge capital (having said that, this appears to be a combining of environment and attitude issues mentioned above). There are also other important shared values (external to knowledge per se that impact on and are critical for an organisations overall effectiveness.

3) All people should have the opportunity/space to demonstrate/show what they know, what they do, what they are working on and what they are interested in, across a broader front of the organisation. - Traditional structures confine people (and knowledge) into linear or pryamidic hierarchies - where this needs to be more lateral. I don't think this necessarily has to be across the entire organisation or beyond (although this would be desireable in many cases) but does need to be extended (from an individual's perspective) far beyond the immediate work team.

I have tried to display this diagramatically in my illustration of the "subnet".

4) Finally, perhaps, (big sigh of relief) there needs to be a process of (rewards and?) recognition that acknowledges the growth and contribution of knowledge, continuous improvements and quality outcomes. This is necessary to describe results and maintain a momentum in a visable, tangible manner. This implies a great degree of transparency amongst the organisation that fosters trust and teamwork etc.

Thanks for your time - I am happy to discuss further off channel, or here.

Jack

• KnowledgeWorker

---

Follow Ups:

---

Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

  

 Subject: 

Message: