Posted by Jay Reay on March 21, 1998 at 23:18:09:

In Reply to: Creating a total knowledge management solution from a business perspective posted by Rupert Whitehead on March 20, 1998 at 12:16:43:

Rupert's closely focused and well structured piece caused a lively debate over a working weekend here at the ranch! We came to an amicable standoff though, and I would like to enter it into the equation.

It is noticeable how the nature and content of the postings on this most excellent of fora on KM have evolved. We are moving from describing raw concepts to creating constructs, to evaluating practical application, now to questioning every turn in the orad - a paradigm for business surely?

Yogesh advises us to submit contributions, not criticism, and he is right if we are to get the full benefit of this unique facility. in our collective search though, we are aware that out individual contributions can only be a small piece of the map.

Those who have with or inside businesses not themselves engaged in the field - management consultants, KM academics and IT solutions suppliers - quickly realise that we do not have the tools to strat from: "we have a solution - it's called Knowledge Management, how do we implant it?"

My practical approach is now at work in the field, but it is also in flux. I offer some of it for debate.

Initial Approach:
The first questions for an organisation searching for improvement are:
1. what business are we in/
2. what business do our competences allow us to be in?
3. how do we create wealth from that?
4. what do our customers want/need from us?
5. how do we provide it?
6. who in our business are the most valuable in providing that product/service/
7. how do they do it/
8. how do we help them?
9. how do we - give better service
- gain better results?

All the questions imply the use of knowledge. That is Knowledge management at work.

Understanding the philosophy and getting the semantics right are important for specialist advisors - to be clear about what we mean and why it is important.

For the people we help, inhouse or as external consultants, these issues are redundant. It is more important for us to:
understand their business and all the external and internal forces at play upon it;
help them identify some of the answers to the questions posed above, among others;
identify, justify and clarify operating strategies which will help them improve their performance today and tomorrow.

Information Technology plays strongly in this, but the prime resource is people, the prime asset is their knowledge, ergo the prime need is effectively to manage the people and their interactions.

Elements of KM:
Leveraging knowledge - technical know-how on the shopfloor as much as strategic perception on the top floor - and effective data-to-information flow everywhere, depends upon how people interact, generating, using, sharing and growing the knowledge they need to do what the business needs them to do.

The Communication and Information Technology systems we now have are superb tools enabling better, faster interaction. But the complexities of data warehousing et al are as nothing compared to the complexities of people interactions, whether informally in the corridor, in loose "Communities of Practice", or in formal project teams.

To help business people perform better in an increasingly competitive and faster changing environment, we need to:
unlock creativity and harness innovation
improve interpersonal communication
gather useful data and improve effective retrieval
apply the internal and external knowledge held by the organisation to its advantage.

In our search for a practical solution from a business perspective voicing all appropriate concepts is vital. Rupert, in his excellent monograph, speaks from one important side of a multi-faceted issue.

Managing (making the most of) knowledge requires a lot more than just clever boxes processing data. At the same time, destructuring organisations in the name of liberating creativity will waste opportunities and effort.

Searching for More:
I enjoy the discourse here - it has given me much to think about, it has changed some mindsets, it has ignited passion amongst my colleagues leading to better service for our clients.

The work Don, Bob, Tom and others are beginning here to describe the architecture of KM is important too. We will not have the answers - there are no prescriptive answers as Denham reminds us - and the quest will continue because the issue is dynamic and business is itself a kaleidoscope of ever-changing issues.

I think I might have the "Full Monty" in a KM strategy for my meeting with a client tomorrow. I know that it will have changed, be improved, by the next meeting with a different client, but we have to do something, we cannot just engage in fluid thinking, if our clients are to use their knowledge more productively.

As a practical business person I have enough confidence in my clients, my colleagues and me to take what we know now and use it well. I also have the humility borne of experience (failure and success) to understand that tomorrow we will find a better way.

That's why I love business. As knowledge is the key to business, that is also why we need this forum.

Regards and respect, Jay
ful

---

Follow Ups:

• Re: There's no Full Monty for KM! Martyn R Jones 04:43:30 3/28/98 (1)
  • Re: Full Monty and the Emperor's Clothes! Jay Reay 15:06:16 3/28/98 (0)
• Re: Criticism is Welcome, However... Yogesh Malhotra 09:47:11 3/24/98 (0)

---

Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

  

 Subject: 

Message: