Posted by Rupert Whitehead on March 24, 1998 at 12:26:54:

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:

Before I go any further I would just like to thank Jay Reay and Denham for their excellent criticism. I have included this as a response to myself so you can both see it, (it’s not just vanity or loneliness!)

When I wrote the article my main problem with knowledge management was that it was and is a ‘hand waving subject’. That is, it is essentially in Kuhnian terms, pre paridigmatic. There are a number of independent research programs going on, that are loosely related, with each trying to fight to become a defining area within knowledge management. My article was an attempt to create a more concrete foundation for knowledge management, to move it away from its more generalised roots. In particular, I wanted to show that knowledge management was not just part of the latest run of management jargon, but something that actually made a concrete difference. If we are to make a new subject here, then I suggest that the best place to start is to find a way of defining its components. This might mean starting with a general definition of what knowledge management is, then taking a pragmatic, rather than dogmatic view as to what could then be placed there.

Although in some respects I concede (in particular to Denham), that various things that I said were over stated (particularly regarding data warehousing), the challenge still remains to find a solid taxonomy on which to found this old/new subject ‘knowledge management’. This discussion forum appears the perfect place to build such foundations. The reason that I placed such an emphasis on information technology is perhaps inevitable; in a sense it is just my own skewed answers to Jay’s questions;

"1. what business are we in/
2. what business do our competencies 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?"

But before I accept that my scope was entirely too limited, in my defence, it seems that the scope of information technology has been under estimated. When I outlined the areas of information technology on which to focus, I did it assuming that the technology was inseparable from the people who used it. Yes, information technology understood narrowly, is a useful tool, but it is, nevertheless, a tool. For any tool to be useful it must be put into the hands of someone who can use it well. In my wider definition of information technology the user was part of the tool. To create the effective use of this tool then requires the training of skills, as well as more intangible concepts like creating the environment that will allow people to learn and exchange ideas. It is at the point of ‘creating the environment for knowledge exchange’, that we go beyond the technology and into the business issues. I explicated these in a very inadequate manner, partly due to my lack of understanding in the area, and partly because I’d let a few bits of knowledge management gold slip through my hands as not truly knowledge management. I was wrong.

Beginning from my focus on information technology, it was difficult to know where exactly to place those intangibles with which I did deal, so I put some of them under the heading of business analysis, in particular, the macro issues. Micro issues were assumed to still remain part of the technologies with which they were associated. I know that this doesn’t answer all the questions, and there is much to be made explicit, but this is the point where we come to the paradox that is knowledge management consultancy. Much (not all) of what knowledge management attempts to do is allow the implicit to become explicit so that it can be controlled subsequently. Knowledge management itself is a skill that is essentially tacit, so the need is almost to apply knowledge management to itself, to make it become explicit!

So far I have appeared to take an overly scientific view on the world. It sounds like my rallying cry has been reductionism, where if it cannot be made explicit, then it should be thrown out. This is not my view either. I would like to include more generalised ‘softer’ concepts, but as we give birth to this subject, to help give it the credibility it so clearly deserves, we need to find a way of looking at knowledge management that makes it easy to navigate and clear to cache out. We need to split it in a way that offers concrete deliverables associated with generalised knowledge management aims. If there are no possible potential deliverables from a concept, or the phrasing is so general and hand wavy that it becomes virtually useless, lets commit it to the flames.

Now that you have an overview of where I see knowledge management and where I see that it needs to define itself/go, I will attempt to answer some of Denham’s criticisms. The small print will be Denham’s comments and the larger print will be my answers (There aren’t meant to be any connotations associated with this schema!).

Broaden the scope of your audit, look at flows, sinks, sources and constrictions in addition to the stores. Look for opportunties and assess the form & nature, relevance, usefulness, costs, timeliness and the accuracy of the data collected. Pay particular attention to the context, the transformations and the assumptions along the way.

Excellent points. The problems that might arise in this area are in terms of metrics. How do you measure a flow, sink, source, constriction etc, or is this simply a question of using your own judgement? How can they be separated from a more general level business analysis of the situation, or more specific information technology application approach? I am deliberately restating the IT approach to help put flesh on the information theory concepts that you are putting forward. At present, they are stated assuming a ‘know how’. I am trying to push them down into a ‘know that’ approach. I still accept that even with all the ‘know that’ in the world, you will still need the ‘know how’ to use it, but that does not detract from the need for ‘know that’, particularly to move towards expertise from novice.

I have a problem with "Data warehousing should be the focal point of any knowledge management strategy", as you will have gathered. A warehouse and how effectively and efficiently it is used is important but its centrality depends on the nature of your clients business, their vision, the dynamics of the maket, their niche, product and value chain. The important aspect here is connection with the market and the ability to recognize & appreciate useful data patterns.

I agree. This is certainly an area in which I overstated the case. Data warehouses can be useful for some cases, but not for all. They are clearly not a panacea, and I apologise for giving that impression. There clearly is a need for data warehousing within knowledge management, but whether data warehousing is needed in a particular knowledge management solution will depend on the client.

Groupware can increase communication & collaboration but the key is organizational culture, reward systems, trust levels and group cohesion. My first priority is getting the people working together. Engineering data flows, pushing information based on filters and restricting access will achieve little unless the motivation, recognition and trust is there for learning, sharing and building.

My impression was that this was something that needs to occur simultaneously from the highest management levels (open door policies, mentoring, social activities etc), combined with the technological level, for example group ware. Yes the key is organisational culture, but once again we have a general concept that might need fleshing out. How do you build that team spirit? How do you push responsibility so that it occurs throughout the enterprise? There are a variety of potential initiatives. Do you have a ‘hot list’? Does this include training? I suppose much of the reason that I have skipped over what is usually such an essential issue is that the group mentality is strong within my organisation, there is a flat structure, and everybody is ready to help everybody else. Within my original taxonomy I would still say that the kinds of initiatives that might be appropriate in this area would come under the business analysis side of the proposed approach (even if I didn’t make that clear). I admit that introducing something like Lotus notes on its own is unlikely to do much unless the appropriate infrastructure is behind it. Do you think that this implies a criticism of a modular approach to knowledge management?

'Practicology': unblocking knowledge flows will not always retain staff, you will want to look at picking challenging assignments, mentoring, learning opportunities and continual intellectual capital renewal.

Again, a mistake on my part. Practicology is not an attempt at retaining staff, but more an attempt at retaining their expertise and best practices, even if they do leave (which is statistically relatively likely within consultancy). These skills are captured within various media. The suggestions that you make within this area seem once again more focused on what is becoming an increasingly filled pot of ‘business analysis’.

The heart of networking is not the typology, the adapter cards or the cable, it is the strength & extent of the relationships with customers, suppliers and stakeholders. More business is lost through poor customer relations, inadequate connection with the market and poor supplier logistics than with cable or card problems.

Yes, I absolutely agree. The reason I added networking in on the knowledge management band wagon was that we do it and a case can be made for including it as part of a knowledge management strategy. It only plays a relatively small role, but in organisations with a poor networking infrastructure it could be a crucial impediment to effective communications. You have also reminded me of another area that might be thrown into knowledge management and that is focusing on optimising the supply chain.

Here is what I missed: A focus on knowledge creation, flexibility, learning and dialog.

As I understand it at the moment, the above (with the exception of dialogue) is part of training and feeds into the way knowledge from the past can be reused. It assumes the appropriate infrastructure that will allow training and knowledge transfer to occur both from within the company and in relation to outside (conferences, courses, external material etc.). The knowledge creation process is a slippery concept and much of it will be learned on the job and with practice. Once again, appropriate infrastructure will be important so individuals can request the training that they require. Initiatives such as personal development plans will be useful in this area, and will compliment the notion of flexibility. Dialogue is something that it is difficult to apply strategies to, except perhaps such things as having open plan offices, arranging social events, encouraging personnel to use positive rather than negative criticism, re engineering power structures etc. This is something that once again would be taken up by the business part of my proposed knowledge management solution.

You had little to say on relationships, intellectual capital, recognition of knowledge-based opportunities and cultural issues.

Relationships and cultural issues are something that I would put as a personnel, mentoring, management and individual responsibility, once again related to team building. Intellectual capital is more of a problem area. How should this be measured? Should a perk system be used for good ideas that are acted upon? What are the legal implications of intellectual capital? How is intellectual capital best attracted/ made use? That I missed some of these areas was an oversight on my part, and the more that I look, the more that I see there are an infinite amount of potential strategies that could be used to create a solid knowledge management ‘complete solution’. I have not ever tried to enumerate all possible knowledge management strategies, but more to find an agreed taxonomy under which each group can be developed. From the extent of the area that increasing falls within ‘business analysis’ the suggestion is that this needs to be broken into further parts. Can you suggest what these parts might be, assuming that you agree that a taxonomical approach could prove useful? I would also like to make clear that I do not expect there to be just one solution to the thorny problem of creating a knowledge management taxonomy, but many. The choice of which to use will depend on the practices of the user. I hope you are still brave enough to suggest a possibility or two!

my guess is you will have broader appeal and a far wiser target market if you looked at warehousing as a tool not, the only solution for your for clients, helped them to spot opportunities by improving relationships, learning, connecting to their customers and capturing the unique (tacit) insights of the staff and applying external bench marking. Return to your roots and look for ways to augment the customers thinking, collaboration and innovation in addition to surfacing patterns in past transactions where the future predicability is uncertain at best.

I agree (see the comments about data warehousing above), though could you expand on what you mean by ‘applying external benchmarking’?

Now that I’ve dealt with as many of those ideas as I had time, a conclusion.
1. Let’s try and make a coherent schema/ taxonomy
2. Let’s throw away the hand waving vagueness
3. It will be subjective which taxonomy is best, so there can be no full Monty.

I hope that this stimulates debate, I know that both Jay Reay’s and Denham’s articles have provided a great deal of food for thought. Thankyou again,
yours,
Rupert

---

Follow Ups:

• Add to the concept and debate Tom Sudman 20:09:24 3/24/98 (1)
  • Knowledge and technology Sri Sridharan 05:45:32 5/06/98 (0)
• Hand waving Denham 17:43:13 3/24/98 (7)
  • Re: Hand waving Rupert Whitehead 07:03:25 3/26/98 (5)
    • Your questions Denham 10:47:52 3/26/98 (4)
      • Re: attitudes to providing KM services Jay Reay 22:15:39 3/26/98 (3)
        • Re: attitudes to providing KM services Rupert Whitehead 11:01:20 3/31/98 (2)
          • Re: desert island bookshelf Jay Reay 07:24:18 4/01/98 (1)
            • Re: desert island bookshelf Rupert Whitehead 11:03:59 4/17/98 (0)
  • Formatting lost Denham 17:48:30 3/24/98 (0)

---

Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

  

 Subject: 

Message: