Posted by Randy Jordan on November 15, 1999 at 12:56:07:

In Reply to: Re: Knowledge Management Job Titles posted by Ron de Weijze on November 14, 1999 at 10:18:01:

Hi Ron,

Thanks for the response. I'm not sure I understand your comments and wonder if we are speaking from two different contexts. It could also be I wasn't clear.

The issue was, in what ways have I achieved upper management buy-in for a KM process. The situation in mind was how could a client organization collect, organize and make available a lot of detailed information about buildings and real estate on military installations world-wide. The problem involved requests for information about assets and maintainence costs for deciding which installations to close and how to construct a budget for what would remain.

While it sounds pretty straight forward, there were many conflicting agendas. While the obvious task was collecting facts, the subtle task was to collect information about undocumented "buried things" or construction or local arrangements that described the real environment, as well as the "official" one.

Competing interests fell out along organizational mandated duties and governing executives/upper managements' political agendas. For example, some people benefited most by blocking this basic work and thereby gaining more influence over future budgeting decisions.

The unifying goal was that everyone supported the organization positioning itself as THE future information control center, among similar organizations. These organizations were all competing for portions of a set government budget, that had yet to be divided up.

I was proposing that the KM program for installation assets could be an "industry" prototype and a demonstration of this organization's leadership and vision. The vision had to integrate the personal/career agendas and goals of the upper management group to get approval. It also had to meet the needs of the people using the system locally, the people who compiled that information for global decisions about support and staffing, and the people making budgeting decisions with unknowable agendas.

Perhaps that is a form of the studying and finding a match that you proposed. Even so, if I do the studying and I find an independent match, it is still my goal, not theirs.

If I describe my goal in terms that make sense to the audience and identify the benefits they receive, I can engage their thinking along supportive "how do we make this happen" lines. If I present it as a new or unrelated project - even if deserving attention, it becomes a another competitor for their time and potential obstacle for their own, well-planned agenda.

I don't think it is dishonest to communicate in terms or a context that an audience relates to easily. Since people make decisions emotionally, first and then generate logic to support it, this seems to be an effective and logical way to promote the truth - as much as any one person can know it.

If I've misunderstood your post, perhaps this helps clarify my train of thought. I'm interested in reading any further comments you might have.

Respectfully,
Randy

---

Follow Ups:

• Re: Knowledge Management Job Titles Ron de Weijze 14:43:18 11/15/99 (1)
  • Re: Knowledge Management Job Titles Randy Jordan 10:46:35 11/16/99 (0)

---

Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

  

 Subject: 

Message: