Posted by Randall Garcia on April 11, 2000 at 12:34:24:

In Reply to: Is KM pillars of umbrellas? posted by Vaughn P Fox on March 19, 2000 at 22:32:43:

KM appears to be more like a mushroom than pillars or umbrellas.

Let me explain.

The pillars indicated are sound, but what happens in an organization is that each of these pillars:

1. Corporate Discovery of Critical Information.
2. Enduring or “corporate” grooming.
3. Corporate Memory.
4. Corporate Relationships.

tend to "grow" as individual pillars, mushrooming out at the top, thus burdening the organizational heirarchy from the top down.

Take the department of defense as an example.

Since the passage of Goldwaters-Nichols, DoD has emphasized the importance of the "Joint" commander in chief (the theater commander that has Navy, Air Force, Army, and Marine units under him) over the service commanders.

To do this, the CinC staffs grew proportionally to their "responsibility." While initially moderate, individual "expert" areas formed, and those staff functions became pillars of their own within the warfighting organization. In short, the final impact was to turn warfighting (that which the lower level "tactical" commanders do) into a secondary mission. Feeding the "mushroom" became primary. What are some concrete examples?

***Corporate Discovery of Critical Information.
The military would call this "Commander's Critical Information Requirements." You may be familiar with the concept. Before fighting a war, or while shaping a theater, the Commander posts his most important information requirements to make valid decisions. But what happens is that the reporting mechanisms (command centers, manual or nonautomatic sensors, etc) coming from the subordinates in the heirarchy deplete the tactical warfighting mission capability. While the input might be crucial to the higher level (mushroom staff) reqt, the benefit at the tactical level may be marginal at best, especially when maintaining hundreds of peacetime "what if?" scenarios.

The top of DoD has hurt as well, since to the Office of the Sec Def (OSD) staff sees the CinC as the true "warfighter" (rather than the "commander of the warfighter(s)." Their staffs have grown to support the tips of the mushroom identified as the "warfighter's" most important reqts. Again, this takes vital attention and assets away from the producers...those at the tactical level.

2. Enduring or “corporate” grooming.
KM has done some damage here. It started with TQL/TQM (80s), turned in to "process reengineering (90s), and has evolved to KM (00's). In order to groom the "corporation" in this case, the CinC staff grows the staff and the staff facility/toolset to ensure this corporate "knowledge." But with a zero sum personnel game in DoD, the losers were the services and subordinate tactical warfighters. Mandated at filling the higher HQ reqts first, they were left with fewer people of lesser quality/experience required of the tactical position. Individual "improvement" initiatives themselves grew lives of their own. "Virtual Intel Centers" and Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations aimed at supporting the "warfighter" (ie CinC) augmented the already established centers, and thus competed for scarce resources. They did not change with their "successes" in reinventing processes or eliminating material reqts, but rather grew heads of their own, draining more and more from the asset pool....all of this in the name of KM.

3. Corporate Memory.
The requirement to "feed the machine" to ensure the corporate knowledge (at the mushroom) drained what was possible to complete in a 10-12 hour day at the tactical level.

4. Corporate Relationships.
The higher echelon became the end, not the means. As discussed above, the staff at the top of the mushroom became entities that on paper supported the commander, but in reality fed their own requirements primarily. The end result is a feudal relationship of those who will never make progress (and who have no stake in the "progress" from above), and an organization paralyzed by its KM, Process Inprovement, and TQM.

I'm quite new to this KM stuff, but I agree with the areas you mention. In summary, however, I see your "pillars" and "umbrellas" as individual growing lifeforms (mushrooms), that can be toxic if not carefully chosen.

---

Follow Ups:

• Re: Is KM pillars or umbrellas? Vaughn P. Fox 22:51:54 04/18/00 (0)
• Re: Is KM pillars or umbrellas? Randy Garcia 12:38:05 04/11/00 (0)

---

Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

  

 Subject: 

Message: