These things don't happen on their own, you know....

At university, I read Politics and Philosophy, which included a module called, 'Space, Time and Infinity'.  It was awesome.  I loved irritating my housemates by pretending not to understand vague terms such as 'this morning' or 'tomorrow night'...

Various theories have been put forward to show that time is a real phenomenon, as opposed to a construction of human thinking to help us make greater sense of the world and our place in it.

One of these is the 'entropic theory of time', which I shall simplify, if only to spare my blushes and retain your attention.

Entropy means 'disorder'.  Most things in our world, free from outside interference, will become disordered, thereby showing greater entropy.  It is this direction, from order to disorder, that shows the passage (and direction) of time.  Think of the untended, increasingly weedy garden, the neglected, muddy car or indeed any room in the house recently visited by small children....

So far, so what?

Much of human existence has required our 'interference' in things, to create and sustain the things that enable us to live the lives we enjoy today.  The food we eat, the clothes we wear and the transport we take have all been developed through our deliberately choosing to do things and to continue doing those things.  Some discoveries have been accidental (e.g. some vaccines, hot air balloons, Post-it notes etc.) but our exploitation of them has only been possible through our continued, deliberate efforts.

As it is with human history, so it is with knowledge management (KM).

Without KM, organisations remain in states of entropy, to greater or lesser degrees:

• New ideas don't take hold and spread without the energy with which (or the channels along which) to move them - which means innovations remain isolated;
• Lessons don't get identified and DEFINITELY don't get learned, without people making the necessary effort - which means the same mistakes get made, over and over again;
• Best practices don't get developed, let alone embedded, without a system of creation, review and update - which means performance is inconsistent and the quality varied;
• Knowledge doesn't stick around when people leave without a system of retention and transfer - which means those left behind have to start from scratch, all over again.

Without a deliberate KM approach, far too many organisations resemble the unkempt garden, the dirty car or the sofa with crayon scrawled all over it:  mistakes are repeated, over and over again; business continues to be lost from failed bids; time is wasted tracking down the guy that did this thing before.

So, KM is not 'natural' and will not happen by itself.  It requires a deliberate decision from senior management to investigate, design, test and implement a KM approach.

We don't have inviting gardens by accident; we don't have clean cars by accident and we don't have tidy houses by accident (nor, for that matter, presentable children) - so why on earth would we expect our knowledge to be managed by accident?

If you'd like a conversation about deliberately choosing to manage your organisation's knowledge, contact me direct or via the Knoco website.

Near and far knowledge transfer - it's all about context

Some weeks ago, I was invited to the offices of a potential client and 'pitched' to the senior leadership team.  I explained knowledge management (KM), its benefits and how it might help them in their work.

Before I had finished, the CEO questioned the relevance of KM to their line of work since, in his view, much of it was 'bespoke' and not easy to replicate.  Indeed, when faced with a new problem, selecting options for a client required judgement and experience that couldn't simply be 'captured' and 're-packaged'.

In response, I mentioned high-level enduring principles and concepts and then, on the train home, thought of dozens of things that I wished I had said as well.

Of course, I could have referred to Nancy Dixon's concepts of 'near' and 'far' knowledge transfer thus:

• Near transfer - this is used for relatively simple knowledge transferred between teams doing the same tasks in the same context (i.e. same region, market or, in the military, operational theatre).  It covers things like procedures, processes, tips, hints and 'how to' guides.  Think of a recipe book, as examined in this post here.
• Far transfer - this relates to more subtle knowledge and/or where it is transferred between teams doing the same (or similar) tasks but working in different contexts (i.e. new markets).  Consequently, this includes stories, 'rules of thumb', examples, case-studies etc.

Crucially, whilst all knowledge transfer needs to be credible, in far transfer the need is greater, in order for teams to have faith in applying the guidance in their own context.  This means the advice, lessons or overarching principles need to be attributed to established and respected experts, or to have come from a well-known and authoritative synthesis process (Note: Wikipedia's initial USP was that anyone could update it; well-known errors and/or malicious edits ensued, so assurance processes were introduced to aid quality control).

This attribution also enables the readers of a 'far transfer' knowledge asset (a project team, for example) to follow up with the author(s) with queries or suggested edits.  Alternatively, it might enable the initiation of another KM process, such as a Peer Assist, to address a specific problem that the project team is facing where direct input from a team that has faced similar challenges in the past would help.

Far transfer and the specific issue of anonymity vs. attribution will be examined in future posts.

For a chat about knowledge transfer, near or far, please contact me direct or via the Knoco website.

Negotiating with a 4-year old (or, how knowledge assets can help us all)

Everyday knowledge assets

Regular readers of this blog will know that a 'knowledge asset' is a term used by those of us working in knowledge management (KM) to describe a tool containing key knowledge on a critical topic.  We create such assets using knowledge capture processes (i.e. Interviews, Retrospects etc.) and then display and structure the knowledge in as 'user-friendly' a way as possible.

The aim of a knowledge asset is not to create a record for posterity or for knowledge-holders to 'dump' everything they know into one place.  Rather, it is aimed at the 'knowledge customer' - i.e. the person who needs certain knowledge in a format that will help them when they need it.

The following are examples of everyday knowledge assets:

• 'How to' guides
• Assembly instructions for newly-purchased tools, toys, equipment etc.
• Recipes
• Etc.

We can all think of examples of when we have used such resources and found them to be unhelpful.  Often this is because they:

• Lack sufficient detail
• Contain only text where images would help, especially on key processes
• Use terms that don't make sense to us, the user

In short, these issues all have the same root cause - namely, that the guidance material has not been produced with the end-user in mind.  Or at least, has not been proof-read by someone that knows nothing about the topic.  This 'ignorance' is helpful because it reveals any hidden assumptions on the part of either the person with the knowledge or the person creating the asset (they are often not the same person - did you think Gordon Ramsay wrote his own recipes?!).

You will recall that I described the main beneficiary of a knowledge asset as "the person who needs certain knowledge in a format that will help them when they need it".  This is a broad definition and rightly so - knowledge assets can be vast, complex, structured works that take a project team from a bare piece of land to a complete and full-functioning new airport, or they can simply save someone a bit of time and a bit of stress - it depends on the need, the value, and the resources and time available.

Below is a simple example of how a knowledge asset can be used to save a bit of time and quite a lot of stress....

'Pictures paint a thousand words'

Picture the scene - a family getting ready for a day out, to meet far-off relatives:

Mother: "Come and sit down and let me do your hair!  How shall we do it today?  Shall we do the fish-tail plait?"

Daughter (aged 4): "What's that?  Doesn't sound very nice..."

Mother: "It's lovely.  You like it.  It's where the plait has two sides to it that meet in the middle....come and sit down, we haven't got much time!"

Daughter: "What does it look like?"

Mother: "I've just told you.  Sit down!"

Daughter: "Show me...."
Mother: "I can't show you!  I can only do it and then show you in the mirror.  Sit down!"

And so on for far longer than one would want, with everyone getting frustrated....

It was at this point that I had a brainwave (he adds, modestly).  Once my wife had finally negotiated the finishing of
said fish-tail plait, I took a photo of it for future reference.  Since then, each variation of hairstyle (i.e. plaits, pony-tails, bunches etc.) has been photographed such that now, it takes only a few seconds for Mother and Daughter to agree on the style of the day, without the noise and commotion and disagreement that we all suffered before we used this very simple knowledge asset.

Of course, for the analogy to work 100%, we would need to add guidance notes, diagrams, FAQs, videos etc. all of which would help others perform this 'essential task'.

Now, remove hairdressing scenario with a four-year old daughter and replace with any high-pressure situation where details need to be communicated to a workforce lacking fluent English - diagrams, photos and other imagery can help convey methods, finished products and variants thereof.  It's not hard to see how a little bit of effort up-front can make things so much easier further down the line.

For a chat about how knowledge assets can help save you time, money and reduce stress, please contact me direct or via the Knoco website.

Have you hit the KM roadbump? 2 cracking analogies and one more killer quote to get you over it.

Knowledge management (KM) remains unknown to most organisations and the people that work within them.  Consequently, those of us working in the field sometimes use analogies, anecdotes and case-studies to explain KM to others. 

Early conversations often start well but we can all benefit from ways of countering the queries, doubts or even fears raised by those that don't yet "get it".

Two analogies that I like to use at the moment are those of safety and heating:

Safety
Whilst KM may sound like 'common sense' to some, all too often it is not that common.  Indeed, it is NOT the natural, human condition.  Managing anything at all requires deliberate effort, time, money and resources - managing knowledge is no different.  Safety is like this also.

As I blogged recently, we can't work safely without deliberately choosing to do so and we can't manage knowledge with equivalent efforts.

Think of everything that has gone into making factories, offices, shops and building sites safe places in which to work. In order to work safely, organisations have developed policies, committees, guidance, reporting procedures, training, metrics, teams, managers, champions, tools etc. Why?  Because we have learned (all too often the hard way) that the removal of danger requires action on our part.

As with safety, so with KM.  Knowledge won't move around an organisation without significant assistance from KM policies, committees, guidance, reporting procedures, training, metrics, teams, managers, champions, tools etc.

Furthermore, the 'safety team' are NOT the ones that work safely.  Rather, they require, encourage, enable and support the rest of us to do so.

As with safety, so with KM.  The KM team are NOT the ones that manage knowledge.  Rather, they require, encourage, enable and support the rest of us to do so.

Heating
A significant challenge facing KM practitioners as a discipline is the ever-present mistaken belief that technology is the answer, or even that technology somehow is knowledge management.  I think this may be largely down to what I call the 'magpie attraction' of technology.

Some organisations see something new and shiny and say, "We want that!" without properly thinking about the problem to which a so-called 'knowledge management platform' or 'knowledge management system' might be the solution.  Indeed, without the right people, processes and governance, the 'KM = technology = KM' approach achieves absolutely nothing.

To reinforce my point - last week I blogged '6 killer knowledge management quotes' (my most popular post this year, by the way).  Since then, I came across one more on LinkedIn - the ultimate killer KM quote to beat all killer KM quotes. 

From Larry Prusak (ex-IBM, McKinsey etc.) at last week's KM Legal Conference in New York:

"All the technology in the world will not make people collaborate.  Obama is not going to take my call just because I have a telephone and the number for the White House."

Quite.

Now, about that heating analogy.  When we need to heat a house, we don't point to a brand new boiler and say, "We want that!", do we?  We recognise that we need radiators, a thermostat, piping, insulation in the loft, perhaps air conditioning as well. 

As with heating, so with KM.  We don't just need a portal, lessons management system, enterprise search, discussion forums and so on.  We need people to be accountable for their correct use, processes in order to create, update, organise and share the knowledge in them and a system of governance (indeed, a learning culture) that encourages and expects us to do this, and recognises and thanks us for so doing.

Don't waste money on buying only a boiler otherwise your house will stay very cold this winter.

For a conversation about magpies, boilers, safety or indeed, knowledge management, please get in touch direct or via the Knoco website.