One size does not fit all, or does it? – Implications for Knowledge Management

I have just listened to a radio programme and was stuck by one particular response given by a financial analyst.  When asked to comment about the European Union and current financial difficulties of many member states the analyst ended his response with the following words “and this is because one size does not fit all”. 

This is a phrase I have heard many times and from many organisations.  It is often used in the context of some Change Management activity, and given as a reason why an initiative will not work/not work here.  When this reason (see my blog on the 5 Whys for a suggested technique – http://ianwooler.wordpress.com/?s=5+whys) is questioned the responses often include:

• “our function is different and needs more flexibility that the ‘one size’ approach allows”
• “the ‘one size’ approach appears overly bureaucratic”
• “getting our staff to follow the ‘one size’ process will be very difficult without sanctions”. 

Common to all of the above is the perception that much of our daily work activity is unique to us and our given situation.  Whilst there is an element of truth in this view, there are also many daily work tasks and activities that very similar, if not the same, as those completed by others. 

Knowledge Managers will have come up against the challenges of helping their organisations to identify, capture, codify, and share Good and Best Practice.  They will also be aware of the challenges of getting this Practice to be re-used and enriched and that a barrier to re-use can be the perception that ‘one size does not fit all’. 

So what can be done?  An organisation without an element of structure and control and the requirement for its employees to follow defined standard approaches is at risk of duplication of effort and inconsistent delivery of products and services; whilst an organisation with too much structure and control, and very rigid and fixed methods of operation, might lack the mindset required to deliver innovation and improvement. 

The answer lies in understanding your organisation (some need more structure and control than others) and its drivers, key processes and environment.  Knowledge Managers can assist here by helping their organisations to identify ‘core’ and ‘non-core’ processes/activities – i.e. those where a ‘one size’ approach is fit for purpose, and those where an element of flexibility is required.  The answer also lies in knowing when the balance is right/wrong and in deploying the relevant knowledge management tools and techniques to support/address this. 

So, and for example, whilst a ‘one size fits all’ approach might be beneficial to Expense Management, a more flexible/fluid approach is required to facilitate Knowledge Transfer (follow this link for my training course – http://www.tfpl.com/training/courses/coursedesc.cfm?ID=TR0005&did=2).  However, organisational life is never that simple and within both these examples there is a ‘balance’ to be struck.  Knowledge Managers can help facilitate this balance by thinking (and explaining using stories) about the complexity of specific organisational activities and knowing when the balance should lean more toward a ‘one size’ approach and when it should not.

Know How To… Align and Blend the enablers of Knowledge Management

Sandra Ward and I have published our latest Knowledge Management Know How To… guide to the TFPL website. 

The guide explains how to align and blend the enablers of Knowledge Management.  We believe that Knowledge Management activities are at their most successful when supported by three essential resources: Organisational (people based), Process, and Technology enablers. 

Knowledge Managers need to know how to align and blend these enablers to connect people to people, people to the information and knowledge they need, and to the tools and technologies that help them collaborate and store and find information and knowledge. 

You can download the guide via the following link: http://www.tfpl.com/consultancy/knowledgetools.cfm#kenablers

 

Workshop: Implementing Knowledge Cafes for Business Purpose

There are a number of formats and approaches to running Knowledge Cafes and it is important to answer your ‘for what business purpose’ question before deciding what format and approach to use.  Knowledge Cafes form an important part of a Knowledge Manager’s tool-kit – but need to be used selectively and with purpose.  I cover many of the approaches to running and facilitating Knowledge Cafes in the training I provide for TFPL http://ianwooler.wordpress.com/training-courses/.     

Many readers of the blog will be familiar with David Gurteen of Gurteen Knowledge.  David is a pioneer in the use of Knowledge Cafes and other conversational tools in business and has been running Knowledge Cafes and teaching people how to run them all over the world for the last 8 years.  David is running a Knowledge Cafe workshop on 13th September 2011, and the workshop is designed to help attendees:

• Understand the role and importance of conversation in business
• Design and run Gurteen Knowledge Cafés and other forms of Cafe
• Solve specific business problems and challenges using Knowledge Cafes
• Use other conversational tools and techniques to address business issues

Location: Royal Society of Arts, London
Date: Tuesday 13 September 2011, 09:30 – 16:30
Full Price: £495 + VAT; Public Sector Price: £395 + VAT
If you are, for example, a student or a Charity and genuinely cannot afford the price then call David Gurteen on 07774 178 650 and he will see what he can do for you.

More information about the workshop can be found at: http://www.gurteen.com/gurteen/gurteen.nsf/id/imp-kcafe9

Knowledge Management – art or science?

In my blog posts of 1^st March http://ianwooler.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/long-term-memory-%e2%80%93-recall-smell-and-taste/, 7^th April http://ianwooler.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/understand-the-do-not-the-should-before-you-implement-another-km-tool-or-technique/, and 15^th June 2011 http://ianwooler.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/why-telling-a-story-is-worth-1000-facts/ I referred to a new book by Jonah Lehrer (see link in my blog roll) titled Proust was a Neuroscientist.  In the first of these series of blog posts I said I would consider the implications of Lehrer’s book on knowledge management. 

The task was, inevitably, more difficult than I first thought – but that learning in itself plays to several of the books key themes. Including:

• Humans are more than the some of their parts
• The common ground (or lack of it) between artists and scientists
• Not every question is best answered in scientific terms
• Both art and science are useful, and both can be true 

I guess my take-away from the book in terms of its implications on knowledge management was that it re-enforced my view that knowledge management is something of a hybrid discipline and that it, like a human (and the way the brain works), is more than the sum of its parts.  The danger (and reason many knowledge management activities fail) is that organisations attempt to manage their and their employees’ knowledge as ‘parts’ and not ‘holistically’ or using ‘organisations are organisms’ thinking.  Equally, many knowledge management activities do not gain traction with organisations because they are seen as too ‘intangible’ – a view strengthened by knowledge management practitioners who do not focus enough of evidencing the ‘tangible’ and ‘intangible’ elements of the discipline.    

To stretch this point a little further (you may say too far) – for ‘parts/tangible’ thinking read science and for ‘holistic/intangible’ thinking read art.  And clearly, for knowledge management activities to be effective and of value to employees and organisations alike, it needs both.  Whether a knowledge management practitioner applies scientific thinking first, and then balances this with an artists view, or approaches these the other way round, is often left to individual preferences.  However, with my MBTI practitioner’s hat on I would say that, for example when considering change or innovation, the artists view should always come before the scientists – i.e.  and in MBTI speak, ‘NFP’ should always come before ‘STJ’.  (For more information about MBTI check out my blog link http://ianwooler.wordpress.com/category/mbti/)

But, perhaps it’s best to leave the last words in this blog post to Lehrer – “no knowledge has a monopoly on knowledge”.