The challenge of organisational knowledge loss

Addressing the challenge of organisational knowledge loss is uppermost in the minds of many knowledge managers given the current economic climate with ‘downsizing’, early retirement, re-organisation, a grab for talent, office closures and relocation becoming commonplace.

Knowing that a ‘knowledge at risk’ problem exists, and taking the appropriate action to address the problem, are two different (but equally important) things; and questions that knowledge managers and their organisations need to ask and answer to better understand the depth and breadth of the problem (and in their context) include: 

 

• What knowledge is important to our organisation?
• What knowledge is most at risk?
• What is the value of this knowledge?
• Who has this knowledge?
• How can this knowledge be retained? 

Addressing the challenge of organisational knowledge loss requires planning and takes time and effort.  Only after asking and answering the above and other knowledge at risk related questions will a knowledge manager and his/her organisation be ready/equipped to take the appropriate knowledge management, retention, capture, harvesting, and transfer actions.

Photograph from 401(K) 2013′s Photostream on Flickr – http://www.flickr.com/photos/68751915@N05/with/6869767115/#photo_6869767115

 

When to connect, when to collect?

Technology (along with processes and people) is one of the enablers of knowledge management.  Organisations need to use and exploit technology in order to enable explicit knowledge to recorded and shared; to facilitate work and collaboration activities across geographies and time zones; to search and mine data and information bases; and to automate basic work activities and processes.  As an enabler, technology is easier to ‘fix’ when it goes wrong or breaks down, than say an embedded and inefficient process or a dysfunctional team of people.

However, in some organisations, technology sometimes gets in the way of knowledge management activities and ‘the latest system’ can run the danger of becoming more of a disabler, than an enabler.  A number of tweets on Twitter and posts to discussion forums/groups on Linkedin recently have commented on the implementation and use of SharePoint in this respect.

Finding the right balance or blend of the enablers of knowledge management for an organisation or subset of it can be difficult, particularly when for some, it is new technology that is driving change and making new working practices possible, more so than new business objectives and revisions to strategy .

In my knowledge management work with organisations I have often found it helpful to go back to some basic principles than underpin knowledge management and its enablers.  One such example is an exercise in which the client is asked to consider the pros and cons of knowledge found in people, and knowledge stored in technology.  Typical responses to the exercise include:

Pros of knowledge found in people

• It can be interrogated; it can provide context; it can explain things than can never be written down

Cons of knowledge found in people

• It goes home at night; it might not be correct; it might not be available when needed

Pros of knowledge stored in technology

• It is available 24/7; it can be searched; it can be the one version of the truth

Cons of knowledge stored in technology

• It can only be found if correctly tagged/labelled; it is prone to duplication; it doesn’t answer back

This simple exercise acts as a great reminder that tacit, implicit and explicit knowledge need to be connected and managed in different ways and that different technologies can enable/support these different requirements.  Stage two of the exercise concerns mapping the technologies that exist in the organisation or subset of it and considering how, and in what ways, they enable knowledge management.

It won’t come as a surprise to many readers of this blog that the exercise can reveal that there are often too many technologies available in a given organisation or subset of it to enable knowledge management activities, and that employees can become confused which to use, and for what purpose.

Deciding when to connect (people to people) and when to collect and store knowledge is one of the day-to-day challenges faced by knowledge managers.  Taking colleagues back to basic principles, now and again, can help clarify thinking and inform decisions and actions about the blend of enablers that best support their organisations business objectives.

Photograph from lgb06′s photostream on Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/lgb06/with/4390432853/

How many of your virtual meetings start late?

The world of work is full of meetings.  Many of these take place around desks; open ‘collaboration’ spaces; coffee machines; or in meeting rooms (that is if you can book one or find one free).  As we all know, not all of the meetings we attend are a productive use of time and organisational resource.  For further information see my blog post meetings meetings meetings. 

Increasingly, many of our work meetings are taking place virtually, and it is suggested that for these meetings to be effective, new ways of working and communicating need to be considered. 

A recent article in Management Today explains this further and describes ten top tips to help organisations get the most from virtual meetings – http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/features/1146113/ten-top-tips-virtual-meetings/.  

According to the author, ‘about 90% of virtual meetings start late’.  Is this true in your organisation?

Photo from Pringpring’s photostream on Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/pringlesy/with/3957595399/#photo_3957595399

 

Ask “what person has the knowledge?”

Most would agree that sharing and transferring knowledge is a key aspect of knowledge management activity.  In enabling knowledge to be shared and transferred, knowledge managers will often map out how knowledge flows in business projects, processes and its movement up, down and across their organisation.  Such a map is likely to identify knowledge gaps, blockages, types and highlight the supply (those that have it) and demand sides (those that need it) of ‘the knowledge sharing and transfer equation’. 

When sharing and transferring knowledge, much ‘can get lost in translation’.  Part of the reason for this is that knowledge is a personal thing and that individuals learn and share in different ways.  A trap that a knowledge manager can fall into is to focus more energy and resources on the explicit (more visible) knowledge in their organisation than on the tacit and implicit (less visible) knowledge.  Why do they do this?  Well the answer is simple – because it’s easier! 

A further reason why knowledge ‘can get lost in translation’ is that it is tempting to focus knowledge sharing and transfer efforts on the knowledge itself, rather than on the people who hold the knowledge.  To paraphrase Neurologist Oliver Sacks, ask less about ‘what knowledge (disease) does this person have’ and more about ‘what person has the knowledge (disease)’ – “you are talking about a self”. 

You can check out some of my other blog posts on sharing and transferring knowledge via http://ianwooler.wordpress.com/tag/knowledge-transfer/.

Does your working environment facilitate collaboration?

The following is a link to Nancy Dixon’s blog and to a post ‘the hallways of learning’ about the impact our working environment has on our propensity to collaborate.  The post reminded me of past efforts in organisations to use the office space available to facilitate and sustain a ‘knowledge sharing’ culture – i.e. to try to make the walls, open spaces, offices and other facilities support the environment we were trying to create, rather than act as a barrier to achieving this. 

The blog is well worth a read and it would be interesting to hear back from readers how they and their organisations have applied creative solutions to facilitate greater collaboration within ‘their four walls’. 

http://www.nancydixonblog.com/2012/07/the-hallways-of-learning.html

A physiotherapist’s description of (tacit knowledge) ‘know-how’

Much has been written about tacit (and implicit and explicit) knowledge.  Tacit knowledge was first introduced into philosophy by Michael Polanyi in 1958 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_knowledge and facilitating the exchange of tacit knowledge (e.g. experience, intuition, expertise, and behaviours) is the focus for many knowledge managers today.    

For every knowledge manager, there will be a favourite story or anecdote used to describe or define tacit knowledge – and this is often in terms of ‘know-how’.

In my travels, workshops, and training sessions I sometimes ask others to describe what tacit knowledge means to them.  The following description was given by a physiotherapist when talking about the know-how being used to decide when and where to apply pressure, and the type of movement to use, to ease a tense or strained muscle. 

“You know how to interpret what’s going on under your hands without knowing you’re doing it.” 

What’s your favourite tacit knowledge story, anecdote or description?

When the computer says “no”

The world of sport can provide knowledge managers and their organisations with some great stories and case study material which can be used to support KM activities and internal communications.  For example, many readers to this blog will be familiar with the story about how doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children learnt from F1 expertise http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1014984.stm. 

Another such story appeared in The Daily Telegraph last weekend.  The story was of an interview with Sir Chris Hoy, and recounted the “thousands of miles on the bike” and the “hundreds of hours in the gym” Hoy puts himself through in order to perfect his art.  However, the main focus of the story was to highlight the ways in which British Cycling will select the rider for the one GB place available for the men’s individual sprint at this summer’s Olympics – with both Hoy and Jason Kenny being capable of challenging for a gold medal.  As the story reminds us “two into one does not go”. 

The interesting knowledge management angle to the story is that the decision will be informed by the reams of data, graphs and computer readouts, numbers and figures available from the two riders’ performance data.  This includes data and information on power, torque, cadence and speed – factored against atmospheric pressure and temperature; “so that you can work out a good peformance”.  But should a computer ‘make the decision’ who represents BG and who does not?  

You could argue that there is a danger that the decision could be made largely on ‘explicit knowledge’, and that not enough consideration and weight will be applied to each rider’s ‘tacit and implicit knowledge’; for example – judging when to make the final push for the line; dealing with the pressure of the situation; not getting overawed by the occasion; and the ability to bring years of experience and training to bear in an extremely fast-moving environment where split second decisions can result in the difference between success and ‘failure’.  As Sir Chris Hoy points out “it’s not something you can quantify, but they (the performance director and head coach) will take that into consideration, I’m sure”. 

As knowledge managers will know, connecting people together to share knowledge about things that are difficult to quantify and write down is vital if well-informed decisions are to be made.  So, the next time you are about to make an important decision, re-tell yourself this story.  As the interview reminds us, “before conquering the world, Hoy must first conquer the machines” – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/cycling/9260858/London-2012-Olympics-Sir-Chris-Hoys-fate-in-individual-sprint-will-be-decided-by-a-machine-not-humans.html

Making the right gesture – transferring tacit knowledge

The current edition of The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management (EJKM) includes an interesting article (pp 142-153) ‘how to characterise professional gestures to operate tacit know-how transfer?’ http://www.ejkm.com/issue/current.html.

The article describes an experiment, which was performed at EDF (Electricité de France), in which several categories of professional gestures were studied and were investigated to produce training video material called “MAP” (Multimedia Apprenticeship Platform). 

Worth a read and of particular interest to those using video to help with their knowledge transfer and knowledge retention programmes.  Photograph from quinn.anya’s photstream on Flickr – http://www.flickr.com/photos/quinnanya/

 

 

 

 

 

What is counter to your intuition?

Encouraging people in organisations to share their skills, knowledge and experiences with others, and to build on the skills, knowledge and experiences shared by others, is a core aspect of knowledge management activity.  Trust is a key factor/enabler in helping to create an environment and culture where this happens automatically.  This point was highlighted by David Gurteen in a Tweet earlier today in which he quoted Karl-Erik Svieby who said that “trust is the bandwidth of communication” – http://www.gurteen.com/gurteen/gurteen.nsf/id/X0000530E/?open=&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter 

Relying on the skills, knowledge and experiences of others – for example via a lesson learnt; an example of good practice; or advice given in a Peer Assist – depends to some extent of how much we trust the individuals/authors concerned.  And as trust can be attributed to relationships, to what extent should we rely on the skills, knowledge and experiences of those with whom we have no relationship? 

For example, when reading or reviewing an example of good practice prepared by an individual or team with which we have little knowledge, and no relationship, we might be encouraged by the ideas shared as we can see and believe them to be true.  They fit in with our mindset, seem logical, and perhaps support our suspicions or match with our own views.  Alternatively, we may not fully trust the ideas because our intuition (or gut) tells us either that this cannot be ‘true’ or that the ideas won’t work (an emotional response) in our situation. 

What might be common sense and intuitive for one individual, might be counter-intuitive for another.  And this has implications for knowledge managers keen to encourage people in their organisations to share skills, knowledge and experience with colleagues. 

The concept and ideas surrounding what it is/means/feels like to be counter-intuitive have been explored recently in a number of programmes and articles.  The following might be of interest if you want to know more.      

1. BBC TV programme Bang Goes the Theory, and a recent edition that showed that the flow of crowds (at events, football games and the forthcoming Olympics) could be improved by strategically placing small barriers close to exits – http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00lwxj1 
2. A blog post by Gary Colet of the Knowledge and Innovation Network (KIN) titled ‘The big launch – a counter intuitive view’ – http://www.ki-network.org/jm/kblog
3. The Monty Hall problem explained and illustrated in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem is an example of a puzzle where the result appears to be odd (counter to our intuition) but demonstrable true.

The link between a sutra, wikipedia and knowledge management

Written 2000 years ago the Kama Sutra is perhaps best known for its chapter on sexual pleasure.  However, this is only one (the second) of seven chapters. 

In this week’s In Our Time with Melvyn Bragg (see link to Podcast below), he and his guests discuss this important piece of Indian literature and start their conversation by explaining the meaning of ‘Kama’ and then ‘Sutra’.  

One of his guests explains that Sutra means a thread or string of aphorisms (“pearls of knowledge”) to be passed on to others and likens a Sutra to an early form of  Wikipedia - a knowledge base that many can tap into, and an attempt to capture the knowledge of a culture at the time.  Sound familiar? 

Information and knowledge managers reading this blog know all too well about the organisational challenges associated with capturing, sharing and transferring knowledge.  Perhaps a few lessons can be learnt from understanding the ways in which sutras are composed and shared?  

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/iot#playepisode1