Manage Knowledge - Blog

We read from the Encyclopedia Britannica, and they create definitions on Wikipedia.

We preferred watching the show, and they want to star in it (over 50,000 videos are being made on You Tube each day.

We listened as the news anchor, politician, and teacher spoke to us. They comment on the news, blog about political candidates and parties, and have a voice that wants to be heard.

We grew up trying to find our place in the world, and now they want to shape and define it.

We are their parents, teachers and supervisors and they  are our children, students and employees.

We lecture them, but find they only wanted to be mentored. 

At times we resort to controlling them, while they fight back only wanting to be enabled.

We believed that your participation in society meant getting the right title, degree, or promotion. That’s how you got the job. You then became a specialist or expert with the necessary clout to treat patients, open your business doors, or be the PR person for a company.

Experience mattered.

They believe in the “wisdom of the crowd” where anyone can participate, especially online. (That is where all business is going anyway!)  You created your opportunities. Your reputation comes from an eBay seller rating, Amazon book review, or idea you gave Dell on dellideastorm.com.

Contribution matters. 

In 2004, a 23-year old Harvard student created Facebook. Today it has 41 million users, mostly college kids who prefer to hang out there than crack the books. Experts estimate Facebook may now be worth $7-$8 billion. No wonder it has caught the attention of Microsoft, Yahoo, and other powerhouses who want to niche market to these users. And for the student? Forget email. It’s much more fun to “poke” a friend or write on their “wall” on Facebook!

In 1999, a 19 year old shook up the music industry when he created Napster and allowed people to share music over the Internet without having to purchase their own CD. The power shifted to the consumer who now experiences more convenience and choice (you don’t have to drive down to the store, and purchase nine other songs you didn’t want on the CD).

Our generation was cautious and not so presumptuous in leading our lives. The younger generation is unapologetic about shaping their lives - and our’s as well.

Napster changed the music industry, and experts believe Facebook and other collaborative, social networking sites will change our work cultures. We live in the Knowledge Age. Knowledge is created as a by-product of interaction. And Business Week says the winners in business will be those who host the best conversations.

We thought the rule was to “stop talking and get back to work”, your studies, etc. And they believe “start talking and get to work”. Blogs, wikis, YouTube, Facebook, Napster…These are disruptive technologies. And our kids - and their generation - are the disruptive technologists.

Suddenly Potential is challenging Experience. And Talent is standing tall compared to Position.

No wonder we’re revisiting questions about social proprieties, views about authority, and how best to get work done.

Experts say we are immigrants to this strange world, who don’t really understand the technology, and are wary of its future. And they are natives who speak the language, know the technology, and embrace its future.

We saw the world as hierarchical, but a book author is saying it’s flat. And when we thought we could trust the expert, other experts are teaching us about the “power of us”. (After all, last year, you and me were named as Time Magazine’s “Person of the Year”)

We have experienced both worlds, and have our past to help us see the difference. They kids have no recollection of things past, and only know the present.

Their college experience teaches them that knowledge is power, but are prone to enter into paths of powerful - even destructive - forces. Our life’s experiences have wisely taught us that not all knowledge is of equal worth, and that we must look to a higher power.

We need their enthusiasm, drive and brave entrance into this digital age. And they need our counsel, wisdom and experience to navigate it carefully.

Certainly, our distinct roles are shifting, but they both still do matter. For now more than ever before, we need each other.

The InTERnet was built without a grand master architect - and it works fine. But what about InTRAnet pages that should be built with knowledge management best practices in mind?

Where does the information architect begin?

Tools and technologies shouldn’t be considered just a “developer’s playground”. And so allowing your developers or teams to design any user interface, content structures, etc. doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. At the same time, too much structure can choke creativity, innovation, and scare user’s away. 

There must be a balance between managemen’t goals for a consistent look and feel  and the user’s ability to engage in a site that feels like home. Afterall, we are creating a “community” of sorts. And in real-life communities, people pick their friends and neighbors, who they will talk to, etc. And online communities aren’t much different.

So where is the balance? I believe it begins with defining what you want the site to accomplish.

For example, if  you wanted to help people simply start to open up, you could design a portal similar to MySpace or YouTube. The message? This is a fun, exciting place to lounge or veg. If the non-threatening, comfortable community site simply gets people talking - it may have met it’s objective. 

On the other hand, say management wants a site which solves their alignment problem.

How do we get everyone on the same page? 

This will require more structure. And perhaps a simple organizational behavior lesson. That is, people engage when they want to - and need to - engage with others.

This is where your community of  practice comes in.

Increasingly, work is cross-functional and blurs organizational boundaries. Information is moving fast, but our organizational structures, processes and culture are not. People want to engage with others who are involved in their same line of work or job function. And that doesn’t necessarily mean where you physically or even logically sit in the organization!

Here they share best practices, lessons learned, and can even strut their stuff.

So where do you begin to design a community for possibly thousands of knowledge workers? How do you engage with others who have similar job functions, but are located half a world away? Installing corporate blog software won’t do the trick. And “team sites” may complicate – rather than solve the problem - if they turn into “knowledge silos”. To get everyone on the same page, you need to start with management’s support. Engage them in defining organizational objectives, processes and services. Then allow each team to post on their open site:

• What they do by specifying their goals and objectives.
• How they do it by outlining their processes, roles and responsibilities.
• What services they provide and for what customers.

Next, solve management’s problem of alignment by cascading these goals, processes and services from the top-down. Then encourage and enable bottom-up feedback. How? Design “live documents” with comments (similar to “blog comments”) to leverage the “wisdom of crowds”. Lastly, engage your workflow publishing team to continually incorporate useful information from these comments into findable and usable information which becomes more complete, accurate and useful.

The bottom line is simple. People will engage when they want to. And usually that is when they need to complete assigned tasks. (Don’t take that to an extreme either, since much innovation, creativity and process improvement is ad-hoc!)

The key is designing the site to facilitate these relationships.

If you do this, then the support technician who just off the phone with the customer can share his or her product enhancement with the with the distant product manager. Note how each of these knowledge worker is involved with the same work (supporting and enhancing products), even though they don’t have the same reporting structure. And these days, they may be half a world away.

Work, then, is not defined so much by who sits next to you in your cubicle, geography or possible your organizational structure. So begin by enabling a knowledge network, even if it doesn’t mirror the organization’s structure. Above all, try to foster these relationships as you design your site, and make sure it will scale to fit the needs of a growing organization. 

Not all viruses are bad. In fact, they can be really good - especially if you are a marketer.

According to Wikipedia, “Viral marketing and viral advertising refer to marketing techniques that use pre-existing social networks to produce increases in brand awareness, through self-replicating viral processes, analogous to the spread of pathological and computer viruses.”

Case in point: Hotmail.

The free, web-base email program came to prominence almost overnight ten years ago. But not just because it was free.

What was the catalyst for it’s wild growth?

The power of word of mouth networks. The power of viral marketing.

How did it work? Quite simply, the company decided to “…append an advertising message to every outbound email: “P.S. Get your free email at Hotmail. It was very contentious at the time. Would users balk at having this automatic addition to the content of their private messages? Hotmail tempered the idea by clearly demarcating the promotional plug, and removing the “P.S.” Nevertheless, every outbound message still conveyed an advertisement and a subtle implied endorsement by the sender - the recipient knew that the sender was a Hotmail user, and that this new free email thing seemed to work for them. Each new user becomes a company salesperson, and the message spreads organically.

Internet time means yesterday’s news story may be obsolete. But this 10 year old case study still has legs, and at least in the case of viral marketing, we can learn from past successes.

The article continued, “Hotmail grew a subscriber base more rapidly than any company in the history of the world …faster than any new online, Internet, or print publication ever. Hotmail is the largest email provider in the world. In its first 1.5 years, Hotmail signed up over 12 million subscribers…Yet, from company launch to 12 million users, Hotmail spent less than $500K on marketing, advertising and promotion. This compares to over $20 million spent on advertising and brand promotion by Juno, Hotmail’s closest competitor with a fraction of the users.”

What happened to Hotmail? They went the way of many innovative, creative startups and were bought up by the giant - Microsoft. Today, you know it as MSN Messenger.

This was Tim Draper’s idea. Draper, a venture capitalist, is now on the board of SocialText (an organization banking that blogs will become mainstream in businesses).

SocialText is not alone. Wikipedia, MySpace, and YouTube have used this word of mouth advertising approach to become the giants in the social networking space.

In short, viral marketing is one proven methodology to grow your business on a limited budget. In many ways, blogs, wikis and social networking sites are the new labels for word-of-mouth advertising or viral marketing. Fads come and go, and early adopters often move on to the next cool thing. But blogs and wikis are different. Why? They easily allow you to connect with friends, family and others who share your same hobby. And they leverage the power of viral marketing with the east of a click.

Social networking is not a fad. It is going mainstream. And industry experts predict that it’s not a way the teen worlds entertains itself. It’s represents a way change in how we do business.

And so whether we are talking about viral marketing, social networking, blogs, or wikis, the basic principles are still the same. People are social beings, and they tend to buy from those they trust. And endorsements are powerful marketing approaches - even if it’s only an implied endorsement or ad at the end of your email!

Because we live in the Knowlege Age, “…knowledge - not money or technology - is the primary economic unit of business in the twenty-first century”. [1]  Therefore, your employees - and their knowledge - is your most critical asset.

The knowledge worker is a person who deals with data, information, and ideas to solve problems and generate knowledge based output. [2]  By that definition, the mailman who sorts and delivers mail using street addresses and zip codes is just as much a knowledge worker as the chief knowledge officer charged with preserving knowledge assets.

Indeed, most of us are knowledge workers! 

That’s the 30-second elevator pitch. But what does it mean for your business?

If you are like most organizations overloaded with information, you struggle to really “know what you already know”. A study cited by CIO Magazine found that “…94 percent of organizations believe it would be possible to leverage the knowledge of their organization to a higher degree. Yet 71 percent said their business was average or worse at embedding knowledge is products, processes and/or services.[3]

Unfortunately, the competition isn’t waiting around for you to get your act together. In a global economy with shrinking margins, knowledge may also be your last competitive advantage. How well you capture, structure and reuse knowledge may determine your success or failure. Or as one expert noted, Manage knowledge or perish. [4]

The Problem

Knowledge management is about technology, processes, and culture.[5] But it is mostly about people. And you can no more coerce knowledge workers to share knowledge any more than you can force them to be a team players. In that sense, “knowledge management” may be a misnomer, but it still the operating term. What’s important is to recognize that it begins by building a relationship with knowledge workers sufficient to earn their trust. Only then can you engage their mind, and incite their passion sufficiently to create a knowledge-driven organization.

Knowledge management is also not a new term. It first became the buzz word in the late 1990s like many hyped-up Internet companies, it fell well short of expectations. But that said more of our misguided expectations than about knowledge management itself. In some cases, it failed to meet the expectations because those who championed it’s cause were themselves unclear on defining it’s purpose.  As with any initiative in business, having clarity of purpose is critical in setting expectations and defining success.

Before we delve too far into knowledge management, we must first understand what we know of the knowledge worker. By nature, knowledge workers are “not happy to check their brains at the door….”, but rather want to “contribute ideas and see them work in a knowledge-sharing environment.[6] 

According to Stephen Covey, the problem is that “many in positions of authority do not see the true worth and potential of their people…”. And because (these managers) “…do not possess a complete, accurate understanding of human nature” they consequently “…manage people as they do things.”

Unfortunately, this human dimension of knowledge management is often overlooked.

Covey concludes that organizations must understand that “…people make choices. Consciously or subconsciously, people decide how much of themselves they will give to their work depending on how they are treated and on their opportunities to use all four parts of their nature.” In short, Covey says these four parts make up the ”whole person paradigm”. Every knowledge worker possesses these human qualities that can’t be violated -

A mind - that says “Use me creatively”
A body - that says “Pay me fairly”
A heart - that says “Treat me kindly” and
A spirit - that says “Let me serve in meaningful ways”

Covey then asks, “What happens when you treat people like things today? It insults and alienates them, depersonalizes work, and creates a low-trust, unionized litigious cultures.” And when that happens, organizations are prevented from “…tapping into the highest motivations, talents and genious of people.” [7] 

In other words, the generally warm human nature of people is not always compatible with the management practices or structures of our organizations.

All too often, the knowledge worker’s idea or suggestion may be rarely asked for, easily dismissed or ignored altogether. He or she is not insulted by the boss’ strategy, but rather that his or her own opinions weren’t asked in the first place! Consequently, too many knowledge workers are not enthused, excited or passionate.

 And where there is no involvement, there may be compliance - but not commitment.

Some knowledge workers have concluded that if they are too honest, too direct or press issues too hard - they could even lose their jobs. Ironically, organizational success invites, even requires, a free exchange of ideas which challenge workplace practices and assumptions. In reality, too many decisions are made behind closed doors. Certainly, managers who are insistent their decisions are right, shouldn’t then be threatened by the scrutiny an open, collective discussion would invite.

Indeed, the “command and control” structures, processes and culture may well represent the greatest threats to the organization in the Knowledge Age. And these organizations will be the first to topple into a fiercely competitive, global economy.

To be fair, some managers do “get it”. They openly solicit input to improve processes, and recognize and reward their employee’s contributions. Organizations that inspire workers to collaborate reap the rewards of innovation and process improvement. Their managers and workers don’t shut the door behind them and then get to work. Rather they see work as a more constant, engaging experience with others. One project manager I knew didn’t even have an office because he said it “sucked the creativity out of him.”

But even the best of these collaborative organizations are limited in their ability to adequately measure one’s ”knowledge contribution”. Organizations will generally get what they measure, but are they measuring what’s meaningful? Flawed performance management systems can’t really measure the value of a suggestion or the power of an idea.

For example, if I suggest an enhancement to a product that will generate thousands of dollars in increased sales, shouldn’t I be recognized for that? When my boss and I discuss my yearly performance, can that process really evaluate an idea that may have led to a new design specification and product? In reality, ideas that improve processes or that fuel innovation are generally a collective - not individual - experience. That indeed is the basis of knowledge management in the first place. However, whether we are discussing individual or team metrics of performance, our organizations haven’t really quanitified or qualified the concept of knowledge workers making ”knowledge contribution”.

Ask yourself these questions about your own organization-

• Does your ability to influence a product decision or improve a process depend on the title you wear?
• Is your organizations fluid enough to allow people to gravitate to areas of their interest and passion - and not just what their job description defines?
• How well does the organization measure (let alone encourage) the value of an idea, suggestion or process improvement?
• If HR departments aren’t clear on how to measure, recognize and reward one’s contribution, can we really expect knowledge workers to fully participate?

Fortunately, leading edge practices on the Internet today give insight into value propositions that give incentive for the knowledge worker to engage. And these technology best practices are likely to become common practices in our organizations tomorrow.

For example, I can download a program off of Downloads.com, write a review and become a “top contributor” if enough people appreciate my review. And Amazon.com allows me to rate a new book release - just because. I can even define the term “Mormon” on Wikipedia (the online encyclopedia) and see it right then. True, it likely will be modified by others who contribute to it’s meaning. But at least it’s a shared, collective experience. The point is that I don’t need a special license, title or recommendation to contribute knowledge. It is simply an opportunity and I can take it or leave it. And the collective experience of this shared knowledge almost always leads to better knowledge that relying on the “expert” anyway.

In the future, only adaptive, collaborative knowledge workers (and organizations) will succeed in a highly competitive world. In a knowledge-driven culture, the organization becomes flat. And the enablers - not controllers - will be rewarded with influence, power and authority. The top-down, once a year performance reviews don’t adequately reflect one’s knowledge contribution. And with no value proposition, the knowledge workers will play it safe. Unforunately, organizations need knowledge workers to sieze opportunities, take risks, and challenge the status quo.

 To change your culture to create a knowledge-driven organization, you must work to build - or restore - trust.

The knowledge worker says, “Why should I share my knowledge if you can lay me off and then replace me with an unskilled worker?” On the other hand, the organization can’t really guarantee anyone a job. The key then is to identify those who are sharing their knowledge so that decision makers can identify the knowledge contributors.  Companies who create a knowledge sharing culture, derive the benefits of this shared knowledge as less skilled workers are empowered with know how.

The value proposition for the knowledge worker must then change to say, “It’s not what you know, but what you share that counts.” Only then will the knowledge worker buy into the idea that collective knowledge is better than knowledge you hoard. And he or she will change from one who hoards knowledge to someone who champions or markets it to others.

Once that happens, knowledge workers will learn to speak up, ask questions and challenge assumptions. It may sound trite, but there really is no dumb question, idea, or suggestion. Because knowledge is created from from “experience and interaction”, the organization must foster a culture than nurtures these knowledge worker’s interactions. [8]

Unfortunately, technology may be advancing faster than our organizational structures and culture. And our tools can’t really measure one’s “knowledge contribution” any more than human resource departments know how to recognize and reward that contribution. The once-a-year performance review by the boss is too infrequent and limited in perspective to be effective. Besides, what recourse is there for the knowledge worker to evaluate his boss? To do so would could mean termination. At best, it gives little incentive for the manager to improve, solicit feedback and improve his or her own performance. And it gives little incentive for the knowledge worker to do anything but what is specifically asked of him or her.

The message is clear. Don’t rock the boat.

The Opportunity

First, let’s be candid on where we have been. In the past, firms have already spent millions of dollars on knowledge management initiatives only to be disappointed with the results. Why? Some experts believe that knowledge management failed to provide the right content in the worker’s context. In any event, there are no simple answers as to why knowledge management initiatives have failed. But certainly, they must be simple and work within the user’s processes to be effective. Unfortunately, too many of today’s knowledge workers have poor systems which deliver lots of irrelevant information - or no systems at all.

The Internet is perhaps the perfect symbol of the new world, of the Information / Knowledge worker economy. [9] Blogs, wikis, social computing and other web 2.0 technologies seem disruptive, but they are also going mainstream. Why? Quite simply, the market -driven by users - wants it that way. And effective knowledge management recognizes that the user is always right. Less really is more. Simple is in and complex is out. The more we facilitate people’s natural interactions and communications - how they want to work - the more promising will be the outcomes. 

Effective knowledge management means recognizing human weaknesses, but also human strengths.  Thomas Stewart in Intellectual Capital noted that, machines compute, but they do not think and so “the primary purpose of human capital is innovation. [10]  People shouldn’t crunch numbers if a calculator is available. Conversely, machines can’t design new mother boards or conceive of next generation processors. People do.

But how well do organizations tap into knowledge workers’ ideas or suggestions? Why don’t they give them more opportunities to innovate or improve processes? In short, how can organizations manage people, when they don’t really understand or value the full potential of their human resources?”

Perhaps there is no greater symbol of this facade than the patronizing suggestion box in the break room which doesn’t get filled or emptied. At best it is a token which feins interest in an idea or a suggestion, but represents the wrong approach to entertain serious ideas or solve difficult problems. Certainly it doesn’t begin to address the knowledge management needs in the 21^st century. 

But the outdated suggestion box is being replaced by online surveys and polls. Today, blogs and wikis allow users to comment on the current topic, or create the topic and content itself! Business is starting to talk with their customers, partners and employees - instead of talking at them. 

These represent the underpinnings of a new economic order. And they can’t be stopped. 

Yes, business used to be a closed process, but these online discussions are opening up the conversation. And according to Business Week, the winners in business will be those who know how to “hold the best conversations.” The discussion could be about a proposed product enhancement, an idea to improve a process, or a resolution to a knowledge base article. In short, the opportunity is for the business to enable knowledge workers to actively engage and “participate in problem resolution, innovation, and the strategic direction of the enterprise through Web-based collaboration. [11]

The Solution

Let’s face it - knowledge management must reinvent itself. It’s time for a serious makeover, and the timing may be right.

Just as these Internet best practices are revolutionizing customer, partner, employee and business relationships, so should our definition of knowledge management be revolutionized.

Knowledge management is more than a knowledge base used at a call center. As mentioned, the greater opportunity is how to build a knowledge-driven organization. If it offers an enticing value proposition for the employee, partner and customers, then the organization can be extremely successful.

Command and control management practices have extolled a high human cost on knowledge workers. And we must realize that technology can - and must -be an enabler, but it is not a panacea. To be effective, our systems and tools must be simple, effective and integrated with the knowledge worker’s work activities. Our attitudes towards each other must also change. We must believe we can learn from each other, and respect each person’s unique gifts and contributions.

As evidenced by exciting Internet trends, knowledge management is not past the point of repair. If organizations can begin to see the “whole person paradigm” of their knowledge workers, customers, partners and employees may yet find their “voice” and contribute in meaningful ways. Fortunately, the mantra for business is beginning to change from ”command and control”, to ”engage and collaborate”.

The real costs in business are hardly the extra copies left on the copy machine. Rather it’s when the organization fails to engage the passion, talent, and intelligence of the workforce. Stephen Covey says these (opportunity) costs are “greater than all taxes, interest charges, and labor costs put together!”

Or if we take the glass is half full approach, “Just how different what would your organization look like “ even feel like “ if it were able to engage the passion, talent and intelligence of your workforce?

Knowledge management then is creating a culture of high trust where ideas can be shared, and feedback is encouraged. It’s also recognizing that personal ideas and suggestions aren’t marketable all by themselves. These opinions must be scrutinized, challenged and adapted so that the collective knowledge that results can lead to innovation, process improvement and profits. And correctly recognizing and reward these collective contributions may provide then the key incentive worker’s need to fully engage.

Again, it’s not so much what you know, but what you share that counts. Still, let’s not forget that “when done right”, knowledge management can definitely improve processes, lower costs and certainly strengthen morale - which must make it a core strategy of any business.

The holy grail, or “promise of the knowledge workplace”, may just be simpler than we thought. It’s not just about the culture, tools, and processes used (though these are all important factors).

Rather it may really be as simple as,

• How well do you treat your employees? or
• How much do you allow your knowledge workers to use the four parts of their unique nature - their heart, mind, body and spirit?
• What is your value proposition for the knowledge worker to use their heart, mind, body and spirit in meaningful ways? and, 
• Are you willing to recognize and reward that contribution? And do your knowledge workers trust you to do so?

Only then can do you invite the knowledge worker’s passion.

As Covey says, neglect any of these dimensions and the person may comply, rebel or even quit. Nurture these qualities and your knowledge worker will cheerfully cooperate, feel heartfelt committment and creatively innovate! That is real knowledge management !

Sound exciting! I think so too. So let’s start talking and get back to work!

_____________

[1] Susan Conway, Char Sligar. Unlocking Knowledge Assets. Microsoft Press 2002.

[2] Robert Marcus, Beverly Waters. Collective Knowledge “ Intranets, Productivity and the Promise of the Knowledge Workplace, Microsoft Press 2002.

[3] Perry Glaser, The Knowledge Factor, CIO Magazine, Jan 1999.

[4] Larry Jasmann, Akin, Gump, strauss, Hauer & Feld.

[5] Service Innovation.

[6] Stephen Covey, The Eighth Habit.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Service Innovation

[9] Stephen Covey, The Eighth Habit.

[10] Thomas Stewart, Intellectual Capital.

[11] Robert Marcus, Microsoft.