C H A PT E R 6

Knowledge Management in

Practice

Knowledge management or knowledge sharing manifest themselves in many ways in the workplace; that may include ordinary events, such as facilitated meetings or informal conversations or more complex interactions that require information and communication technology. Under the aegis of ‘knowledge management’, there are three types of processes that are generally considered to be essential: finding or uncovering knowledge [Ehrlich, K., 2003, Learn, L., 2002, Zack,M., 1999], sharing knowledge [Ackerman et al., 2003], and the development of new knowledge [Argyris and Schon, 1978, 1996, Baumard, P., 1999, Harvard Business Review, 1998]. Allmay play a role in assisting with decision making and encouraging innovation.

6.1 KM IN PRACTICE – PROCESSES

A very useful way of thinking is to conceptualize KM as the actualization of what Powell,T. [2001a] calls the “Knowledge Value Chain.” The chain is straightforward, a pyramid, in fact, leading from Data at the bottom through Information, Knowledge, Intelligence, Decision, and Action, to Value. The notion is simple, but the explication is sophisticated and complex. Value to the organization is ultimately what KM is about.

6.1.1 FINDING INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE

Finding information and knowledge refers to processes that allow organizations to make sense and make use of data, information, and knowledge objects that may be present but are not codified, analyzed, nor accessible to members. Knowledge exists in all organizations, but all knowledge may not be explicit. A long-time employee may have a deep understanding of processes and guidelines, but he or she may never have written them down or compiled them in a document like a procedural manual.

6.1.2 SHARING INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE

Sharing of information for knowledge development is the most traditional collection of processes, easily understood, but often overlooked in a systematic knowledge management program. Based on his experience at Arthur D. Little, he found that the principal reason for reluctance on the part of key players to put their knowledge into a lessons learned database was a concern that the lesson learned might be misapplied if the congruence, or the lack of, between the context of the area from which the lesson was derived and the context of the intended application area was not well understood.

6.1.3 DEVELOPMENT OFKNOWLEDGE

Knowledge development takes place when individuals work to create new understandings, innovations, and a synthesis of what is known already together with newly acquired information or knowledge. Although individuals can intentionally develop their own knowledge through seeking opportunities to be creative and learn, the development of knowledge is often a social process.

6.2 KMIN PRACTICE - PROCEDURES AND PRACTICES

Note that KM is a complex topic, and in attempting to write about its various dimensions and to address it from different perspectives, some overlap is unavoidable.

6.2.1 KNOWLEDGE AUDIT

The obvious first step in launching a formalKMprogram throughout an organization is to conduct an information or knowledge audit. the Information Resources Management (IRM) movement of the 1970’s was a strong emphasis upon the information or knowledge audit. fear was that the data was not being well documented that it was being was stored in silos and that valuable data and information, whose very existence was sometimes known only to a few people was

often unknown to many of those who could benefit from using it.

Some of the reasons for and benefits of an information audit include:

First of course, the elucidation of what information the organization possesses: where it is

located? how is it organized? how can it be accessed? who is responsible for it? etc.

In addition:

The identification of duplicate or partially duplicated information and information gathering

and maintenance, with the potential realization of cost savings.

The identification of information being gathered and maintained that is no longer salient or necessary, with the potential realization of cost savings.

The ideal result is a “map” of:

Who is connected to whom, formally and informally?

What are their formal roles and job descriptions, and informal relationships and roles?

Where do expertise, methods, differing views of the organization reside?

What are the successful knowledge sharing engagements and practices?

What are the barriers to information and knowledge transfer?

What are the cultural behaviors that are dictating successes or failures to share and leverage

knowledge?

Clearly, the techniques used in creating a knowledge audit or knowledge map are those borrowed

from social network analysis and anthropology, and appropriately so, since Knowledge Management is interdisciplinary by nature, spanning boundaries of thought and interests.

The KM era notion of an information audit, in contrast with the earlier IRM era, is definitely focused on people first. In fact, Moulton’s third stage of the knowledge audit is essentially the traditional information audit, with a Stage one and a Stage two added in front.

6.2.2 TAGS,TAXONOMIES,AND CONTENTMANAGEMENT

Having identified and located information and knowledge, the obvious next step is to make it relocatable and retrievable, made possible by tagging and creating taxonomies. The tag and taxonomy stage of KM consists primarily of assembling various information resources in some sort of portal-like environment and making them available to the organization. The Enron scandal and consequent Sarbanes- Oxley legislation in the US had made the retention and management of electronic information mandatory, not optional. This massive increase in information interaction, including use of digitized video and audio and the organization’s own web pages has resulted in the development of what is a major subfield within KM, that of “Content Management” or “Enterprise Content Management.” Most of those organizations are represented among the vendors at theKMWorld Conference.KMWorld, a controlled circulation, i.e., free, magazine publishes a very useful annual compilation of vendors and products, particularly in the CMS domain, but including KM broadly as well.

6.2.3 LESSONS LEARNEDDATABASES

Lessons Learned databases are databases that attempt to capture and to make accessible knowledge that has been operationally obtained and typically would not have been captured in a fixed medium (to use copyright terminology). The lessons learned concept or practice is one that might be described as having been birthed by KM, as there is very little in the way of a direct antecedent. Early in the KM movement, the phrase typically used was “best practices,” but that phrase was soon replaced with “lessons learned.” The reasons were that “lessons learned” was broader and more inclusive, and because “best practice” seemed too restrictive and could be interpreted as meaning there was only one best practice in a situation. The primary purpose was to gather military intelligence, but a clear secondary purpose was to identify lessons learned, though they were not so named, to pass on to other pilots and instructors.

6.2.4 EXPERTISE LOCATION

If knowledge resides in people, then one of the best ways to learn what an expert knows is to talk with one. Locating the right expert with the knowledge you need, though, can be a problem. The basic function of an expertise locator system is straightforward, it is to identify and locate those persons within an organization who have expertise in a particular area. Expertise location systems are another aspect of KM that certainly predates KM thinking. The Mitre Corporation, for example, developed such a system in 1978. It was based upon creating   database developed from reformatted resumes retrieved from word-processing tapes, and upon the development of a competence area thesaurus to improve retrieval. There are nowthree areas which typically supply data for an expertise locator system, employee resumes, employee self identification of areas of expertise, typically by being requested to fill out a form online, or by algorithmic analysis of electronic communications from and to the employee.

6.2.5 COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE (COPS)

Communities of Practice (CoPs) are groups of individuals with shared interests that come together in person or virtually to tell stories, discuss best practices, and talk over lessons learned [Wenger, E.,1998a,Wenger and Snyder, 1999].

For a CoP, some questions that need to be thought about are:

Who fills those roles? manager, moderator, and thought leader.

How is the CoP managed?

Are postings open, or does someone vet or edit the postings?

How is the CoP kept fresh and vital?

When and how (under what rules) are items removed?

How are those items archived? (Stratification again)

Who reviews the CoP for activity? Identifies potential for new members, or suggests that the

CoP may have outlived its usefulness?

6.3 PROCESSES,PROCEDURES,AND PRACTICESMATRIX

If we create a matrix in which the rows are KM Processes and the columns KM Procedures and

Practices, and in which the ordering, top to bottom and left to right is roughly in chronological or

developmental order, and we check which process a practice or procedure is primarily designed to serve, the matrix looks like:

K Audit Tags, T, & CM Lessons

Figure 6.1: Processes and Procedures & Practices Matrix.

That matrix reveals several interesting things. Almost everything one does in KM is designed

to help find information and knowledge.However, if we assume that the main goal ofKMis to share knowledge and even more importantly to develop new knowledge, then the Knowledge Audit and the Tags, Taxonomies and Content Management stages are the underpinnings and the tools. It is

the knowledge sharing and knowledge creation of one on one communications enabled by expertise

locators, and the communal sharing and creation of knowledge enabled by communities of practice

toward which KM development should be aimed.