Why use KnowledgeTraks as your KM Consultants? We are experts at KM strategies that ensure sustainable, scalable success.
|
|
KM can have a greater impact on an organization's success than any other focus I know of. When I ask executives and managers, "what is your most valuable asset?" I usually get a range of answers, but "Knowledge" is not a common answer. Yet, every activity, product, invention, innovation, and idea, are generated from the combined knowledge of the organization. Nothing you can name does not come in some way from the knowledge asset. I contend that you could lose everything and if you still have and control the knowledge, you could rebuild. Without knowledge nothing is built, designed, improved, or thought of.
The missed opportunities and progress missed, because the necessary person did not have access to the necessary knowledge at the moment they needed it, is staggering. No organization can afford to ignore this fundamental core strength. |
In this emerging global knowledge era, creating economic and social value now depends more on intangible than on tangible assets. By far your most valuable intangible asset is your knowledge. How can companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter, and others be valued at billions of dollars, years before they even make a profit? It is possible because the market recognizes that their proprietary idea is their real value, not their revenue, physical assets, or even profit.
So, knowing that to remain competitive, an organization has to succeed at knowledge management, why do so many organizations appear to be unwilling to invest the necessary resources to make it work, or ignore it completely?
A common reason is they have already tried it at least once, and it didn’t work, and they aren’t sure why. They did the things they understand and feel comfortable with, and that wasn’t enough. So why waste more time and money on something they can’t make work anyway? At least it feels that way.
Another common obstacle they run into is their people just aren’t excited about sharing their knowledge, or worse, resistant to sharing. The managers try a few things that worked with other “projects” and find those tactics just don’t work with this. The reality of KM is that you cannot make people share their knowledge.
You can demand they meet certain objectives and requirements, and they will find a way to meet those requirements, but still retain the real bulk of their knowledge. There is no way to know what is in their heads, what they are capable of, and what is possible to share. We have to trust our people to be doing what is the best for everyone, not just themselves, and that means they have to want to share their knowledge. But that isn’t enough. They have to be enthusiastic about it!
This is probably sounding more like a psychology class than a paper on KM, and you’re right. To some degree that is correct. For KM to work, you have to stay focused on the people. You have to know how to help them past their concerns, fears, misconceptions, and insecurities. You have to understand and be expert at the psychology of sharing knowledge. But before I go into that in more detail, here is another definition of Knowledge Management that puts it in perspective.
KM: The ability to easily and continuously capture, organize, and make available actionable know-how, to unleash process efficiencies, business model flexibility, market insights, and customer loyalty, by building the necessary knowledge-centric culture, processes, and tools.
Bottom line? Everyone has to share their knowledge to make good stuff happen. But the big questions is, “why wouldn’t everyone want to share their knowledge?”
One commonly accepted answer does not match the reality of what I have seen working with dozens of organizations and thousands of people. It is the belief that individuals are reluctant to share their knowledge because they are afraid it will make them less valuable to the organization if everyone knows what they know.
Does this ever happen? Yes, but rarely, and never often enough to have an impact on the success of a KM initiative. If this isn’t why people are reluctant to share their knowledge, then what is?
To answer this, you must accept a basic premise: Even absolutely brilliant people still harbor a certain level of insecurity. Accepting this, you need to imagine what we are asking them to do in order to make KM successful. We are asking them, or demanding, or begging, that they place their knowledge out in a public arena, where everyone can see it, judge it, criticize it, and even ridicule it. How realistic is this fear? It doesn’t really matter, does it?
No matter how knowledgeable and experienced they are, they know their knowledge is not perfect. In the “common” transaction-based culture, they primarily share their knowledge only in settings where they have had abundant time to check and recheck their work before it is viewed or published anywhere.
Or, they share it in a one-on-one situation, where they can take the time to check their knowledge as they go, or at worst, if they are mistaken about something, only that one person knows, they have a chance to explain or excuse, and their reputation is still safe.
Now we tell them they have to share their knowledge, ideally as close to real-time as is possible and appropriate (depending on a number of factors), and with the very real possibility that it hasn’t been thoroughly vetted or reviewed (the review of knowledge articles is another critical topic that few people understand or appreciate). There is a real possibility we are tapping into their deepest insecurities and fears.
As I said, rarely do I find individuals that are truly unwilling to share their knowledge. With very few exceptions they recognize the need and value of doing so. The problem is that the “doing so” scares the living daylights out of them. They won’t admit or show that, of course. It just isn’t something we do in business; show our fear. The rules say we have to look confident and capable all the time. It is the rare org culture that allows or encourages that kind of true honesty.
Knowledge Management works at its highest level when there is a thriving community of individuals and teams that have such a high level of trust in each other that the fears of mentioned above, “where everyone can see it, judge it, criticize it, and even ridicule it,” just no longer apply. They don’t have to be 100% confident in their knowledge and ability. They are 100% confident in their community and the safety that exists in that community.
Does this work. I have proven it a number of times with disparate organizations. Altiris, as an example, had a pretty normal culture when I became involved. Maybe even a bit healthier than the norm. They had tried several times to implement KM and in their support division, and each time it not only failed, but had been very costly failures. In the attempt just prior to my involvement, the failure had cost them over $4 million in 12 months. With no results to show. My contribution to success cost them a very small fraction of that.
I have over 25 years of experience changing individual attitudes and perceptions, team attitudes and collaboration, and organizational culture. It is a rare skill set and does not come from any academic classes, any types of certification, or any real formal training. It is the quintessential tacit knowledge. There is not just knowledge and experience, but I believe a level of natural talent and perceptiveness that is required.
With my help, Altiris focused on the right things, with the right resources, and the right timing. They avoided the common pitfalls that many companies fall in to. The results:
So, knowing that to remain competitive, an organization has to succeed at knowledge management, why do so many organizations appear to be unwilling to invest the necessary resources to make it work, or ignore it completely?
A common reason is they have already tried it at least once, and it didn’t work, and they aren’t sure why. They did the things they understand and feel comfortable with, and that wasn’t enough. So why waste more time and money on something they can’t make work anyway? At least it feels that way.
Another common obstacle they run into is their people just aren’t excited about sharing their knowledge, or worse, resistant to sharing. The managers try a few things that worked with other “projects” and find those tactics just don’t work with this. The reality of KM is that you cannot make people share their knowledge.
You can demand they meet certain objectives and requirements, and they will find a way to meet those requirements, but still retain the real bulk of their knowledge. There is no way to know what is in their heads, what they are capable of, and what is possible to share. We have to trust our people to be doing what is the best for everyone, not just themselves, and that means they have to want to share their knowledge. But that isn’t enough. They have to be enthusiastic about it!
This is probably sounding more like a psychology class than a paper on KM, and you’re right. To some degree that is correct. For KM to work, you have to stay focused on the people. You have to know how to help them past their concerns, fears, misconceptions, and insecurities. You have to understand and be expert at the psychology of sharing knowledge. But before I go into that in more detail, here is another definition of Knowledge Management that puts it in perspective.
KM: The ability to easily and continuously capture, organize, and make available actionable know-how, to unleash process efficiencies, business model flexibility, market insights, and customer loyalty, by building the necessary knowledge-centric culture, processes, and tools.
Bottom line? Everyone has to share their knowledge to make good stuff happen. But the big questions is, “why wouldn’t everyone want to share their knowledge?”
One commonly accepted answer does not match the reality of what I have seen working with dozens of organizations and thousands of people. It is the belief that individuals are reluctant to share their knowledge because they are afraid it will make them less valuable to the organization if everyone knows what they know.
Does this ever happen? Yes, but rarely, and never often enough to have an impact on the success of a KM initiative. If this isn’t why people are reluctant to share their knowledge, then what is?
To answer this, you must accept a basic premise: Even absolutely brilliant people still harbor a certain level of insecurity. Accepting this, you need to imagine what we are asking them to do in order to make KM successful. We are asking them, or demanding, or begging, that they place their knowledge out in a public arena, where everyone can see it, judge it, criticize it, and even ridicule it. How realistic is this fear? It doesn’t really matter, does it?
No matter how knowledgeable and experienced they are, they know their knowledge is not perfect. In the “common” transaction-based culture, they primarily share their knowledge only in settings where they have had abundant time to check and recheck their work before it is viewed or published anywhere.
Or, they share it in a one-on-one situation, where they can take the time to check their knowledge as they go, or at worst, if they are mistaken about something, only that one person knows, they have a chance to explain or excuse, and their reputation is still safe.
Now we tell them they have to share their knowledge, ideally as close to real-time as is possible and appropriate (depending on a number of factors), and with the very real possibility that it hasn’t been thoroughly vetted or reviewed (the review of knowledge articles is another critical topic that few people understand or appreciate). There is a real possibility we are tapping into their deepest insecurities and fears.
As I said, rarely do I find individuals that are truly unwilling to share their knowledge. With very few exceptions they recognize the need and value of doing so. The problem is that the “doing so” scares the living daylights out of them. They won’t admit or show that, of course. It just isn’t something we do in business; show our fear. The rules say we have to look confident and capable all the time. It is the rare org culture that allows or encourages that kind of true honesty.
Knowledge Management works at its highest level when there is a thriving community of individuals and teams that have such a high level of trust in each other that the fears of mentioned above, “where everyone can see it, judge it, criticize it, and even ridicule it,” just no longer apply. They don’t have to be 100% confident in their knowledge and ability. They are 100% confident in their community and the safety that exists in that community.
Does this work. I have proven it a number of times with disparate organizations. Altiris, as an example, had a pretty normal culture when I became involved. Maybe even a bit healthier than the norm. They had tried several times to implement KM and in their support division, and each time it not only failed, but had been very costly failures. In the attempt just prior to my involvement, the failure had cost them over $4 million in 12 months. With no results to show. My contribution to success cost them a very small fraction of that.
I have over 25 years of experience changing individual attitudes and perceptions, team attitudes and collaboration, and organizational culture. It is a rare skill set and does not come from any academic classes, any types of certification, or any real formal training. It is the quintessential tacit knowledge. There is not just knowledge and experience, but I believe a level of natural talent and perceptiveness that is required.
With my help, Altiris focused on the right things, with the right resources, and the right timing. They avoided the common pitfalls that many companies fall in to. The results:
You can see from the chart that in 2005, the year before they brought me in to develop a global KM strategy and lead the implementation of that strategy, they were experiencing typical results for a support center with about 170 support agents.
Part of the strategy was adopting a new collaboration tool, and that wasn’t available until April of 2006. Keep in mind that the numbers for 2006 actually represent 9 months, not 12. Also keep in mind that we were starting at the baseline of 2005 levels, and then climbed from that baseline. So you can get an idea of what we must have been doing at the end of the year compared to the start of the implementation.
You can see that in every metric, some of the key indicators for KM success in this particular environment, the increase was nearly 1000% or greater. Now you understand the little tongue in cheek graphic below.
Part of the strategy was adopting a new collaboration tool, and that wasn’t available until April of 2006. Keep in mind that the numbers for 2006 actually represent 9 months, not 12. Also keep in mind that we were starting at the baseline of 2005 levels, and then climbed from that baseline. So you can get an idea of what we must have been doing at the end of the year compared to the start of the implementation.
You can see that in every metric, some of the key indicators for KM success in this particular environment, the increase was nearly 1000% or greater. Now you understand the little tongue in cheek graphic below.
When I hear case studies of 30 to 50% increases over periods as long as two years, I have a hard time getting very excited after experiencing the kinds of increases I have seen, not just with Altiris but other organizations. Since that time, I have worked with EMC, Veterans Affairs, the Air Force, SolarWinds, and others. They have not all enjoyed those kinds of results, of course, but the primary reason is because that is not what they were looking for when they brought me in as a consultant.
In every case, though, the results met, or more often exceeded, their expectations. Check out the Case Studies page for more details on the kind of results possible when KM is done correctly.
In every case, though, the results met, or more often exceeded, their expectations. Check out the Case Studies page for more details on the kind of results possible when KM is done correctly.
Here is a testimonial from someone that was not a client. Rich, a consultant in a different field, connected me with contacts he had on the management team of a company called SolarWinds. When they hired me for a very limited consulting engagement, he asked if he could sit in and observe. Here is what Rich said of that experience.
"It’s rare that you come across someone who has a mastery of their craft as well as the ability to deliver exceptional outcomes like Tom Fuhriman. I was able to watch Tom during a knowledge management engagement with an enterprise information technology company. In short order, he changed the fundamental beliefs of the organization and delivered measurable changes in just a few weeks.
Above all I was impressed with how he exceeds expectations and delivers sustainable results all while simplifying the process. After delighting the company with the initial engagement, the company expanded his contract to include all domestic and international locations. Tom is a pleasure to work with and would be a true asset for any company wanting to improve their knowledge management." -Richard D. Jarvis II, MBA
"It’s rare that you come across someone who has a mastery of their craft as well as the ability to deliver exceptional outcomes like Tom Fuhriman. I was able to watch Tom during a knowledge management engagement with an enterprise information technology company. In short order, he changed the fundamental beliefs of the organization and delivered measurable changes in just a few weeks.
Above all I was impressed with how he exceeds expectations and delivers sustainable results all while simplifying the process. After delighting the company with the initial engagement, the company expanded his contract to include all domestic and international locations. Tom is a pleasure to work with and would be a true asset for any company wanting to improve their knowledge management." -Richard D. Jarvis II, MBA