William Ives, Ben Torrey, and Cindy Gordon
Knowledge sharing is a critical human behavior that organizations need to carefully cultivate and harvest to be competitively positioned in our new knowledge based economy. As individuals join organizations, they bring with them learned behaviors from experiences that either promote or inhibit effective knowledge sharing. Knowledge leaders need to take a holistic and integrated human performance approach to changing their organizations to perform effectively in this new knowledge intensive world. This chapter explores a number of strategies to create a high per- forming knowledge organization including areas such as: organizational structure and roles, organizational processes, culture, physical environ- ment, leadership and direction, measurement, means, ability and moti- vation. Without carefully addressing these areas, organizations will not achieve deep systemic change in their journey to become knowledge competent. We have found that when any of these factors are over- looked, the knowledge management effort suffers accordingly. At the root of knowledge management is the increased recognition that knowl- edge sharing is a human behavior and cannot be fostered without gen- uine trust and care. Treating people as strategic assets and partners must be more than verbal rhetoric; rather only through genuine leadership behavior can organizations be socialized to become knowledge sharing competent.
Sharing insights and best practices is a human behavior that is critical to the success of any knowledge management system, yet it is counter to the culture found in most organizations. This cultural issue is seen by many experts2 as the main obstacle to implementing knowledge man- agement since, for most firms, facilitating the capture of useful business knowledge represents a major change in employee behavior. In a 1997
survey of Fortune 1000 executives, 97 percent of respondents said there were critical business processes that would benefit from more employees having the knowledge that was currently within a few people, and 87 percent said costly mistakes are occurring because employees lack the right knowledge when it is needed4. Just searching for the right informa- tion can be costly. Novell, the network provider, estimates that UK busi- nesses alone waste over $17.5 billion searching for internal information.5 The cost of mistakes made by not finding it is probably higher. While knowledge is one of the few resources that can increase in value as it is shared, the intercompetitive environment in many organizations fosters knowledge hoarding; in these firms unique possession of knowledge is seen as power and job security. As with any major transition in employee behavior, this change from a knowledge protective to a knowledge shar- ing environment needs to be consistently supported in multiple and inter- related ways. To achieve success, knowledge sharing and knowledge management need to be viewed as human performance issues. This arti- cle presents a multidimensional framework developed to support change in human performance and applies it to supporting knowledge sharing behavior.
The Framework: A Human Performance Model
Human performance is complex activity influenced by many factors. It involves the performance of clearly designed business processes, as well as the capabilities and motivations within people that give rise to per- formance. It also involves the management actions that influence employee capability and motivation and it includes the organizational structure and environment in which performance occurs. Together these compo- nents form an interactive system where each component influences the other. The human performance model below was developed by Steve Lindauer, Craig Mindrum, and other members of our Performance Design & Development Competency Leadership team based on the work of several human performance experts.26This model looks at both orga- nizational and individual factors that affect performance, and focuses on obtaining measurable outcomes that benefit the individual and the organization. It specifies what a person needs to perform optimally in any business task, as well as what management must provide in order to align performance with business strategies.
The principal factors are as follows:
• Business Context: What is the business mission and strategy? Is it understood? Are tasks aligned with it?
• Organizational Performance factors
• Structure and Roles: How are people organized to support performance?
• Processes: What are they supposed to do?
• Culture: What social and political factors affect performance?
• Physical Environment: Where do people perform?
• Individual Performance Factors
• Direction: What guidance do people receive?
• Measurement: How are they measured?
• Means: Do they have the tools to enable performance?
• Ability: Do they have the skills and knowledge to perform?
• Motivation: Will they perform?
These ten factors must be working in concert for human performance to be optimized. None of these factors, taken individually, can ensure success, as they achieve minimal effectiveness when operating in isola- tion. Each is necessary but, by itself, not sufficient. Each will now be addressed in terms of its contribution to knowledge sharing. Because of their interrelated nature, there is natural overlap among factors, and a number of the points could be made under several factors. Some will receive more attention than others, but all are important.
Business Context
Sveiby29 defines knowledge as “the capacity to act,” and Davenport, DeLong, and Beers9add that knowledge “is a high value form of infor- mation that is ready to apply to decisions and actions.” This capacity or readiness to act only achieves value if it is aligned with the strategic direction of the organization to increase the desired business perform- ance. It cannot be implemented as simply “a good idea” if one hopes for it to succeed. In a recent study of knowledge management projects, the successful ones were linked to the organization’s economic perform- ance.9Employees are more likely to share knowledge if it is linked with the common goals of the organization and achieves clear economic value. To do this, they need to understand and share these goals.
Finerty14argues that knowledge sharing cannot be promoted by rewards;
the only way to generate real knowledge sharing is to “build meaning
into the workplace.” If people really care about what they do, then they will want to share the knowledge they create. It is not enough to make sure the knowledge management system is simply aligned with the busi- ness strategy for knowledge sharing to occur. It is essential that the busi- ness strategy is communicated to employees, and that a consensus of support is created so they both understand and concur with the business context in which they operate.
In ideal cases, the business context drives the creation of the knowl- edge management system. At Texas Instruments, certain key customers threatened to take business elsewhere if TI could not improve its deliv- ery dates and cycle time24Faced with this threat, TI launched a best prac- tices sharing initiative that led to $1.5 billion in additional wafer fabrication capacity. They also discovered that many of the industry best practices were taking place in their own plants. If the business context drives the creation of knowledge sharing, the chances for successful implementation and significant financial impact are dramatically increased. In another case, British Petroleum Group Chief Executive, John Browne, launched the organization’s Virtual teamwork Project to encourage knowledge sharing and innovation. This collection of global knowledge sharing initiatives has generally returned the investment costs within a few months and has provided a five-to-one return within the first six months.5 One of the lessons learned was that these initiatives need to be managed as business projects, not simply as IT projects.
The knowledge management system itself can be one way to commu- nicate the business strategy, and the act of knowledge sharing—if suc- cessful—can actually make employees feel a greater connection to the organization, which increases their likelihood to contribute knowledge in the future. If the knowledge management system is relied on as the only means for sharing the business context, however, it will not be suf- ficient. Employees need more personal connections with management if they are to become aligned with the business strategy. Management also has to continuously communicate and reinforce the strategy. For example, Ken Dorr, chairman and CEO of Chevron has linked knowl- edge sharing to organizational strategy and has been an untiring sup- porter as he said, “Every day that a better idea gets unused is a lost opportunity. We have to share more, and we have to share faster”.24 Chevron has realized over $650 million in benefits because of this dedi- cation to knowledge sharing.
Organizational Structure and Roles
Knowledge sharing is best supported by a two-part organizational struc- ture with professional dedicated knowledge management staff who own the knowledge processes, templates and technologies, and knowledge sponsors, integrators, and developers from the business units who own the knowledge content. This two-part structure and roles can help knowl- edge sharing in several ways. The professional knowledge management staff can guide and support employees through the act of knowledge sharing. This could include “help desk” support, structured debriefings, newsletters, recognition programs, and other means. The business units ensure the content meets business needs, is accurate and timely, and their participation helps to instill ownership in the users. Specific techniques for guidance will be covered later in the Direction section.
Within our firm, designated knowledge champions are part of the pro- fessional knowledge management staff, and whose major responsibility is to encourage and enable knowledge capture and knowledge use. The two functions are sometimes referred to by our internal staff as “value and velocity.” Value relates to the capture of high quality knowledge and velocity relates to ensuring that this knowledge is used where it can provide the most business impact. There are different skills sets around promoting the capture of knowledge and designing ways to make it accessible and utilized. Both are necessary. The individuals in our internal professional staff serve an important function as change agents, espe- cially during the early phases of knowledge management system imple- mentation. They set and maintain a standard for personal knowledge sharing while encouraging, exhorting, and even cajoling members of the user community to engage in knowledge sharing. They also serve as the
“human interface” to the knowledge management system by taking issues from the field and passing them along to the appropriate people, assur- ing users that they have been heard. As part of this role, they also train and support those responsible for supporting knowledge management in the business units. Since the professional knowledge management staff combines both human resource and training skills with information tech- nology skills, it could initially be either part of HR or IT. It should be integrated, however, not split between the organizations, and both sets of skills need to be present. Wherever it is in the organization, it should have direct access and visibility to the highest levels of the organization.
Many organizations have created a new position to lead their knowl- edge efforts with chief knowledge officers (CKOs) as the most common name. Davenport and Prusak10list the three most critical tasks of a CKO as building a knowledge culture, creating the proper infrastructure, and realizing economic benefits. They add that the primary skills are deep expertise in aspects of the knowledge management process, familiarity with the appropriate technologies, understanding of the organization’s business processes, as well as the general skills of a senior executive.
CKOs also need to be strong advocates who can gain and sustain the support of their fellow senior executives. They need to manage both their own organization, as well as those outside of their organization who provide the necessary support within the business units they serve.
In the business units, there are several levels of roles that can both encourage and enable knowledge sharing. Knowledge sponsors are sen- ior executives who are responsible for encouraging and recognizing the knowledge-sharing behavior of their business unit. They are held account- able and rewarded for the knowledge sharing activities of the employees in their business unit. Knowledge developers are designated content experts who create new content for the system as a dedicated, short-term assignment. Knowledge integrators operate at the functional unit or project level, and serve as the central focal point for knowledge use and knowledge sharing. This may be a part-time or dedicated rotational role, depending on the workload. To be effective, this role needs to be seen as a “career enhancing” one for the most capable. Knowledge integrators play a critical role in encouraging knowledge sharing, since they under- stand the issues within the business unit as well as the needs of the knowledge system. After receiving training from the knowledge manage- ment staff, they, in turn, train employees on knowledge sharing, help determine what knowledge is appropriate to share, ensure that all key knowledge is placed within the knowledge management system, ensure the quality of knowledge by dealing with such factors as accuracy, time- liness, redundancy, clarity, and other issues, and address issues of confi- dentiality and intellectual property rights. Similar to knowledge champions, they act as liaisons between the employees and the knowledge manage- ment staff. Knowledge sponsors have overall accountability for knowl- edge sharing; knowledge integrators have day-to-day responsibility to ensure it occurs. We have recently implemented a similar knowledge
integration function in our European practice, with great success. One interesting observation is that a high percentage of these knowledge inte- grators, referred to as engagement knowledge champions, are subse- quently promoted. This suggests that high performers are chosen for this role, that it is one that provides visibility, and that its tasks are valued by the firm—all of which are conditions that support increased knowledge sharing and legitimize it as a cultural value.
An important organizational unit that should not be overlooked is the traditional corporate library with its secondary research personnel. These knowledge retrieval specialists perform an important function in sup- porting the business units. Although it may seem that, with the advent of automated knowledge management systems, there is less need for such specialists, we are finding that this is not the case. Serving several impor- tant functions, organizational information services are coming back into their own. Within our firm, we are in the process of establishing a global knowledge center network into which the old enterprise libraries, librar- ians and other research people are being integrated. While the old redun- dant paper libraries, repeated in all locations, have gone away, the local librarians are taking on a new life as sophisticated knowledge specialists.
As our internal knowledge management system, with its knowledge re- sources and databases, grows at an increasing rate, it becomes more dif- ficult for line people to navigate through the increasing complexity.
Knowledge center personnel have access to specialized search tools and the expertise to use them, providing information to business unit per- sonnel more efficiently than they would be able to find it themselves. The existence of the ubiquitous system makes it very easy to provide instan- taneously the research results to those who need them, often simply by providing electronic pointers or links to units of knowledge. In addition to this search function, the specialists are able to evaluate external re- sources, especially from the Internet, for accuracy, objectivity, complete- ness, etc., in a way that the ultimate user of the knowledge may not be able to. These specialists can also help in identifying knowledge gaps in the resources available. This information can than be passed onto knowl- edge integrators, champions, and others who are in a position to solicit new knowledge capital from project teams or subject matter experts to fill those gaps.
Organizational Processes
To foster an atmosphere in which knowledge sharing is likely to occur, it needs to be built into the daily work process. If it is a normal and expected part of the job, then it is likely to be done. If it is something done after hours on an employee’s own time, it will be an uphill battle to collect knowledge contributions, regardless of how many extra incen- tives are offered. The U.S. Army has installed knowledge sharing as a standard part of its work in both training and real duty in the form of
“after-action reviews”.25In this approach, no effort is considered com- plete until it has been reviewed and its lessons obtained. As knowledge is useful only insofar as it guides action, a key success factor has been a rigorous program of applying the new insights gained through the reviews. This application demonstrates the value and encourages further contributions. During the U.S. military efforts in Bosnia, the lessons learned were distributed on a frequent basis. Because such observations as, “avoid snow-covered roads with no vehicle tracks, as they are prob- ably mined” were credited with saving lives, members of other cooper- ating armies frequently requested a copy of the latest “lessons learned.”
The second important process issue is the need for well-defined knowl- edge capture processes. Everyone should know where and how to
Mission statements
Newsletters
Word of mouth
Lessons learned
Formalized
Structured thinking
Emerging
Insights/understanding Experiential
Formal training Methods
Proposals &
deliverables
Discussion databases
Customized approaches Figure 5.1
The knowledge spectrum
contribute new knowledge and what happens to it after their contribu- tion is made. There should be different processes and channels, depend- ing on the level or type of knowledge that is shared. Expanding on the tacit-explicit distinction of Nonaka and Takeuchi,23 Hiding and Catterall16recognize three levels of knowledge that range from experien- tial to emerging to formal as diagramed in figure 5.1 (modified from16).
Experiential knowledge is often tacit; it relates to specific events, and has not been generalized. It has high momentary value, often enabling a worker to solve a critical problem. This may occur through material already on the system or in consultation with a knowledge expert (often asynchronously, using a discussion database or electronic bulletin board).
Formal knowledge is refined and generalized across many situations and is explicit. Emerging knowledge is both tacit and explicit; it is formal but not generalized. Examples include high-value deliverables from specific projects or successful sales proposals. While they are examples of explicit knowledge, they are designed to meet the needs of a specific situation.
They can be frequently reused after varying degrees of modification, but they are not generalized knowledge. Formal knowledge is generalized and structured to educate; it reflects the synthesized and refined intelligence of the organization often through generalizing emerging knowledge.
These three types of knowledge have been likened to “unrefined data”
(bits of momentarily critical information in discussions), “refined infor- mation” (highly specific formalized knowledge—deliverables, etc.), and
“synthesized knowledge” (formalized knowledge that has also been gen- eralized). This three level hierarchy illustrates the transformation that occurs as tacit knowledge becomes explicit, then fully socialized within an organization.
All three levels of knowledge provide value and need to be captured and managed within an organization, but different processes should be adopted for each. For experiential knowledge, open forums with “threaded discussions” are useful for individuals who wish to share informal in- sights based on specific events. After filling in an automated response form, individuals can see their item posted, follow responses to it, react to these responses, and continue the dialogue in an open manner that is accessible to all levels of the organization. Experiential knowledge can also be collected in more formal means through team debriefings (as dis- cussed in the Direction section of this section). For emerging knowledge