1.6 Introduction to the framework – where do we start?
1.6.1 Being pragmatic
But there are still significant limits to what can be achieved using these approaches. Neither really begins to answer the question:
where do we start? The problem is, at its core, a change management one. Every time you change something (in mergers, acquisitions, downsizing, or just a reorganization) – it has a knowledge implication – you are dealing with holistic systems that evolve over time.
The answer as to where to start is that you need to take a step back from the operational side and develop a KM strategy. But it can be hard to persuade senior management that it is the correct approach, when the specific benefits of doing so may still be unclear.
Senior management tend to be busy focusing on what they view as the ‘big problems’ – profitability, efficiency, effectiveness in the marketplace, perceptions of key stakeholders, and therefore can’t see the need to get involved in things like knowledge manage- ment. Their first instinct is to delegate – but this risks missing both the strategic importance of knowledge to the business, and also the need for leadership as a key success factor in any
mobilizing knowledge initiative (more on leadership later).
Consequently, those driving the knowledge agenda tend to be stuck with a classic infrastructure or point solution approach.
The typical consequences of this are:
䊉 lots of local initiatives
䊉 potential for in-fighting over areas of influence
䊉 tight budget constraints
䊉 a narrowly scoped business case with little opportunity to present the wider benefits
䊉 little chance of truly leveraging knowledge to achieve solid cross-organizational benefit.
The danger of this is that knowledge management as an approach can quickly come to be regarded as ineffective, or become too associated with a particular stakeholder group (for example, it is seen within the organization as a technology thing, a marketing thing, or an HR thing). In short, knowledge management gets the reputation of not delivering and becomes discredited. We have seen this in particular where the emphasis is on technology, when the term knowledge management typically has the word ‘systems’ appended, and where the focus is all on capture and classification of information.
This view is based, quite simply, on an illusion that knowledge is somehow ‘out there’ in an organization, and that it can be actively captured and managed in isolation from the people who possess it. This illusion maintains that ‘knowledge management’
is primarily about tools, infrastructure, software, or point solutions. Of course, there are some important infrastructures, particularly technology, prerequisites for any successful mobiliz- ing knowledge initiative. But the ultimate goal of a successful programme is to change what people actually do – how people interact with each other, with suppliers, with customers, and with the systems and tools they have at their disposal.
Impacting on what processes they follow, and what skills they have and how they put them to use. Rather than focusing on systems, a successful knowledge management initiative will focus on building awareness of the importance of knowledge flows at every level of the organization:
䊉 for improving efficiency – with the goal of cost savings (from reuse rather than reinvention)
䊉 for improving effectiveness – with the goal of better quality of delivery and improved ability to perceive and meet the needs of customers, and development of a ‘corporate memory’
䊉 for increasing the level of innovation – with the goal of developing the ability to recognize, nurture and develop new ideas and approaches, and to respond and react to the ever-changing business environment.
The degree to which knowledge is shared, accessed, captured and reused is all dependent on how people structure their time, and the behaviours they choose to adopt. Behaviour will change only if ways of thinking begin to change – hence the importance of leadership, to build a new consensus:
䊉 where mobilizing knowledge is seen as central to the business
䊉 where it is recognized as a fundamental capability that needs to be developed and nurtured to help organizations reach their potential to compete in a crowded marketplace.
So how do we (as consultants, or as managers) go about working to build this consensus? Well, as with any attempt to change people’s thinking, you can’t necessarily do it by rational argument. Scope is limited for confronting the issue head-on. But we can use the power of story – of case studies, particularly internal ones – to demonstrate the potential of changed processes, behaviour, development of skills and deployment of systems to make a difference within the organization. To generate the right sorts of stories, it is essential that pilots or local initiatives are undertaken with strategic potential in mind – not point solutions, but beacons of potential that can be shown to have universal, or at least widespread, appeal, benefit, and be replicable across other parts of the organization. It is also essential that those responsible for the programme are prepared to capture and use these stories to demonstrate the potential of knowledge initiatives.
‘Storytelling’ as a knowledge management technique has a long pedigree and, indeed, some literature of its own. But there are other effective techniques that can be used. For example, for both internal and customer projects, companies sometimes use freelance journalists to come in and capture case studies. Journalists are able to read project documenta- tion, interview staff, quickly come to the core of the issue, and then present the story in a concise and readable way, from a very different perspective than a consultant or project man- ager’s approach. Rather than a technical description or a
³
³ ³
³
Understand
³
pressures to change
Never rest:
realize the benefits
Define the organization’s
response
Implement the new
reality
Design the new reality Project and benefit
management
formal report of what was done, the goal is to capture a story that people at many levels in the organization can relate to on a personal level. We have found the approach very valuable – in fact, internal case studies are without doubt one of the most powerful change tools at our disposal.