This question then allowed us to filter all the other responses to see what changes with maturity. The results demonstrate developments in factors such as:
The scope of KM
The level of integration of KM
The level of embedding of KM
Application of tacit KM
Effectiveness of tacit KM
The use of governance elements
The size of the KM team
The size of the KM budget
The benefits derived from KM
These developments are shown below.
The scope of KM
In the early stages of KM, it is often adopted in one division or one pilot area. As KM matures, it seems to be increasingly adopted across the whole organisation.
Degree of integration
In the early stages of adoption, KM is usually not part of normal activity, but is performed by a separate group, as an exception, or when requested. As KM matures, it is increasingly seen as a routine part of normal activity.
Embedding of KM elements
A small proportion of the organisations in the early stages of KM report that the elements of KM, such as roles, processes, technologies, behaviours and incentives, are integrated within the organisational structures and norms. This percentage increases steadily as KM progresses.
Management of explicit knowledge
A (slight) majority of organisations in the early stages of KM have documents scattered across many stores, with no tagging. As KM matures, this proportion rapidly diminshes, and many more organisations report the use of tagging, document curation, and the synthesis of explicit knowledge into guidance and best practice.
Management of tacit knowledge
The percentage of survey respondents using approaches focused on tacit knowledge, such as lesson learning, knowledge retention, communities of practice and the development of best practices, increases steadily as KM matures.
Effectiveness of tacit KM
Not only does the usage of tacit KM elements increase, so does the average level effectiveness as judged by the survey respondents. In the early stages the average effectiveness measures were between 2.0 and 2.8, rising to 2.9 to 3.6 as KM becomes embedded,
Use of governance elements
As discussed in this blog post, maturing KM sees a greater level of application of the elements of KM governance.
KM team size
As KM matures and spreads within the organisation, the size of the KM team grows. Team size is also dependent on organisational size, and the plot above shows the average team size for different organisational sizes (numbers of staff) and different levels of maturity. This relationship is discussed in this blog post, which used data from the 2014 and 2017 surveys.
KM budget size
As the KM team size increases, so does the organisational budget (of course there is more to the budget than just the salaries of the team). The plot shows that for the larger organisations, the annual KM budget, measured in $US millions, increases with KM maturity. There is no such increase with the smaller organisations.
Benefits from KM
Even though the budget increases, so do the benefits. The plot above shows the proportion of respondents reporting benefits from different mechanisms. Benefits from easier retrieval of information are seen in the early stages, but the bigger benefits of cheaper, faster projects, happier customers, increased win rate and greater market share are reported more widely as KM matures.
The plots shown here show how KM progresses and matures, becoming more embedded, working better with explicit and tacit knowledge, becoming integrated in many ways, with a well developed governance struture, requiring a bigger team and more budget, but delivering greater and greater value.
Use these plots to create your vision for fully embedded KM, to give you something to work towards in the early stages.
Work has its own rhythms; its own heartbeat. Make KM part of that heartbeat.
Image from wikimedia commons
Work has cycles and rhythms; an organisational heartbeat if you will. Embedding Knowledge Management means making it part of that heartbeat, so that it becomes a natural component of the operation cycle and not an add-on or an after-thought. That way the organisational heartbeat can be used to pump knowledge through the KM circulatory system.
You can align KM with the organizational heartbeat in a number of ways, depending on your own context.
KM in projects
In a project context, the heartbeat is a project cycle – start-up, reviews, shutdown. Embedding KM into this cycle is quite simple- you embed the processes for Learning before, during and after into your project KM framework.
Learning before activities such as Peer Assist, KM planning or reviewing lessons learned as early activities for each project, each project stage, or (for mega-projects) each stage of each workstream.
Learning During activities such as After Action review linked to milestones, iterations, or built into regular project review meetings.
Learning After activities such as Lessons Capture, knowledge handover or learning histories, as late activities at the end of each project, each project stage, or (for mega-projects) each stage of each workstream.
KM in services and operations
In a service or operational context, the heartbeat is related to the review cycle.
You can link KM to the Deming cycle. Variously described as “Plan-Do-Check-Act”, or “Plan-Do-Measure-Learn” (the latter being a common oil-sector variant), it is a cycle of action, or a cycle of mindfulness, that drives learning and continuous improvement. KM can be embedded within this cycle.
You can link KM to the performance cycle. Performance measurement and benchmarking, target setting and knowledge management can be closely linked in an operation, production, service or manufacturing environment, as part of a performance management system. Benchmarking identifies the areas where a unit needs to improve and/or the business units from which it can learn, Target setting allows it to focus on areas for improvement, and Knowledge management allows it to acquire or develop the knowledge it needs in order to meet its targets. KM can therefore be embedded within the performance management and reporting cycle.
Embedding KM in this way builds it into the cycles and rhythms by which people already work, and go a long way to developing Knowledge Management as a habit. In many ways, the heartbeat is aligned to the cycles of review; the points at which people pause, take stock, and ask “What was supposed to happen? What actually happened? What have we learned? What do we need to share? What do we still need to learn from others?
Align KM with the natural heartbeat of work – that way the flow of knowledge through the organisation will be strong and regular.
Mature KM is a mixture of attitude, habit, and framework.
If you visited an organisation that had truly embraced and embedded Knowledge Management, what would you see? What would be different and distinctive about that organisation?
You would probably notice 3 things – attitudes, habits, and a solid KM framework.
The Knowledge Management attitude
The difference in attitude you would see is that knowledge is treated as something important; something that is prioritised. Knowledge work, and KM activity, is seen as an important part of the job, and not an add-on or an option. You would notice that individuals are always keen to gain more knowledge, and not shy about sharing what they know. You would see collaborative attitudes – people willing to help and willing to ask for help. You would see the cultural attitudes of openness, honesty, “learner” attitudes, people who are curious and willing to challenge the status quo.
The Knowledge Management habit
As well as a different attitude to knowledge, you would notice a difference in the work habits. When starting a new piece of work, instead of diving straight into the details, people would automatically ask “Who has done this before? Who can I learn from, so that I don’t start work with missing knowledge”. They would routinely consult the wiki, search the knowledge bases, and ask the communities of practice.
Then when the work is complete, rather than diving straight into the next job, they think “What have I learned? Who can I share this with?” They would routinely conduct their After Action reviews and Retrospects, post the lesson in the company lessons management system, store any knowledge products in the community knowledge base, update the wiki etc.
These work habits of learning, reflection and sharing are an outcome of the attitude mentioned above.
The Knowledge Management System/Framework
You would also see a Knowledge Management framework that allows people to learn and share. There would be a community of practice for each core knowledge topic, which people can ask for advice and recommendations. Each community would manage a portal and/or a wiki that people can go to, to find the best guidance. There would be a lessons management system which warn them of pitfalls and alert them of new solutions. There would be an effective enterprise search engine which leads them to the explicit knowledge they need. There would be forums for sharing new knowledge, and for recording new lessons and new practices. People would know where to find these tools, and would be accustomed to their use.
Then if you look harder, you see the Framework embedded into the way the organisation works, with KM integrated into the normal way of working. You would find a KM Policy. You would find that the project management framework contains KM elements; a KM plan, lesson capture processes, and so on. You would find people with KM roles, or with KM accountabilities within their job description. They might not be called “Knowledge Managers” – they might be SMEs, or network leaders, or project controllers, but the KM accountability would be there. You might even see public recognition for people who share, or who learn from others.
What you probably would not notice is any mention of Knowledge Management.
In an organisation with fully embedded KM, you don’t hear a lot of mention of “Knowledge Management”. However you hear a lot about the tools and processes.
Instead of people saying “we must do KM”, you hear “We should hold an AAR”, “We should ask the Community”, “Why don’t we look on the wiki”, “Let’s put a question on the forum”.
Much in the same way that everyone talks about budgets and invoices rather than “Financial Management”, so the conversation is now about the activities and the tools and not about the system itself. “Knowledge Management” takes a back seat, and is represented at the work-face by .
That’s what Knowledge Management looks like when fully embedded – an Attitude, new Habits, and a familiar set of activities and tools which have become part of the way people work.
A common question from clients in professional services, legal or consulting firms, which usually operate a strict time-writing regime, is “How do we Timewrite KM”?
In an industry where billable hour is king, how do you timewrite, and therefore bill, time spent in Knowledge Management activities such as Peer Assist, KM planning or Retrospects? Is the activity billed to the relevant client? Or do you introduce Knowledge Management as a separate charge code, and therefore treat it as an overhead, which you pass on to all clients by increasing your fee level? Or cover by the leverage that KM offers, through enabling more junior staff to deliver highly billed work?
Approaches seem to vary, with some companies allowing neither billing to clients nor a separate timecode, therefore relegating KM to a “personal time” activity.
Personally, I think KM should be billed to clients. Knowledge Management should only be introduced if it is going to benefit clients, and indeed the whole purpose of Knowledge Management within a professional services firm is to “bring the whole knowledge of the firm to bear on each client’s problems”. Therefore KM is part of providing a better service (in fact you could see KM as a component of good business practice), and should be paid for by the client. Therefore the time spent in Peer Assists, After Action reviews and even Retrospects should be billed to the client, by the logic of “we provide a better service to you through KM, so KM is billed as part of that better service”. (Of course, by the same logic, if KM is not delivering a better service, then you should stop doing KM). Timewriting in this way keeps the focus on KM as a means to support the clients.
Giving KM a separate timewriting code implies that KM is an add-on, and an overhead, which is why I don’t like this approach. KM should be seen as an investment, both for the client and for the firm, and not as an overhead cost. However I can see there may be some logic in having a separate code for Retrospects which do not benefit the current client, but which benefit clients in future. You could arge that because the results of the Retrospect are not shared with the client, you cannot charge the activity to the client, and therefore bring in a separate code as part of overheads. However most firms try to keep overheads down, which disincentivises taking time for learning.
Not allowing people to timewrite KM at all will kill KM, unless you can find a sneaky way around the system. Last week I was discussing just such a sneaky way, with a KMer from a company with no KM charge code, and where nobody would spend any time on Retrospects or Lessons Learned. However one thing they do, on every client project, is to assign a junior as part of the juniors’ Development Activity.
Here they have the opportunity for KM by Stealth – to use the Junior as the corporate learning resource.
The junior can keep a “learning blog” or “lessons blog” on which they can identify and publish all lessons and good practices recognised on that project. This is analogous to the “commanders blogs” used in the Army, which prove an excellent source of learning. The blog allows the junior to reflect and learn, and through that public reflection allows the firm to learn as well. The community of learners can take a role similar to the “lessons learned integrators” but without the supporting lessons learned system.
Of course KM by stealth is not a long term solution, and should only be used to demonstrate the value of KM with sufficient clarity that it becomes fully adopted, which means it then becomes a valid timewriting activity and a cost/investment that can be passed to clients.
However you charge KM – to the client, to a separate code or as part of Development Activity – you need to find a way to make it possible, otherwise your organisation will fail to learn, and thereby learn to fail.
1) The organisation has a clear idea of the functional competencies it needs to be successful.
2) These competencies are owned by senior staff, working through competency owners, competency committees or functional excellence teams. These staff/committees/teams have targets and deliverables relating to competence protection and development.
3) The leaders of the networks and communities of practice report to these senior staff, and hold a business plan or performance contract with the senior staff, stating how they will develop the CoPs in service of competence.
4) The network leaders take accountability for the development of the CoP and for the development of the community knowledge base. They may have a small team (for example a community facilitator) to help, and may have a small budget or community business.
If this accountability chain works well, then the network leader can track the development of competence through CoP metrics, including success stories and performance metrics. They report this upwards to the senior staff, who report against their own targets and deliverables.
1) The organisation has targets for project delivery (cost, time or quality targets).
2) These targets are owned by the Head of Projects, or some similar role.
3) Reporting to the Head of Projects will be an individual or small team responsible for project learning
4) This team, with the backing of the Head of Projects, takes accountability for the delivery of effective “learning from experience” within the project context. They monitor delivery of learning against the company expectations, they facilitate the lessons identification, and they operate the lessons management process, they drive re-use.
If this accountability chain works well, then the network leader can track the development of effective learning through metrics, and through improved project delivery (including learning curves). They report this upwards to the Head of Projects, who reports against their own targets and deliverables.
In both these cases, KM is given a job to do (“Improve or protect functional capability though CoPs and CoP knowledge bases”, “Improve company performance through project learning”), has individuals accountable for that job, and has a reporting chain. The job is clear, performance is tracked.
That’s how you really embed something for the long term.
Embedded KM is as normal as any other embedded work practise, such as budgeting or time writing.
People often ask “what does embedded KM look like? The answer is that it looks like any other embedded management discipline. It’s a work habit – something you dont think twice about.
Just in the way that “doing your budget” is fully embedded into the project cycle, do “doing your km plan” can be embedded into the work cycle.
Just like “completing your timesheet” is seen s a required step within financial management, so is “doing your lessons capture” seen as a required ad embedded step. Budgets ad timesheets are just “things we do as part of the job”, and one day you will find the processes of KM becomes equally embedded.
Just like budgets and timesheets, when KM is fully embedded we will do the KM processes naturally and without argument. We will know the processes are expected, we understand their point, everyone else is doing them, and if we don’t do them, people will be taken aback. It’s just a part of the way we work, and the things we do.
Most large organisations have pretty well-defined business processes. These may include
New Product Development process
Project management process
Service-call resolution process
and so on. These processes consist of a series of steps, often shown diagrammatically as a flow chart, like the example shown.
Embedding KM into these processes means putting Knowledge Management-specific steps into that flowchart.
You can start, by identifying where, within the business process, there is the greatest need for the team to acquire knowledge, and adding a “Knowledge Acquisition” step, such as Peer Assist, Lessons Review, Knowledge Site Visit, Collaborative work session, or a Knowledge Management Plan. There may be several such steps needed within the business process.
You can look at where, within the business process, there is the greatest need for the team to create new knowledge, and add a “Knowledge Creation” step, such as Deep Dive, Think Tank, or Business Driven Action Learning.
Then you can look at where, within the business process, there is the greatest need for the team to discuss and identify learning. These will be steps which follow points where the greatest knowledge has been created, or the greatest learning acquired, and where you need to add a “Knowledge Capture” step. Some of these will capture knowledge for re-use by the same team, and may include small scale After Action Reviews. Some will capture knowledge and lessons for other teams, and may include Retrospect. Some may include hand-over of knowledge to later stages in the project or product life-cycle, and may include Baton Passing or Knowledge handover. There may be several such steps needed within the business process.
That is your starting point – looking at the flow of knowledge into and out of the process. You may eventually add other steps where needed.
The important thing is to 1) find knowledge management processes which work in your context, and 2) make sure those KM process appear, as little boxes, within the business process flow chart.
There are 5 ways in which KM can be embedded in an organisation. Some of these are more common than others, and to fully embed KM can take over a decade.
The most common ways of embedding KM, from the Knoco 2014 and 2017 surveys
I often have people ask me what “embedding” Knowledge Management actually means, and how you do it. Embedding Knowledge Management means making part of the normal work process, rather than an add-on. You do this in six ways, listed below in the order of most common applicaiton, as shown in the graph above.
You change the technology suite so that Knowledge Management tools are available, and used, as part of the working toolkit, and linked into the existing work tools. While email remains the number one work tool for many people, then link your KM tools into this, rather than requiring people to acquire a new habit. New habits can develop later, when KM becomes part of natural behaviour.
You change the Organigram to include Knowledge Management roles and accountabilities. You introduce new roles where needed (lesson teams for example, leaders and coordinators for the big Communities of practice, Practice Owners and so on), and change some of the accountabilities of existing roles (the most senior experts, for example, need clear KM accountabilities, as described here. You need to change their job descriptions, so that they are held acountable for stewardship of the company knowledge). Then you measure and reward people against their performance in these roles, and against these accountabilities, just as you measure and reward them against any other component of their job.
You change the high level processes and activities, embedding Knowledge Management processes and activities into the work cycles (using the principles of Learning Before, During and After). Change the project requirements, to include mandatory processes for capture of knowledge at the end of the project or after key milestones, and mandatory processes for reviewing past knowledge at the start of the project. Change the rules for project sanction, so a project gets no money if it hasn’t done any learning.
You change the behaviours through peer pressures and through management expectation.
You change the governance system to include KM. Write it into the policies. Write it into the way people are rewarded. Change the reporting requirements, the HR appraisal mechanism, change the incentive scheme to reward collaboration and discourage competition. This is the least common embedding approach, but it needs to be done eventually.
These changes should embed KM as part of the way people work, and so make KM part of everyone’s job. Once this is the case, you can claim KM is embedded and fully mature, as shown below.
The degree of embedding KM into normal activity, vs KM maturity. Results from Knoco 2014 and 2017 surveys
However this takes time. The chart below shows how this level of embedding varies with the length of time organisations have been doing KM. Even after 16 years working with KM, only half the organisations claim KM is fully integrated and routine, rather than a non-routine activity.
The degree of embedding vs the length of time doing KM. Results from Knoco 2014 and 2017 surveys
Here is a nice graph from our global KM surveys that shows how KM maturity progresses.
This graph is a combination of two questions, and we have combined answers from both the 2014 and 2017 surveys, so over 570 answers are included in the graph. The first question was:
Which of the following best describes the current status of KM within this organisation (or part of the organisation)?
We are in the early stages of introducing KM
We are well in progress with KM
KM is embedded in the way we work
The second question was
To what extent is KM now integrated with the normal work of the organisation? Choose the sentence that most closely fits your answer.
KM is not part of normal activity but is being addressed by a separate group
KM is performed as a one-off intervention after which business returns to normal
KM is a non-routine part of normal activity, done as an exception or when requested
KM is fully integrated and is a routine part of normal activity or operations
The graph shows how the responses to the second question vary according to the first question, and shows how the integration of KM changes with maturity.
In the early stages of KM, KM is mostly either performed by a separate group (30% of responses) or as an exception to normal process (48% of responses).
For organisations which are well in progress, the role of the separate group is much reduced (to 12% of responses), as is the one-off intervention. The largest proportion of responses is still that KM is an exception to normal process (54% of responses), but the second largest is that KM is fully integrated in normal activity.
For organisations who claim that KM is fully embedded, almost three quarters say that KM is fully integrated in normal activity.
As you might expect, there is a close link between fully embedded KM, and full integration of KM activities into operations.