The more time I spend in the field of KM, the more I see certain brands of flavours of the field which share a common name (knowledge management) and common principles, but can use very different roles, processes and supporting technologies.

Image from wikipedia

Below are the main flavours I see, together with some of the common elements you find within their KM frameworks. Sometimes different flavours are seen in different divisions within the same organisation – Practice-flavoured KM in the project department, Product-flavoured in the Engineering department, customer-flavoured in sales and marketing. These different flavours of KM can use very different processes, technologies and roles – even within the same organisation.

Please let me know via the comments section if you have an additional flavour to add to the mix.

1. Practice-flavoured KM

Engineering-product-flavoured KM

There is no universal solution for Knowledge Management in an Organisation, but there is a set of universal principles.

A Management Framework for KM is bespoke – not off-the-peg. Each organisation must find its own solution , and must design its own Framework. There is no template, no universal solution, no single toolbox of KM technologies, no “KM Ultimate Swiss Army Knife”, no one magic system that does it all, no single KM Process set, no a single design for set of KM roles, no universally applicable KM policy that all companies can adopt.

However I believe there IS a universal set of 5 Knowledge Management principles that every successful Knowledge Management application adopts, and which form the foundation for a successful KM framework. 4 of these principles are embedded within ISO 30401:2018, the ISO management systems standard for KM.

Please note, these are the principles behind KM framework design, not the principles for KM strategy [which are about the vision and direction for introducing KM], or the principles for KM implementation [which is how the framework will be developed and rolled out].

These Principles are as follows.

1. Aligned. The KM framework must align with the needs and strategy of the organisation.

Knowledge Management should not be introduced for its own sake; it should be introduced because it solves business problems and helps the organisation perform better. ISO 30401:2018 supports this by,  in the first two requirements, asking for an understanding of how KM supports the organisational context, and for a mapping of the stakeholders and their needs. These two tasks form the foundation for the Management Framework.

The primary value of knowledge is helping people make better decisions, and so perform work better, faster and/or cheaper. There are secondary values as well (helping people fell more engaged, more connected, more supported) but all of these are also in service of a better organisation.  Knowledge management for its own sake can often destroy value, as this example of misplaced collaboration shows.

Your knowledge management framework therefore needs to focus preferentially on the knowledge of highest organisational value (ISO clause 4.3), and of providing the highest value and highest utility knowledge to the knowledge workers and other stakeholders at the place and the time that they need it (hence the concept of KM as a Knowledge Supply Chain).

Unfortunately business alignment is the second weakest of all the elements in our free online self-assessment survey, which suggests that this principle is not always followed.

2.  Connect/Collect. The KM Framework must include Connect and Collect (aka Conversation and Content)

One of the earliest models in the history of Knowledge Management, and one that sometimes seems to get forgotten, is that there are two key dimensions in Knowledge Management, representing two routes between the knowledge suppler, and the knowledge user.

These are the Connect route, and the Collect route.

The Connect route supports knowledge transfer through connecting people and focuses on tacit knowledge.  The Collect route supports knowledge transfer through collecting knowledge into documents and focuses on codified knowledge.

Connect and Collect are not alternative strategies. They are two components of a single framework and a single strategy, which work in parallel.  Your organisation will contain critical knowledge of very many kinds; some of it managed as Content, and some as Conversations.  Conversations are a far richer medium than Content,  potentially 14 times richer, though Content can reach far more people, and has a longer life-span than a conversation.

Content and Conversation are the King and Queen of Knowledge Management – they rule together. Content is something to talk about, Conversation is where Content is born and where it is Tested.

In clause 4.3.3, the ISO standard requires organisations to address Connection through Human interation, and Collection through a) the representation of human knowledge in the form of documents, videos, and other artefacts: b) the combination and synthesis of documented knowledge, and c) the internalisation and reuse of knowledge.

3. Push and Pull. The framework must address Push and Pull (aka knowledge supply and knowledge demand)

4. The 4 legs. The KM framework must include Roles, Processes, Technologies and Governance

Lots of KM programs do not take root, because they have never been embedded in normal business. They are delivered by a strong team and a charismatic leader delivered as something separate – not fully rooted in the work structure and management framework of the company. They are like a tree in a pot – well tended, well watered, but separate – and when the tender care is removed, the organisation tips back. KM needs to be like a tree in a forest – rooted in the fabric of the business.

The goal is to embed a self-sustaining approach to KM in all elements of the business, with clear governance and good support, and clear evidence of sustainable culture change and sustainable business value.

Change the project requirements, to include KM. Change the minimum conditions of satisfaction for project delivery, to include effective lessons identification. Change the rules for project sanction, so a project gets no money if it hasn’t done any learning. Change the job descriptions for the company experts, so that they are held acountable for stewardship of the company knowledge. Change the reporting requirements, the HR appraisal mechanism, change the incentive scheme to reward collaboration and discourage competition. Change the rules on timewriting. Notice the use of the word “change” there? Every such change is another KM root going down.

There is no universal solution for Knowledge Management in an Organisation, but there is a set of universal principles.

A Management Framework for KM is bespoke – not off-the-peg. Each organisation must find its own solution , and must design its own Framework. There is no template, no universal solution, no single toolbox of KM technologies, no “KM Ultimate Swiss Army Knife”, no one magic system that does it all, no single KM Process set, no a single design for set of KM roles, no universally applicable KM policy that all companies can adopt.

However I believe there IS a universal set of 5 Knowledge Management principles that every successful Knowledge Management application adopts, and which form the foundation for a successful KM framework. 4 of these principles are embedded within ISO 30401:2018, the ISO management systems standard for KM.

Please note, these are the principles behind KM framework design, not the principles for KM strategy [which are about the vision and direction for introducing KM], or the principles for KM implementation [which is how the framework will be developed and rolled out].

These Principles are as follows.

1. Aligned. The KM framework must align with the needs and strategy of the organisation.

Knowledge Management should not be introduced for its own sake; it should be introduced because it solves business problems and helps the organisation perform better. ISO 30401:2018 supports this by,  in the first two requirements, asking for an understanding of how KM supports the organisational context, and for a mapping of the stakeholders and their needs. These two tasks form the foundation for the Management Framework.

The primary value of knowledge is helping people make better decisions, and so perform work better, faster and/or cheaper. There are secondary values as well (helping people fell more engaged, more connected, more supported) but all of these are also in service of a better organisation.  Knowledge management for its own sake can often destroy value, as this example of misplaced collaboration shows.

Your knowledge management framework therefore needs to focus preferentially on the knowledge of highest organisational value (ISO clause 4.3), and of providing the highest value and highest utility knowledge to the knowledge workers and other stakeholders at the place and the time that they need it (hence the concept of KM as a Knowledge Supply Chain).

Unfortunately business alignment is the second weakest of all the elements in our free online self-assessment survey, which suggests that this principle is not always followed.

2.  Connect/Collect. The KM Framework must include Connect and Collect (aka Conversation and Content)

One of the earliest models in the history of Knowledge Management, and one that sometimes seems to get forgotten, is that there are two key dimensions in Knowledge Management, representing two routes between the knowledge suppler, and the knowledge user.

These are the Connect route, and the Collect route.

The Connect route supports knowledge transfer through connecting people and focuses on tacit knowledge.  The Collect route supports knowledge transfer through collecting knowledge into documents and focuses on codified knowledge.

Connect and Collect are not alternative strategies. They are two components of a single framework and a single strategy, which work in parallel.  Your organisation will contain critical knowledge of very many kinds; some of it managed as Content, and some as Conversations.  Conversations are a far richer medium than Content,  potentially 14 times richer, though Content can reach far more people, and has a longer life-span than a conversation.

Content and Conversation are the King and Queen of Knowledge Management – they rule together. Content is something to talk about, Conversation is where Content is born and where it is Tested.

In clause 4.3.3, the ISO standard requires organisations to address Connection through Human interation, and Collection through a) the representation of human knowledge in the form of documents, videos, and other artefacts: b) the combination and synthesis of documented knowledge, and c) the internalisation and reuse of knowledge.

3. Push and Pull. The framework must address Push and Pull (aka knowledge supply and knowledge demand)

4. The 4 legs. The KM framework must include Roles, Processes, Technologies and Governance

Lots of KM programs do not take root, because they have never been embedded in normal business. They are delivered by a strong team and a charismatic leader delivered as something separate – not fully rooted in the work structure and management framework of the company. They are like a tree in a pot – well tended, well watered, but separate – and when the tender care is removed, the organisation tips back. KM needs to be like a tree in a forest – rooted in the fabric of the business.

The goal is to embed a self-sustaining approach to KM in all elements of the business, with clear governance and good support, and clear evidence of sustainable culture change and sustainable business value.

Change the project requirements, to include KM. Change the minimum conditions of satisfaction for project delivery, to include effective lessons identification. Change the rules for project sanction, so a project gets no money if it hasn’t done any learning. Change the job descriptions for the company experts, so that they are held acountable for stewardship of the company knowledge. Change the reporting requirements, the HR appraisal mechanism, change the incentive scheme to reward collaboration and discourage competition. Change the rules on timewriting. Notice the use of the word “change” there? Every such change is another KM root going down.

Knowledge management delivers maximum value when applied to high value knowledge, to support high value decisions, and in areas where that knowledge is otherwise at risk of being lost. A typical high value area where major decisions will be made is Mergers and Acquisitions. 

Image from wikimedia commons, Merger of KCR and MTR operations 2007-12-02

Mergers and Acquisitions are high cost, complex operations, where crucial decisions need to be made very well, and yet which happen relatively rarely, so it is easy for tacit knowledge to be lost. People caught up in the high pressure activity can easily forget the detail of how the decisions were made, and fail to pass the knowledge on to future mergers and acquisitions teams.

This combination of high value decisions made relatively infrequently, where human memory alone cannot be relied on as a knowledge store, means that there is great value on documenting the learning for use in future mergers and acquisitions.

In addition, many mergers and acquisitions are conducted for knowledge reasons, in order to acquire competence and capability.

 The approach to KM for Mergers and Acquisitions (and let’s include Divestments as well) should be as follows; 

• Learning Before. Through Peer assists and other knowledge-seeking activities, the M&A team should seek to acquire lessons, guidance, success factors and pitfalls from previous Mergers, Acquisitions and Divestments. They may conduct a Knowledge Gap Analysis, to map out the knowledge they need to acquire, and should create a Knowledge Management Plan for the M&A project. 
• Learning During. If possible, and for high value Mergers, Acquisitions and Divestments only, a Learning Historian should be seconded to the M&A team to capture lessons, practices and key documents as the exercise progresses, perhaps through a series of After Action Reviews. 
• Learning After. Interviews and Retrospects of the key players should be held to determine the success factors to repeat, and the pitfalls to avoid. The focus here will be on capturing tacit knowledge and experience; the ‘golden rules’, ‘top tips’, recommendations and advice that will allow success to be repeated routinely. This might include interviewing any external consultants who had been an integral part of the team. 
• Knowledge Asset. Output from the interviews and the Retrospect should be packaged into a knowledge asset; a web-based package or secure wiki that provides helpful accessible advice for future re-use. This advice will be at varying levels of detail; from the managerial overview of the “top 10” bullet points, down to operational advice. 
• Post-merger KM framework. If we assume that each of the two merged companies had an approach to Knowledge Management, in other words their own Knowledge Management Frameworks, then after the merger these two frameworks will need to be merged. This should be done through a combination of an external assessment to look for the strengths and weaknesses in each approach, and a set of Knowledge Exchange meetings to decide on a best combined approach. This would be piloted and rolled out like a conventional knowledge management implementation. Of course, the framework chould be compliant with ISO 30401:2018. 
• Post-merger Knowledge Mapping. In a knowledge-based acquisition, where one company acquires another in order to gain access to their knowledge, there will have been some pre-acquisition work done to ensure that the knowledge gain is worth the expense of acquisition. However once the deal is done, there needs to be detailed knowledge mapping to identify the critical knowledge areas, to determine how well managed each of these are, and to put in place actions to improve the management of critical topics. After all, if you spent the money to acquire the competence, you would want to make sure this new asset was well managed.

Case History 

The learning approach outlined above was applied by Company A to their merger with Company B, and again with Company C two years later.

In the latter case, 14 of the core acquisition team were interviewed, and lessons were derived on leadership, the team and team processes, the role of the investment bank, the transaction process, communication, and staff issues. One year after acquisition, 31 staff were interviewed to gather lessons on the Integration process. Interviewees included the Chief Counsel, one of the Country unit Presidents, and several other very senior staff. Learnings were captured on topics such as managing the Integration project, dealing with delay, and getting ready for Day 1 of the integrated company.

Lessons from the first merger were used to guide the process for for the second, and lessons from the second acquisition and integration were used to guide the process for several further acquisitions. The value of the knowledge management approach was seen in the reduced involvement of external consultants in successive mergers. Initially the bill to Big 5 consultants had been very high, but this reduced from one acquisition to the next as Company A internalized the knowledge, with savings on external consulting spend in the order of $1 million.

What is the Knowledge management solution? That’s a question that’s been debated for two decades, but I would like to take a high-level approach to the question and ask – is the solution a tool, a toolbox, or a management framework?

Image from wikimedia commons

Is it a tool?

Many organisations start the knowledge management journey believing that the solution to Knowledge Management is a tool. They introduce Yammer, for example, and hope that the connectivity we see in the world-wide web via Twitter will translate into sharing of valuable in-house knowledge. Or they buy a wiki, or knowledge-base software, or get SharePoint, and expect that an in-house equivalent of Wikipedia emerges.

Of course the problems are not solved. One tool does very little to dent the huge issue that is KM. KM has many aspects, and expecting one tool to deliver KM is like buying a hammer, and assuming your home repairs will all be sorted.

Is it a toolbox?

Pretty soon, people realise that one tool does not solve all problems. This is especially true when it comes to KM process – there are a suite of processes that can be applied in different situations; from Peer Assists to After Action Reviews, to Knowledge Exchange circles, and so on. Any one such process is not enough, you need a suite. And the technology tools very rarely stand alone, no matter what the vendors tell you. Any KM technology that claims to be a Jack of All Trades is really a Master of None.  Different KM needs require different (though linked) technologies to satisfy them.

So the companies build a toolbox. “Here are the KM tools” they tell the knowledge workers – “Use them when applicable”.  Most of us have such a toolbox in our house, for home improvements. Most of these toolboxes (other than those owned by the enthusiasts) linger untouched in the basement or garage.

The same is true of the KM toolboxes. The enthusiasts use them, but they never get into the mainstream.

Is is a management framework?

Yes, it is. Tools don’t get used regularly unless people know how to use them, when to use them, and realise its their job to use them. The framework you need for Knowledge Management includes not just a listing of the processes and technologies, but a definition of when they are expected to be used, and by whom. The framework adds the governance element (the expectation), and the roles element (the “by whom”) to the processes and technologies. The ISO KM standard, ISO 30401, is based on the view of  KM as a management framework (they call it “management system”).

This management framework defines how KM is embedded into the work process and into the accountabilities in the organisation.  Instead of the toolbox lying unopened in the garage, it is brought in and put on the table; made a part of how you work.

If we stick with the analogy of tools, you can imagine an operating theatre as an example of a framework. Yes, the surgical tools are vital, but the surgical toolbox alone does not result in effective operations. You also need the roles (the surgeon, the anaesthetist, the theatre nurse) and the governance (the expectations on each party, the support and training they have, the checklists they use, and the metrics that are gathered). Just having a box of surgical tools does not mean that you can perform effective surgery.

Knowledge Management is not heart surgery – it is far simpler and far easier. However it still needs to be addressed as a management framework – not as a toolbox, and certainly never as a single tool.

Contact us for help in designing your Knowledge Management Framework

Product life-cycle management (PLM) is a well-established discipline. To support this, we are going to need Product life-cycle knowledge management. 

Image from wikimedia commons

In industry, product lifecycle management is the process of managing the entire lifecycle of a product from inception, through engineering design and manufacture, to service and disposal of manufactured products.  Industry has already made big strides with using shared data systems to support the lifecycle of a product. Similar strides can be made in using Knowledge Management approaches.

PLKM differs from standard practice-based KM.

• Instead of Communities of Practice, we need to look at Communities of Product (or Product line, or product family). The Community members will cover the lifecycle of the product; from development through manufacturing through sales to service and maintenance,and back to redevelopment. 
• Instead of Best Practice, we look at Best Design
• Knowledge is passed along the value chain; downstream from development to manufacturing, from sales to service, and back upstream from service to development.
• The key knowledge is mostly “Why” knowledge – why the product was designed the way it was, why design changes were made, why the marketing has taken the chosen approach, why failures happen in service, and so on. 
• The taxonomy will not be a practice-based taxonomy, but will align with the product tree
• Some of the KM processes will be different as well. Specifically the A3 report will replace the After Action Review.

I  blogged recently about Connect and Collect – the two parallel approaches to transfer of knowledge. Now let’s look in more depth about the two modes by which knowledge is carried – Content and Conversation. 

During the Connect approach we facilitate the transfer of knowledge through Conversations, whether these are online conversations or face to face meetings.

If you are interested in how different industries approach KM, here is a new way to differentiate them. 

• Roles – these will include  a KM person or team providing KM support for the sales organisation; also owners of critical knowledge, such as practice owners for the key areas of sales practice, product owners who ensure product knowledge is up to date and accessible, and key account owners, who hold the knowledge of dealing with key accounts.

• Processes – Coaching and training (including role play and scenario planning). Regular knowledge exchanges and mini-peer assists during meetings of the regional team, and the wider sales community. Regular (e.g. quarterly) Retrospects for the sales team to generate lessons. Creation of knowledge assets on pricing, consumer behaviour, effective techniques, and dealing with buyers (especially major accounts). These knowledge assets will have been developed through interviews with key successful sales staff.

• Technology – Access to the sales community of practice while on the road, to share updates and ask questions. Access to customer-related and account-related data while on the road, and in the office, through a CRM application. Provision of knowledge of products, supported by a mobile-enabled knowledge base.  Access to past sales lessons. 

• Governance – tracking the frequency and effectiveness of sales KM, including the completeness and availability of knowledge assets, and the interaction within the Sales community. Monitoring the effectiveness of Knowledge Management in increasing sales.

Together these 4 elements form a KM framework for frontline sales staff.

Knowledge management is a large and complex field, covering many elements, and applied in many different ways (see my blog post on 50 shades of KM for example). However there are a small number of Knowledge Management sub-components or modules which come up time and time again, and probably represent the main building blocks for KM.

Lego #5 by Antonio on Flickr

These modules are applied in different ways in different organisations, and use different processes, technologies and roles. Each of them delivers a certain amount of value; combined, they can create a complete Knowledge Management framework. Any one of them might be favoured in any particular industry.

The seven main KM modules are listed below.

1. Connecting people, through Communities and Networks.

Connecting people through Communities of Practice and Networks is the most popular module within Knowledge Management, applied (according to our global KM surveys) in three quarters of KM programs; Legal KM programs being the main exception. This module requires an effective set of Community software, but more that this, it requires governance, leadership roles, and community processes (see the ten success factors for Communities of Practice).  Through connecting people in this way, knowledge can flow from person to person, across silos and organisational boundaries.  Questions can be asked and answered, and individuals can collaborate on solutions.

2. Learning from Experience.

About two-thirds of KM approaches include some form of learning from experience, or lesson-learning (again, Legal KM programs often proving an exception).  Learning from experience can be applied at many levels; to teams, to projects, to products or to programs. It may involve After Action Reviews, Design improvements, Toyota A3s, Retrospects, and other techniques. But however it is applied, and however it is supported by technology and roles, the same principles of systematic gathering and re-use of new knowledge are needed if learning from experience is to be successful.

3. Creation of “Best Practices”.

The third most common KM module is the creation of some form of compiled and documented knowledge base. Whether you call it “Best Practices” or not, 60% of KM approaches address this issue of “gathering and synthesising what we know”. The home for this synthesised knowledge may be a Wiki, a Knowledge Asset, a Checklist, or even an Expert System. I am not talking about libraries here – the key to a Best Practice approach is developing and making available the Current Best Way to do something, and then continuously improving that “Best way” to make it even better.

4. Provision of Knowledge to external Customers

5. Better access to knowledge documents.

“Better access to knowledge documents” is a very common area of focus of Knowledge Management programs, although this verges into the adjacent fields of ECM and information management. Portals and Enterprise Search (even Semantic Search) are the key tools here for ensuring findability of documented knowledge.

6. Knowledge Retention.

Knowledge retention is a strategic approach to protecting against knowledge loss as experienced staff leave an organisation, and a whole variety of KM interventions can be applied to both retain and transfer the knowledge.

7. Innovation.

Innovation as a separate KM module deals with Knowledge Creation, often through development of innovation teams, creation of breakthrough innovation projects, and use of structured innovation processes.

Business sectors and the seven building blocks

As already hinted above, different business sectors tend to have a focus on different KM modules. Some of the main differences are as follows (and please bear in mind that most organisations address the first 4 modules, and many address all seven to varying extents).

• Connecting People is a core focus for multinational organisations, where knowledge is spread over many sites and many countries. Aid and Development organisations, for example, focus on Connecting People, as do the multinational oil companies.
• Learning from Experience is a core focus for Project organizations, such as Construction, Engineering and Aerospace.
• Best Practice is a core focus for service organisations, and for Manufacturing.
• Provision of knowledge to customers is a focus for Finance, Insurance, Retail and Educational organisations, as well as the development banks.
• Better access to knowledge documents is the core focus in the Legal sector, but is part of the KM Framework for almost every organisation.
• Knowledge Retention is a core area of focus for many organisations; typically Western Engineering and manufacturing companies concerned about reliability (Nuclear, Aerospace, Utilities etc) or growing organisations relying on the knowledge of a few experts. 
• Innovation is a focus for any competitive organisation, be it product innovation or process innovation, but is seldom the core focus for a KM program. 

However whichever building blocks you choose, the key is to link them up into your final framework, as no block stands alone.