The Farnham Street blog (reporting on the book Mind Gym) describes nine tactics you can use to influence others, while making the point that ““it is essential that you understand the other person’s reasons so you can use tactics that will work to persuade them, as opposed to tactics that would work on you.”

Let’s see how these nine tactics can be used when promoting Knowledge Management

1. Reasoning  –  the process of using facts, logic, and argument to make a case. You would use this to make a business case for Knowledge Management, but need good evidence to back it up. “Knowledge Management, if applied to the bidding process, should improve our bid conversion rate by 20%, which would be worth $5 million in new business. We calculated this by looking at the bid losses over the last 3 years that would have been avoided through re-use of knowledge and best practices”.  Reasoning will almost certainly be necessary to support your case, but it is likely that other influencing techniques will create the “sell”.

2. Inspiring  –  focusing on the heart rather than the head, appealing to emotions and creating the vision. You would use this when your Knowledge Management business case is weak or unclear and you want a high level of emotional commitment. The inspiring tactic demands conviction, energy, and passion. “Imagine what it would be like to have knowledge at our fingertips – to know, at every decision point, what we have tried in the past, what works and what doesn’t work. We hold 5,000 years of experience in the heads of our staff – imagine what would be possible if that resource was available to everyone in the building”. Inspiring works well as a sell in the early stages of KM implementation, especially when backed up by a business case. See a list of KM visions here – some more inspiring than others!

3. Asking Questions – leading the other person to make their own discovery of the value of Knowledge Management. See the example here –   “When do your people use knowledge? Tell me about some of the important decisions, where knowledge is critical? If we had a situation where every person facing such a decision had complete access to the knowledge they needed, how much more business do you think we could win?  And how certain are you that people in this situation are currently handling this vital knowledge in a rigorous, systematic managed way?”  This is one of the more difficult tactics to use because it is impossible to know how the other person will respond and you have to be able to think on your feet, but is one of the most powerful approaches to use when talking to senior staff.

4. Cosying Up You almost always feel positive toward someone who makes you feel good about yourself. This is the cosying up tactic. “Dan, you are the smartest and most progressive leader in the whole management layer, and I know you are always looking for the next way to really improve your department. Let me tell you about this new thing called Knowledge Management”. Don’t use this approach when talking to people who are much more senior than you, when cosying up can look like sucking up.

5. Deal Making  – when you give another person something in return for their agreement with you. “Susie, if you agree to host a Community of Practice pilot, then in return I will support your expansion proposal in the next seniors meeting”  or, in an even braver approach (where you need a good reasoning argument to back it up), “Susie, I would like to make a deal with you. Let me set up a Knowledge Management pilot in your part of the business, and I guarantee you a 10% improvement in your results within 3 months.”  See for example the “KM deal with senior management”. Your ability to use this approach depends very much on your ability to offer something in return.

6. Favour Asking – simply asking for something because you want or need it.  “Davide, I really need a favour. I need an area of the business to set up a trial Lesson Learning System, and your department would be perfect. Can you help me?” This tactic works well only when the other person cares about you or their relationship with you. If used sparingly, it is hard to resist, but be aware you may have to pay back the favour at some time.

7. Using Silent Allies (aka social proof)  – using the fact that others use KM as an argument in its favour. This involves showing or telling stories of other people, as similar as possible to the person you want to influence, gaining value from Knowledge Management. This may be people from other organisations – “Did you know all our competitors are doing KM already? Let me tell you what the head of Acme said about it last week“, or people from your own organisation – “Here is one of our engineers talking about how the CoP helped him deliver his project ahead of time“. Beware of the “Yes, but we are different” response, and also of the CEO that says “We don’t want to copy the competition”.  Also for this technique to work, you need a success case somewhere you can draw from. However social proof is the most powerful convincing mechanism for most people, especially the knowledge workers and users of the framework.

8. Invoking Authority –  appealing to a rule or principle. “You have to hold your lessons learned meeting – it says so in the project procedure“. It doesn’t matter whether the authority invoked is formal or implicit, so long as it is recognized by the person you are trying to influence. This technique is one you use once you have the support of senior management, when the Knowledge Management policy (or equivalent) is in place, and when KM has become a clear expectation.  The downside is that it is more likely to lead to compliance than commitment, but well facilitated compliance can still deliver excellent results.  This is a technique to use once KM has been implemented, and you need to drive it’s application.

 9. Forcing “Do it or else.” The best example of the use of this tactic in KM comes from Bob Buckman, CEO of Buckman Labs, and his memo that says “if you are unwilling to contribute (your knowledge), the many opportunities open to you in the past will no longer be available”.  Or as Melissie Rumizen said about the same organisation, “In Buckman labs we reward knowledge sharing. If you do it, we reward you by letting you keep your job”. This is a technique that senior management can use on your behalf, and which may need to be used to remove the past few vestiges of non-compliance with KM expectations. This can only be used after KM implementation is complete, and you are looking to

People change their minds for their own reasons, not for your reasons. If you are using only one tactic to promote KM (Reasoning is the most commonly used tactic, even though it is largely ineffective), and its not working, then try something else. Also be prepared to change your tactic as your Knowledge Management implementation program progresses.

Learn these 9 techniques – you will need them to market and sell KM within your organisation.

The knowledge manager, seeking to lead the change to a Knowledge Management culture in their own organisation, needs to know how to sell their product. 

Image from wikimedia commons

As a Knowledge Manager, you are asking people to pay attention to something (knowledge) which previously has been ignored. You are asking them to reprioritise, and you are “selling” the need to do something different. Like it or not, you are in the sales business, selling KM.

How then can we sell? What are the selling skills that a Knowledge manager needs?

We can pick up one or two tips from the classic film “the Wolf of Wall Street,” which is all about selling. It tells the story of an unscrupulous stockbroker who makes a fortune in New York through a combination of outrageous selling techniques and fraud. One of the themes of the film is “sell me this pen“.

In one scene the stockbroker is testing the selling skills of his team. “Sell me this pen” he says, handing them an ordinary ball-point.

One by one they make the same mistake. “This is a great pen” they say; “easy to use, convenient, cheap ….”.   “I don’t want it” he replies.

Eventually one of his friends gives the right answer. “Write your name down for me” he says. And of course, the stockbroker needs a pen to do this, and he has just given his pen away!  He needs to do something (write his name) but can’t. The pen seller can satisfy the need, remove the “pain point”.

What the friend had done, was to create the need for a pen. If someone does not believe they need a pen, they are not in the market to buy one, no matter how much you talk it up. The same is true for Knowledge Management – if the person talking to you does not think they need Knowledge Management, they won’t buy it, no matter how much you talk it up.

Taking it further

The “sell me this pen” question used to come up in interviews for sales staff in the 80s and 90s, and there are some sophisticated ways to answer this question. The text below comes from this LinkedIn article and is is a suggested “best way” to answer the question. This involves finding out how the customer uses the product, establishing the importance of the product, selling something wider than the product (such as status, or reassurance), and then asking for the buy. Remember – you cant sell something until you understand the buyer and their needs.

CEO: Do me a favor, sell me this pen.
Salesperson: Let me ask you, when was the last time you used a pen?
CEO: This morning.
Salesperson:  Do you remember what kind of pen that was?
CEO: No.
Salesperson:  Do you remember why you were using it to write?
CEO: Signing a few new customer contracts.
Salesperson: Well I’d say that’s the best use for a pen (we have a subtle laugh). Wouldn’t you say signing those new customer contracts is an important event for the business? (nods head) Then shouldn’t it be treated like one? 

What I mean by that is, here you are signing new customer contracts, an important and memorable event. All while using a very unmemorable pen. We grew up, our entire lives, using cheap disposable pens because they get the job done for grocery lists and directions. But we never gave it much thought to learn what’s best for more important events.  

This is the pen for more important events. This is the tool you use to get deals done. Think of it as a symbol for taking your company to the next level. Because when you begin using the right tool, you are in a more productive state of mind, and you begin to sign more new customer contracts.  

Actually. You know what? Just this week I shipped ten new boxes of these pens to Elon Musk’s office. Unfortunately, this is my last pen today (reach across to hand pen back to CEO). So, I suggest you get this one.  

Try it out. If you’re not happy with it, I will personally come back next week to pick it up. And it won’t cost you a dime. What do you say? 

The Knowledge Management equivalent

So let’s try the same conversation in KM terms, again finding out how the customers organisation uses the product (or uses Knowledge, in this case), establishing the importance of the knowledge, selling something wider than KM (such as success or reassurance), and then asking for the buy.

CEO: Sell knowledge management to me
KMer: When do your people use knowledge?
CEO: Every day, when making decisions.
KMer:  Tell me about some of the important decisions, where knowledge is critical
CEO: Umm, maybe the bidding process. The bid teams need knowledge of how to craft a bid, how to price it, and how to set the margin so that we win the work and also bring in a good income stream.
KMer:  I can see that bidding knowledge would be absolutely vital. If we had a situation where every bid team had complete access to the knowledge they needed, how much more business do you think we could win?
CEO: I don’t know, but the next two bids are billion-dollar bids which are crucial to the company future.
KMer:  And how certain are you that your bidding group are currently handling this vital billion-dollar knowledge – knowledge of how to craft the bid, how to price it, and how to set the margin-  in a rigorous, systematic managed way? How do you know they are learning from every bid this company has made, rather than the ones they personally have been involved in?
CEO: To be honest, I could not tell you. I assume they are, but I don’t know.
KMer: Well, there you go. That bidding knowledge is potentially a billion dollar asset for the organisation. If the bid teams have the knowledge, we win those bids. If they don’t, we lose. And if something is as valuable as that, then as CEO it’s not right that you should have to just assume. You deserve to be fully assured that this asset – this knowledge – is being properly managed, because the future of the company may depend on it.  

There are things we can do to manage that knowledge better, and to make it available to key staff such as the bid teams, who make the decisions on which the future of the company depends. This is what we call Knowledge Management, and this approach is used by many of the Fortune 500s who need the reassurance that their critical knowledge is well managed. 

I am not asking you to buy Knowledge Management right now, I am asking you to try it out; perhaps in the bidding area, or perhaps another part of the business where knowledge is critical to success. We will see what value it delivers, and if you’re not happy with it, then we progress no further. If it works, and helps deliver value, then we take it further. What do you say?

If you are a knowledge manager responsible for KM implementation, then learn how to sell. See if you can become the Wolf of KM Street!  Don’t start by extolling the virtues of KM, or the ROI you might expect; start by asking questions and understanding the buyer. Find how your customer uses knowledge, how valuable that knowledge is and where their knowledge hotspots  or pain points are, and then sell into that need.  Find that “something wider” that you can sell – reassurance, or pride, or the opportunity to beat the competition.

Learn to sell KM, as if you were learning to sell a pen

Contact us if you need any help in building your argument.

“No plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force” (von Moltke). “A comedy routine is not finished until it has been performed in front of a crowd” (Dara O Briain). And a KM Implementation plan cannot be fully determined in advance – it needs to be adapted on contact with the organisation.

Picture from pikrepo.com with creative commons licence

Implementing Knowledge Management is a change management process, and change is two way.

Last week I started a set of blog posts likening KM implementation to a business start-up. Here is number 4 in the series. 

Image from wikimedia commons

This blog series uses this analogy of a start-up to inform KM implementation. It reviews 5 common reasons for start-up failure and suggests ways in which KM programs can avoid these failure modes. These common reasons are taken from  a great article by David Skok , and are as follows:

1. Little or no market for the product; 
2. The business model fails; 
3. Poor start-up management team; 
4. Running out of cash; 
5. Product problems.

A fourth major reason that start-ups fail is because they ran out of cash before they reach the next refinancing milestone or achieve positive cash flow.

The same is true for KM. A KM implementation budget may be needed for over a decade, and the annual budget will usually increase during that time. It will be very difficult to secure the totality of such a budget in advance. Instead the KM team can learn from business start-ups and seek funding only as far as the next investment milestone.

 There are 5 main milestones or decision points in a KM implementation project which can be linked to the assignment of additional funds. At each of these milestones the budget is likely to increase.

1. The initial funding milestone is a decision to fund a temporary task force to determine whether KM is of sufficient potential interest that a KM team should be formed.

 2. The second milestone is a decision to fund a KM team to conduct the Assessment phase. The team will investigate the potential value to be gained through KM, the market for KM within the organisation, the needs of the stakeholders, the size of the potential prize, the current state of KM in the organisation, and how much investment is required. They will output a KM business case, strategy and implementation plan, and will make the case that the potential value in KM merits further funding.

3. If the KM team has made the case for investment in KM implementation, they will request a budget to fund the piloting stage. This decision allows the team to start testing and piloting initial KM approaches and prototype versions of the Framework within the organisation, focusing on solving business problems. Part of the purpose of the piloting stage is to gather data to show that KM delivers more value than it costs, and to justify the next decision.

4. The fourth decision comes at the end of the piloting stage, in order to fund the roll-out stage. If the pilots were successful, the value of KM to the business and to the employees has been proven, and the integrated KM framework has been tested in the business and shown to be robust. Now the organisation needs to fund roll-out of the Framework to the whole organisation.

 5. Once KM is embedded, the fifth milestone involves standing down the implementation team and handing KM over to a management team. At this stage funding will be operational funding rather than project funding. This phased approach, where investment for each phase is justified by the work of the previous phase, allows for an escalating set of evidence-based financing decisions and should ensure the KM budget does not run dry.

An alternative approach is to fund the program on an annual basis. This is what Mars did, according to Linda Davies, quoted in The Knowledge Manager’s Handbook.

“From the beginning, KM was run as a separate division with its own business plan, detailing how and why KM was to be implemented. The business plan followed standard business planning practice, with a broad three year time horizon and a detailed one year plan submitted annually as part of the regular business planning cycle. This detailed the overall objectives for the following year, the timescale for the planned activities plus the costs and resource requirements…. 

The power of focusing on two or three challenges in any one year became apparent, resulting in rapid progress and big wins and proving the concept of the value that KM can bring to the business. This led to a regular increase in KM budget and resource which enabled subsequent initiatives”

Think through how you will ensure you have the funds flow you need for KM implementation, and use successes to prove the concept and access the next stage of funding.

Last week I started a set of blog posts likening KM implementation to a business start-up. Here is number 5 in the series. 

Lean Start-up methodology, by Rebeca Zuniga on Flickr

This blog series uses this analogy of a start-up to inform KM implementation. It reviews 5 common reasons for start-up failure and suggests ways in which KM programs can avoid these failure modes. These common reasons are taken from  a great article by David Skok , and are as follows:

1. Little or no market for the product; 
2. The business model fails; 
3. Poor start-up management team; 
4. Running out of cash; 
5. Product problems.

The final reason that start-ups fail is because they develop a product that doesn’t meet the market need. In our case, the KM product is the management framework we introduce to the business, comprised of roles and accountabilities, processes, technology tools, and governance.

This failure mode often happens when the product is developed in isolation from the users, and turns out to be not what the market wants. An approach commonly used to avoid this pitfall is the Lean Start-up or Agile approach, where products are developed through an iterative series of prototypes. “Minimum viable products” are released to early adopters in cycles of Deploy, Measure, Learn, and the learning from each cycle is used to improve the product for the next cycle.

A minimum viable product is the simplest version of a product that will still add value to the customer, and the design team then use customer feedback to elaborate the product further. The piloting phase of KM implementation can use a similar approach.

KM Piloting has 4 objectives:

1. To gain learning about the application of the KM framework, which can be used to improve the framework and so develop it into a product that fits the market need; 
2. To test the market; 
3. To demonstrate value through KM in order to justify further investment, and 
4. To create success stories and user testimonials for marketing purposes. 

 In order to satisfy the first of these objectives, it makes sense to pilot, as early as possible, a minimum viable KM framework. This will not be a single KM tool, as one tool is not a framework. Instead it will be a complete but bare-bones management framework. And in order to satisfy objective 3, the bare-bones Framework should be applied to solve a real business problem. 

 For example, one organisation set up a simple KM framework to address problems in Production Engineering. A volunteer community coordinator set up monthly discussions using dial-in conference calls among a dozen enthusiasts around the globe, to discuss an identified agenda of critical knowledge issues. This minimum system added real value and solved several problems, and over time was extended to become a community of practice of several hundred people with a dedicated portal, software, meetings, roles and governance.

 Starting small and growing allowed the KM Framework to be tested at every step, and ensured that the final version of the Framework was exactly what the users needed in order to add value. The product grew to match the market need.

Use an Agile piloting approach to ensure your KM Product is tailored to the market

Last week I started a set of blog posts likening KM implementation to a business start-up. Here is number 3 in the series. 

Picture from Needpix, author geralt (pixabay.com)

This blog series uses this analogy of a start-up to inform KM implementation. It reviews 5 common reasons for start-up failure and suggests ways in which KM programs can avoid these failure modes. These common reasons are taken from  a great article by David Skok , and are as follows:

1. Little or no market for the product; 
2. The business model fails; 
3. Poor start-up management team; 
4. Running out of cash; 
5. Product problems.

If we look at the work of the KM team during KM implementation, we can see the following stages:

A strong leader such as described above can build a strong and balanced team, which needs the following skills mix:

• Facilitation skills. 
• Coaching and training skills. 
• Marketing/influencing/selling skills 
• Writing skills. 
• Technology skills. 
• Information management skills

There seems a tendency, which we have seen many times, to appoint teams made up entirely of information managers and librarians. The thought process seems to be

• “Knowledge is a little bit like Information” (wrong assumption number 1 – knowledge is not at all like information, although there is a small area of overlap)
• “If the KM team is managing knowledge, then they need information management skills” (wrong assumption number s 2 and 3 – the team is not managing knowledge, they are influencing the organisation to management knowledge, and  the primary skills they need are influencing skills, not IM skills, although you need some IM skills to cover the area of overlap).

Yesterday I started a set of blog posts likening KM implementation to a business start-up. Here is number 2 in the series. 

Picture by Tumisu (pixabay.com) on Needpix

In many ways, the initial implementation of Knowledge Management within an organisation is like the launch of a new product into a market by a start-up organisation, and there are many lessons KM can learn from start-ups; their failures and their successes.

(If you want to make a bad pun, you could call KM implementation a “Smart-up”).

This blog series uses this analogy to inform KM implementation by reviewing 5 common reasons for start-up failure and suggesting ways in which KM programs can avoid these failure modes. These common reasons are taken from  a great article by David Skok , and are as follows:

1. Little or no market for the product; 
2. The business model fails; 
3. Poor start-up management team; 
4. Running out of cash; 
5. Product problems.

In order to demonstrate a positive return on investment, the KM implementation team needs to:

• Understand the metrics that will convince senior management that KM is delivering a return on investment. Know what they want to see from KM, and know how this will be demonstrated or measured 
• Conduct short term pilot projects throughout the implementation that deliver demonstrable value, as proofs of concept that KM has a positive business model. These pilot projects should solve business problems, and ideally should impact business metrics. Early in KM implementation the KM Framework will still be in process of development, so use a Minimum Viable Framework – one that does just enough to deliver real value. The pilot will also deliver practical lessons that allow you to elaborate the framework.
• Collect and regularly report all examples of value delivered through KM, in the form of success stories and/or metrics. These will not only allow you to demonstrate a positive business model to your sponsors, showing that KM delivers more value than it costs; it will also provide valuable marketing collateral for further KM roll-out. 

Bear in mind the business model for KM, and how you will demonstrate that it is viable. Without this demonstration, you are vulnerable to losing your funding. 

If we liken KM implementation to a business start-up, there are many lessons we can learn and apply.

Image by www.inkmedia.eu on Flickr

In many ways, the initial implementation of Knowledge Management within an organisation is like the launch of a new product into a market by a start-up organisation.

You are preparing something which, in theory, is designed for a customer base of users, and which will you hope they will find valuable enough to adopt. Your product is a Knowledge Management Framework, your customer base are the knowledge managers within an organisation, your start-up company is the in-house KM team, and your investors are the senior managers who provide your budget.

The launch of new products by start-ups is fraught with difficulty. 20% of start-ups do not survive their first year, while 50% have failed before the end of their 5th year. Failure rates for Knowledge Management are often quoted as being in a similar range. Obviously both undertakings are far from easy, and arguably there may be much that KM can learn from business start-up.

This short series of 5 blog posts uses this analogy to inform KM implementation by reviewing 5 common reasons for start-up failure and suggesting ways in which KM programs can avoid these failure modes. These common reasons are taken from  a great article by David Skok , and are as follows:

1. Little or no market for the product; 
2. The business model fails; 
3. Poor start-up management team; 
4. Running out of cash; 
5. Product problems.

This blog post explores the first of these 5, and the others will be covered over the course of the next week.

Failure mode 1 – Little or no market for the product

How do we ensure there is a market for the KM product we build?

 David Skok describes this failure mode as occurring when there is little or no market for the product the start-up has built. In other words, there is not a compelling enough value proposition to cause the buyer to actually commit to purchasing. This could be because the product does not fulfil a buyers need, or the market is not yet ready, or the customer base is too small. Whatever the reason, you have built a product for which there is no market.

We see this in KM implementation when we roll out our KM Framework and KM solution, and there is little uptake. We have built something nobody wants.

This failure mode can be addressed initially by proper analysis of market needs before KM implementation begins. It will also be further addressed by “Agile” product development, which I cover in a later post.

Any KM implementation program should begin with a thorough analysis of the internal market for KM, the value proposition for all stakeholders, a preliminary view of the “gap in the market” and a clear understanding of the KM USP within the organisation.

The ISO standard 30401:2018 suggests three foundational activities for KM, described below, which help with this market analysis.

 Understanding the organization and its context 

This involves an analysis of the external and internal issues that affect the organisations ability to achieve the intended outcome of its KM Framework; the market constraints if you will.

Understanding the needs and expectations of interested parties (stakeholders) 

This involves identifying the stakeholders for KM, and their requirements. In Siemens they recognised two main classes of stakeholder, “the business” and the user. We can add a third to this, to determine three primary internal stakeholders for Knowledge Management; as follows:

• Senior management; those who sponsor the KM program. In the analogy with a business start-up, these are the investors. They want to see a return on investment, in whichever way they define it. It may be a financial ROI, or it may be “fewer mistakes”, “less rework”, “better customer satisfaction” or some other metric. 
• The knowledge workers, who will benefit from use of the KM Framework. In the analogy with a business start-up, these are the end users, or consumers. They want KM do do something for them that is more valuable than the time of effort required to take part. Perhaps KM will make their life easier or less risky in some way. 
• The middle managers, whose cooperation you need in order to adopt KM within their teams. In the analogy with business start-up, these are the dealers or the retailers. They “buy” KM from you in order to “sell” it to their teams of knowledge workers. They will adopt KM in order to make their teams more efficient or more effective. 

The KM team should not only identify these stakeholders and their needs, they should develop a value proposition for each stakeholder group in order both to understand what KM needs to do to deliver value to the stakeholder, and also to be able to effectively market and sell KM.

To these activities we can add a third:

Identifying the USP for KM

You need to be able to say what KM does that is new and different; it’s Unique Selling Point. It could be something like:

• KM eliminates the cost of lost knowledge (and it helps if you can value that cost)
• KM helps you find the knowledge you need to do your job
• KMis the driver for continuous improvement across the organisation.

This can be the basis for your KM vision, brand, strapline and marketing campaign.

If you can do your market research as described above, then you can be assured that there is a market for KM, and can start to design your product to satisfy that market. 

In a 2015 video reprise from Edward Rogers, CKO of NASA Goddard, he explains what he sees as the 5 most common mistakes in implementing KM.

All of these stem from one reason, which is that KM people too often fail to learn from the experience of the past. Edward’s 5 reasons for failure are these;

1. Attempting to implement a KM system in a hurry, by “buying a KM program”. KM at NASA has been a 10 year proposition.
2. “Gaming” KM; trying to manipulate people though tricks and incentives
3. Applying a KM framework “off the shelf” rather than tailoring it to your own context
4. Selling KM with an unrealistic revenue target (but also see his video on quantifying the value of KM pilot projects)
5. Letting IT and the CIO handle KM, which ends up with a data and information system, not a KM system

Compare these with our list of the most common reasons KM programs fail

Say what you like about the ISO KM standard; at least it encourages you to address KM in the correct order!

There are many approaches adopted for introducing KM, and not all of them work well. For example the historically common approach of “Technology Push” – where an organisation seeks to buy a KM technology as their first step into KM – is usually a recipe for failure. It is still common today – I have many enquiries from organisations who say “we are starting up in KM – help us choose a technology”.

Starting like this, from the KM tool, is starting KM the wrong way around.  There is no point in choosing a tool until you are clear what you are doing KM, for who, and with what objective; until you understand the stakeholders and objectives, and also the other elements of the KM Framework which need to be in place.

This is where the beginners in KM will find the new ISO standard – ISO 30401:2018 – particularly useful (contact us for a free white-paper introduction to the standard). In common with all other ISO management system standards, IOS 30401:2018 follows a defined structure (described here) which doubles as a logical sequence for building your KM Framework. ISO have standards for many management systems, they know how they work and how to introduce them, and the logical sequence is based on this experience.

This sequence is described in sections 4 through 10 of the standard as follows;

• First you become clear on the organisational context for KM. Why do you need KM? What will it do for the organisation? What are the external and internal issues which make KM important to you?  This answers the WHY question – why do you need KM? It ties KM to the strategy of the organisation right at the start of the KM thought process; well before you  think about tools.
• Secondly you become clear on the stakeholders for KM, and what they need from the KM framework. This is another way of looking at KM objectives. In the previous section you decided what KM would do for the organisation, in this section you think through, and document, what it will do for the stakeholders. 
• Thirdly you look at the scope of KM. What is in scope, what is out of scope, what will KM focus in and what it will ignore, what part of the organisation will be involved and what parts will not. 
• Only then do you define the Framework – the elements of roles, processes, technology and governance, and how these will affect the culture of the organisation. You look at an integrated framework that covers the lifecycle of knowledge, and covers knowledge in all its forms and transitions. 
• Once this is in place, the standard requires you to look in more detail at the leadership elements that support the KM framework, including the assignment of accountability.
• Then you look at planning and objective setting for KM.
• Then you look at support resources for KM.
• Then you look at how KM operation, KM monitoring and performance management, and finally continuous improvement of the KM Framework.

Now THAT is KM “the right way round”