Knowledge management
and communism are a lot alike. Both are theoretical systems that
promised astounding results . Both failed to deliver. At least that
was true when knowledge management was the fad du jour.
In the mid-90s, knowledge management the term seemed to pop up
everywhere and knowledge management became THE hot management
fad. It was hailed as something that would transform your entire
organization, if not civilization as we know it. Profitability
and good will would reign.
Everyone scrambled to climb aboard the knowledge management bandwagon.
The journals filled to choking with knowledge management articles.
Schools rushed to offer courses and create degree programs in
knowledge management. Consultants, who know that fads mean billable
dollars, trumpeted their knowledge management expertise.
Then, almost as suddenly as it began, the fad waned. Consultants
started talking about other areas of expertise. Schools pushed
the courses and programs to the inside pages of their catalogs.
And while the articles on knowledge management kept appearing,
they didn't promise as much as they used to.
What happened? In part it was the normal management fad life
cycle. In the mid-90s, we were ready for a new fad. Business process
re-engineering and downsizing had begun to show cracks in their
facades. Consultants needed something new and universal to sell.
Knowledge management promised grand results. And, since it was
most often presented as a magic technological solution, it also
benefited from the Great Dot-Com Bubble exuberance.
Most management fads have about a five year run because that's
about how long it takes for practical reality to catch up with
the hype. That's how it went for knowledge management, but the
concept of managing knowledge assets still sparks interest.
For years, Bain and Company has surveyed corporate use of management
tools. Sixty-two percent of the senior executives Bain surveyed
said they used knowledge management.
They may try it, but they don't like it. Knowledge management
gets one of the lowest satisfaction ratings of the twenty-five
tools Bain tracks. There's clearly a gap between promise and performance.
So is there really any value in the concept of managing knowledge?
The answer is "yes," but only if you spend some time sorting
out the language problem. Most articles on knowledge management
simply aren't clear about what knowledge is.
To verify this, paste the text from an article about knowledge
management into your word processor. Then replace the word "knowledge"
with "information" everywhere it appears. The odds are pretty
good that the meaning of the article will remain unchanged.
That's OK in common usage where "information" and "knowledge"
mean about the same thing. But for knowledge management we need
them to be terms of art with distinct meanings.
They're part of the hierarchy of data, information, and knowledge.
Data are raw facts. The figure that represents current Days Sales
Outstanding (DSO) is a bit of data.
Information is data with context or comparison. Add comparison
with DSO statistics from the last year or with figures for other
companies in your industry, and you have a piece of information.
Knowledge is information with guidance for action. Guidelines
for dealing with different DSO situations would be knowledge.
Only human beings actually create knowledge. But after that,
technology can help. Technology can help you capture knowledge
in the form of guidelines for action in databases and in documents.
Technology can be use to collect and verify data. Data are the
foundation of the system. If the data are flawed, the information
will be flawed and the knowledge will be useless or worse.
If you understand that, you can profit from knowledge management.
There are three knowledge management models that seem to be working.
Simple information sharing, using technology to connect people
to each other and to information can be set up easily and inexpensively.
Consider things like discussion lists and annotated directories
and document indices.
At the other end of the complexity and cost spectrum, dedicated
knowledge management systems to help with specific areas of practice
work well when they're well conceived, designed and executed.
Consider examples like the system Dell uses to handle tech support.
Finally, and perhaps most powerfully, there are systems that
mate sophisticated measurement systems, like a Balanced Scorecard,
with technology. The result is an application that often goes
by the name "Digital Cockpit" or "Digital Dashboard."
All three of those models work because they're based on an understanding
of knowledge in the workplace. They work because they're not high-flown
theory, just knowledge management in work clothes.
Top of page
Here are a
variety of resources to help you use data, information and knowledge
effectively to improve organizational results. These and other resources
are also on the Support Site for a program of mine called "Straight
Talk About Knowledge Management for CEOs." That program also
includes a discussion of the Balanced Scorecard and Digital Cockpits.
Academic Sites
Knowledge Management Publications
Consultant Sites on Knowledge Management
19 October 2004
Reprinting and Reposting This Column
You may reprint or repost this article providing
that the following conditions are met:
- The article remains essentially unaltered.
- Wally Bock is shown as the author.
- The notice Copyright 2004 by Wally Bock or similar appears
on the article.
- Contact information for Wally is included with the article.
You may refer readers to this Web site as a way to meet this
requirement. Please link to http://www.bockinfo.com/
- Here is the wording we suggest when linking to this site.
"The article you've just read can be found on Wally Bock's extensive
Resource Web site along with many other articles and resources."
Any other reprinting or reposting requires specific permission
which is almost always granted. Click
here to request permission if necessary.
