Carol RozwellI had the opportunity to review an organization’s strategic plan for knowledge management recently. While the document was well organized and covered the essential points one would expect (scope, goals, objectives, opportunites and risks), it described an approach that sounded circa 2000. When I spoke with the uber manager, they explained the trouble they were having getting the project manager to think differently about knowledge management – to shift the paradigm from capture to connections. In some recent research on knowledge management in an age of social software (Socialization of Knowledge Management), I described this shift and its implications for the supply and demand side of knowledge. But somehow the changes were not being included in the plan.
So if you were in the manager’s place, what would you do to help people on your team understand the change that has taken place?
What are your tips for exposing colleagues to the joys of social software?
Category: Change management Collaboration Knowledge management Tags: Change management, Collaboration, Knowledge management, Social networks, social software
7 responses so far ↓
1 Andrew Miller August 20, 2009 at 7:37 am
I have found that for most work groups it is important to build trust and community through meaningful conversation first. This happens when you use techniques that specifically break down hierarchy and allow every person to have a voice. This is my technique for getting people to take ownership of the solution before actually implementing the social software solution.
I really appreciate your take on KM and the idea that it needs to be socialized because I couldn’t agree more. For me the key is making it community centric because communities are a place of trust and energy (at least healthy ones are). Feeling safe to share (trust) and excited to be a part of something bigger than ones self (community, energy) can drive social knowledge into a useful form.
Sorry for the long winded response, this is a topic that is near and dear to me both on an organizational level and a human level.
2 Glenn August 20, 2009 at 7:39 am
Call it expertise management instead of knowledge management.
3 Carol Rozwell August 20, 2009 at 7:48 am
Well actually I don’t like the term ‘knowledge management’ at all. The real issue is enabling access to knowledge, where ever it exists. The goal is to create links to knowledge sources – which include content, context and people.
4 Andrew Miller August 20, 2009 at 9:00 am
Carol, thank you for the contact/question. For context: “Do you have examples of one or two questions you could share to help people think about how they take ownership?”
Response:
I would be hard pressed to give a really good “calling question” without the context of an actual work group but here is an example I used for one group I’m working with.
The group itself has gone through a great deal of change over the past 12 months. This includes the division of the work group where 2/3rds of the group were physically moved and then had most of their responsibilities removed from them. After going through some process improvement exercises that resulted in a huge trust break between staff and administration the group is now struggling to define itself.
The key here is to start from a more “grassroots” base, building trust between staff/line management itself, then allowing the group as a whole to answer the question:
“Understanding the knowledge I hold about our enterprise, my expertise and the interest that I hold; when we look forward as a group where are our opportunities to allow our expertise and energy to emerge to the benefit of the enterprise?”
This is a slightly longer version of the “calling question” because of the lack of context here in the comment post versus the real world implementation but you get the idea. The design of the conversation is very important behind this, asking questions that direct the conversation either from group to individual or the other way round depending on what you are trying to accomplish.
While the process may seem cumbersome just to wind up with an online collaboration tool the reality is that KM hasn’t worked because the culture surrounding it helped it to fail. Changing an organization (or community) culture takes significant investment.
A couple of keys are to focus on a better future and what that looks like to the participants. Whoever shows up is the right person because they have the energy and desire to witness change; others will come along as they are ready. Another key component is that you set very realistic parameters about the focus.
In the example I gave the group was so distrusting because previous efforts (like Kaizen) failed at the end of the process because the administration didn’t like what had been developed and cancelled it, breaking the trust bond that was created when the event started with “whatever you come up with we will implement”.
The difference here is that we are fundamentally changing how the group works together at the very lowest level and then expanding that out as the small successes build. The community that builds becomes a repository of social knowledge being shared back and forth as is necessary and this can then be captured fairly easy using simple collaboration tools.
The culture has to become one of sharing, of social responsibility at the very basic form of it, the work group.
Phew. No that was long winded…
5 Carol Rozwell August 20, 2009 at 9:11 am
Andrew, thank you so much for the detailed response. As I read your comments, I was struck by the fact that your advice is equally applicable when an organization is trying to figure out how to take advantage of social software.
The discussion has to explore what work practices the organization wants to change, then where social software might support that goal. Too often the discussion begins with the question, “what tool should pick – a wiki or a blog?”
6 Andrew Miller August 20, 2009 at 9:18 am
Yes! The very reason that some social sites die is because there is no community of interest willing to support them; we may be using slightly different wording but essentially a community has to be created that is willing to hold sharing as a priority. At that point the software solutions fall in place because they are just a tool for social knowledge, they aren’t expected to be the driver of social knowledge.
7 Chris Jones August 20, 2009 at 10:45 am
I agree strongly on the problem with “trust”.
But in recent open web brainstorms, we’ve concluded that the root cause blocking open collaboration … and what is seemingly responsible for a broad climate of distrust in the enterprise … is prevailing “corporate culture”.
To drive change, many continue to advocate grass roots initiatives and pilots (ie., “just show them the potential”). These are well intentioned, and I have been a part of several. But social media drives new behaviors .. ultimately seeding a paradigm shift in work group interaction, and even how we communicate.
Unless all levels of management embrace collaboration as the primary driver of business innovation and cross-functional team behaviors … KM will continue to fail.
The name “KM” is not helping win the battle for mind share.
I think we should try “Collaborative Services” – focusing on the connecting of people. It’s about engagement and connecting, not collecting artifacts.
We are innovation engineers, not archeologists.
I’ve starting using the phrase “Collaborative Innovation” more and more too. It’s a mouthful, but it can do powerful things to link two interdependent imperatives.
Ultimately, I’m engaged on these issues in a couple of ways. I know of two open-web working groups to drive knowledge co-creation, and there is a weekly, on-going brainstorm of best practices on Twitter.
Would love to have you guys join us.
Thanks Carol for driving discussion on a key topic. Very glad to see Gartner is focused on this.
Chris (@SourcePOV)
Cary, NC
Leave a Comment