Monday, 26 June 2017

How in the world do you do KM?

Hot off the press, the Knoco 2017 Global KM survey is now available!

The survey revisited the topics first surveyed in 2014, such as:
  • Reasons for doing KM
  • Maturity levels
  • KM scope
  • Challenges
  • KM skills
  • Implementation and governance
  • Value created
  • KM budgets
  • Technology
  • KM processes
  • Best practices
  • Lesson learning
  • Culture
  • Communities of Practice
In 2014, we had over 200 responses - this time the number surpassed 400!

For a copy of the survey results, please contact me direct or via the Knoco website

Wednesday, 10 May 2017

Get together with fellow KMers now and then - it's inspiring!

For a few days last week, I swapped Wiltshire’s winding lanes for San Francisco’s frantic streets.  I’d been invited to speak at KA Connect – a Knowledge Management (KM) conference for the AEC industry (i.e. Architecture, Engineering and Construction).  More about my involvement in a future blog post….

The conference was attended by a little over 220 people, drawn from the 3 sectors, and focused on 2 key themes:

·        Critical knowledge – i.e. how to define, capture and manage it;

·        KM strategy – i.e. how to use KM to support a firm’s commercial strategy.

In the parlance of the moment, I took a number of ‘take-aways’ from the event, some of which I’ll explore in future posts but, to summarise here:

·        After so many years of battling the yet-to-be-convinced, getting together with other people that ‘get it’ is good for one’s KM mental health!

·        Twitter enables speakers’ insights to reach the wider world within seconds which, for most people reading this blog, will always be remarkable;

·        Larry Prusak remains the Godfather of KM, and deservedly so;

·        As with military operations, so with life – prior planning prevents piss-poor performance….

More to come….

For a conversation about how managing your knowledge can help improve performance, please contactme direct, or via the Knoco website.

Friday, 21 April 2017

Ignorance can sometimes help innovation....

A great little story in the news today with a couple of insights for those of us interested in knowledge management (KM).

This Telegraph news article here tells how a 16-year old schoolboy on work experience helped address the problems encountered when a heart by-pass surgery patient's records are unavailable and there is no way of knowing what work has been done before.

Observing his father (a cardiologist) dealing with a patient in this situation, he asked whether there was some way of writing a code inside the patient, so that future surgeons would have the information they needed straight away, enabling further surgery to take place without undue delay.

This innocent question sparked an idea, which resulted in his father developing a system

Two observations:
  • The schoolboy was not part of the surgical team and had no direct or relevant experience that might have been helpful in this situation.  However, this 'ignorance' was to his advantage, as it meant he approached the problem with a fresh outlook.  In many day-to-day activities at work, there are times when a new perspective can help a team tackle a problem or improve performance and KM activities like a Peer Assist can help bring different perspectives to a team and new insights to a problem.
  • Thankfully, the surgical team did not suffer from the 'not invented here' syndrome, whereby people resist external initiatives or suggestions simply because they came from an outsider.  This is sadly the default workplace condition and all too often leads to 'groupthink', preventing or inhibiting innovation.  Teams that have developed a learning culture are more likely to be receptive to new ideas.
For a chat about bringing new perspectives to your team, innovation or knowledge management in general, please contact me direct or via the Knoco website.

Tuesday, 14 March 2017

These things don't happen on their own, you know....

At university, I read Politics and Philosophy, which included a module called, 'Space, Time and Infinity'.  It was awesome.  I loved irritating my housemates by pretending not to understand vague terms such as 'this morning' or 'tomorrow night'...

Various theories have been put forward to show that time is a real phenomenon, as opposed to a construction of human thinking to help us make greater sense of the world and our place in it.

One of these is the 'entropic theory of time', which I shall simplify, if only to spare my blushes and retain your attention.

Entropy means 'disorder'.  Most things in our world, free from outside interference, will become disordered, thereby showing greater entropy.  It is this direction, from order to disorder, that shows the passage (and direction) of time.  Think of the untended, increasingly weedy garden, the neglected, muddy car or indeed any room in the house recently visited by small children....

So far, so what?

Much of human existence has required our 'interference' in things, to create and sustain the things that enable us to live the lives we enjoy today.  The food we eat, the clothes we wear and the transport we take have all been developed through our deliberately choosing to do things and to continue doing those things.  Some discoveries have been accidental (e.g. some vaccines, hot air balloons, Post-it notes etc.) but our exploitation of them has only been possible through our continued, deliberate efforts.

As it is with human history, so it is with knowledge management (KM).

Without KM, organisations remain in states of entropy, to greater or lesser degrees:
  • New ideas don't take hold and spread without the energy with which (or the channels along which) to move them - which means innovations remain isolated;
  • Lessons don't get identified and DEFINITELY don't get learned, without people making the necessary effort - which means the same mistakes get made, over and over again;
  • Best practices don't get developed, let alone embedded, without a system of creation, review and update - which means performance is inconsistent and the quality varied;
  • Knowledge doesn't stick around when people leave without a system of retention and transfer - which means those left behind have to start from scratch, all over again.
Without a deliberate KM approach, far too many organisations resemble the unkempt garden, the dirty car or the sofa with crayon scrawled all over it:  mistakes are repeated, over and over again; business continues to be lost from failed bids; time is wasted tracking down the guy that did this thing before.

So, KM is not 'natural' and will not happen by itself.  It requires a deliberate decision from senior management to investigate, design, test and implement a KM approach.

We don't have inviting gardens by accident; we don't have clean cars by accident and we don't have tidy houses by accident (nor, for that matter, presentable children) - so why on earth would we expect our knowledge to be managed by accident?

If you'd like a conversation about deliberately choosing to manage your organisation's knowledge, contact me direct or via the Knoco website.

Thursday, 9 March 2017

The last 10 problems that clients have asked us to solve....

At Knoco, we get queries of all sorts, with clients seeking our help in providing knowledge management (KM) solutions to a wide range of problems. 

I thought readers of this blog might be interested in a quick run-down of what these problems are, and how we have helped (or might yet do so).

So, in reverse order, they are:
  • A global consultancy, introducing a technology platform to a Chinese client, want us to provide the KM roles, processes and governance to maximise the benefits available;
  • A global law firm seeks our help in getting teams from different geographical and functional areas to talk to one another; we'll be running a short workshop for them, which will include the Bird Island game;
  • A Chinese manufacturing firm has numerous problems of quality, cost over-runs and also its staff take a long time to become competent and generate value; we're currently helping them to develop a KM business case, to justify the investment needed for the project that will help address these issues;
  • A UK-based defence consultancy is looking to introduce KM but is concerned about employee engagement; we'll be running a workshop (again, with Bird Island) to show the value of KM and help them begin their journey;
  • A Middle Eastern utilities organisation has introduced KM but its take-up is patchy, with isolated examples of good practice; they've asked us to conduct a KM assessment and draft an implementation plan;
  • A global jewellery firm wants to introduce KM but doesn't know how or where to start; we've been asked to design and implement a KM pilot project for them;
  • Another global consultancy has many employees spread far and wide, all of whom seek the advice and support of one or two 'grey beard' experts, which continually diverts these high-value staff members from 'big picture' issues; they've asked us to design and plan a KM pilot project for them;
  • A UK regulator has isolated experts, pockets of good practice and virtually no learning from experience; we've designed a KM framework for them, edited their KM strategy and are about to start KM training;
  • A UK consultancy to the healthcare sector has a low 'bid win rate' and fails either to identify or learn lessons from its bids; we've been asked to look at ways of using KM elements to help it win more business, and learn from each new engagement;
  • A global consultancy to the oil/gas sector is introducing KM; we've conducted a KM assessment, designed a framework and trained their 'KM champions'; we've now been asked to provide ongoing support over the next 12 month.
If any of these sound familiar, or you have a different problem, and think we might be able to help, please contact me direct, or via the Knoco website.

Wednesday, 22 February 2017

How to identify, select and plan a KM pilot project

I've blogged before about using 'pilot projects' to introduce knowledge management (KM) into an organisation.  That post (here) explained their use in terms of building support for KM and thereby slowly changing the culture. 

KM pilot project seeks to introduce and combine a number of KM elements to address a specific business problem.  This has two key benefits:
  • It enables the wider KM implementation effort to trial, test and adjust KM framework elements before rolling them out to the entire organisation, thereby minimising disruption and cost;
  • It alleviates problems and wins further investment from senior management, as well as creating 'good news' stories with which KM can be sold to the wider organisation as part of a communications plan.
Let's now look at how we might identify, select and plan such a project.  Since we at Knoco currently have 4 clients at various stages of this process, I thought this would be worth exploring....

First off, run a workshop at which current business issues can be discussed and a shortlist of viable pilots selected.  The following steps might come in handy:
  • Send out calling notice across the organisation, inviting functional leads and/or senior managers to present and discuss their current 'pain points' - a rough agenda at this stage;
  • Book venue, facilitator, workshop 'stuff' (i.e. flipcharts, post-its, pens etc.);
  • Send out confirmatory notice, with a finalised agenda;
  • Suggested workshop agenda:
    • Introductions - of one another
    • Introduction to knowledge management (KM) - to create a common understanding
    • KM tools, processes, approaches - to show what KM elements involve and achieve
    • KM case-studies - to demonstrate how KM alleviates problems and creates value
    • Presentations - each team or department describes their current issues 
    • Discussion - combinations of KM elements are suggested for each problem, for example:
Having identified a number of areas where KM might help, a system of voting and selection is needed to enable a KM pilot project to be planned.  This can happen at the above workshop or afterwards, based on written-up notes etc.  Methods may vary, but a number of criteria should be considered to enable each potential pilot to be judged fairly.  The following are suggestions only - there will be others:
  • Business impact
    • Is knowledge a key factor in delivering business performance?
    • Will the impact of the knowledge be demonstrated in a short enough time?
  • Business advocacy
    • Is there a local business sponsor?
    • Will there be a local person accountable for the delivery of the KM project?
  • Transferability and reach
    • Do cross-business customers exist for the knowledge gained from the project?
    • Will the knowledge and learnings from the project have strategic potential for growth?
  • Feasibility
    • Can we make time/space for people to work on the project?
    • Do we have enough skilled KM resources available?
Each potential pilot project can be awarded scores against each of these criteria, with the highest 3 shortlisted for further scope definition and a GO/NO GO decision from senior management.

Having selected a KM pilot project, we must now plan it.  This will require a number of in-depth conversations with key stakeholders, to understand fully the current business context and then formalise a planned response.

The output from these inter-actions will be terms of reference document and implementation plan, covering:
  • Context - why is this happening?
  • Scope - what is included?  What is not?
  • Stakeholders - who's involved?
  • Governance - who's in charge?
  • Approach - how do we do this?
  • Resources - who can help?
  • Costs - how much?
  • Schedule - when and in what order?
  • Deliverables - what will we have to show for our efforts?
  • Benefits - how much value will we create?
  • Metrics - how do we measure success?
The costs and benefits can be presented in a business case, which is a discrete activity in its own right and which I will examine in greater depth in another post.

For a conversation about knowledge management pilot projects, or about anything to do with KM, please contact me direct or via the Knoco website.

Friday, 10 February 2017

Anonymity vs. Attribution

In an earlier post, we looked at the importance of accountability to good knowledge management (KM).  Accountability underpins the effective management of anything at all – money, people, safety and definitely knowledge.
I’m now going to examine two related opposing concepts and how they can affect KM – namely, anonymity and attribution.

I’ll first look at each concept in turn, pointing out its effects and how those can be both positive or negative, depending on the context.
Then, I’ll look at how good KM is helped or hindered by them, with some suggestions on when one should be preferred over the other.


A piece of work is anonymous when its author’s identity remains unknown to us, the readers.  This has two important effects:

1.       The author can write whatever they like, released from the consequences that might otherwise result from that such freedom might have if we knew their identify;

2.       We, the readers, are forced to judge the piece of work based on its content alone, and not the identity or background of its author.

We can consider either of these effects positively or negatively, depending on the situation:

1.       Consequences

a.       Positive – a ‘whistle-blower’ is able to raise concerns about wrongdoing or crimes, protected from possible coercion from those involved;

b.       Negative – social media ‘trolls’ can abuse or threaten people online, or can spread lies or other misinformation, without consequences;

2.       Content alone; no context

a.       Positive – biases, prejudices or other ‘mental models’ cannot act as filters, which open us up to reading content we might otherwise miss;

b.       Negative – we have no way of knowing whether the writer is experienced or qualified, let alone credible and may simply be wasting our time.


A piece of work is attributed when its author’s identity is known to us, the readers.  This also has two important effects which are of course the ‘flip side’ of those relating to anonymity, above:

1.       The author is no longer free to write whatever they like, for they remain tied to the consequences that might flow from our knowing their identify;

2.       We, the readers, can now judge the piece of work in context, not solely on its content but also by taking into account the identity or background of its author.

Again, these effects can be positive or negative, depending on the situation:

1.       Consequences

a.       Positive – attributed works are generally more likely to be considered, responsible and thoughtful, since favourable reception enhances the author’s reputation;

b.       Negative – there is a risk of euphemism, obfuscation or even dishonesty, as people seek to protect themselves from negative reactions were ‘the truth’ to come out;

2.       Context applied

a.       Positive – contextual consideration helps us to understand and judge a work; focusing on those from people with credibility and expertise; as well as enabling us to follow up with the author, asking questions or offering further insight;

b.       Negative – ‘group-think’ may occur, as fewer sources are considered, thereby increasing the risk of missing a perspective that might be valid but never gets heard.

How do these affect KM?

I’ll now run through a list of KM interventions or tools, highlighting the use they make of anonymity or attribution:

·        KM Assessments – at Knoco, our assessment and benchmarking service involves interviewing people drawn from across the client organisation, to understand how they work with knowledge and identify areas for improvement.  The output, either a written report or slides, or both, contains anonymised quotes from these interviews help to bring the report to life and show what things are really like.  For example, whilst the report might state refer to ‘silos’ and ‘inter-departmental relationships’, a killer quote really makes the point far more vividly, thus: “Tribalism is a problem here still; everyone knows this but it's not acceptable to say so publically; it's an undiscussable. It persists because top management do nothing to address it.”  Here, anonymity gives senior management an insight that normal, open reporting channels would not permit.

·        Knowledge-harvesting Interviews – these are a very effective way of getting knowledge out of people’s heads and into a form that can reach far more of their colleagues than would be possible face-to-face.  We would almost always recommend that the output be attributable, so that readers can follow up with the interviewee if they have questions or comments.  Also, it means that the output is more credible because the readers know who it came from – usually an acknowledged expert in a particular field, hence the interview.  When attributed interview transcripts are typed up and distributed or posted online, the interviewee should always have the right to review and edit the output for the simple reason that others will not engage if they hear that they might be misquoted or have their words used against them in some way.

·        Knowledge Assets – these are often created with reference to many different interviews and other KM capture activities and, as with interview transcripts, should generally be attributed, for the same reasons.  Providing the contributors’ name and contact details enables users to get in touch and offer further insights or feedback – something that is not possible if the content is all anonymous.  Also, anonymous content, unless it has gone through an established and credible validation process, will always lack the credibility of its attributed counterpart.  People need to know where the guidance and advice is coming from, otherwise they will be reluctant to use it.

o   Case-study – Some years ago, working as an analyst for the British Army’s newly-formed Lessons Exploitation Centre, I helped to produce a series of ‘Good Practice Guides’, full of anonymous insights and advice gleaned from Post-Operational Reports and Interviews.  It took time for us to earn a reputation as a credible source of knowledge and, with hindsight, I think we should have retained the source and author of each ‘nugget’, in order to show its provenance and enabled readers to follow up.

o   By contrast, a Battlegroup from my Regiment (The Rifles) produced a very helpful and credible post-tour handbook, full of insights, advice, tactics and case-studies – each of which was fully-sourced and attributed, enabling readers to judge the validity for themselves.

·        Lessons – At Knoco we help organisations capture lessons at the end of projects through the Retrospect process – a facilitated discussion between project team members, to identify learning points and make recommendations for the future.  Facilitation is needed to help participants examine events in a structured way, and this outsider, with no direct knowledge of the project, can ensure that lessons are written for the benefit of future users as opposed to recording events merely for posterity.  Lessons will be written up so as to balance the candour needed for effective reflection whilst protecting participants from direct quotation.  Like with interviews, draft lessons are returned to a project team member for review and editing, to ensure accuracy whilst reassuring future participants.

·        Knowledge Exchanges – these events bring people together to focus upon and discuss one particular topic, to facilitate the creation or update of a Knowledge Asset (see above), or to enable direct transfer between those with knowledge to those in need of it.  As with any KM activity, Terms of Reference help to ensure that all participants understand the event’s purpose and approach.  Notably, some events may use what are termed here in the UK as ‘Chatham House rules’, which means that formal capture and publication of any content may be allowed, but only without attribution.  The aim of such an approach is to enable speakers to do so more freely than they otherwise might, if they thought their every word would appear in print in due course.

·        Discussion forums – available across the internet as well as within medium or large organisations, these enable users to raise questions or start a discussion on a particular topic.  Most internet forums enable users to use an anonymous ‘handle’, thereby leading to honesty that may be painful, the ‘trolling abuse’ mentioned above, as well as running the risk that contributions are either unhelpful or even mendacious.  Some forums nowadays enable users to score both individual users and their contributions based on how ‘useful’ they have been.  Over time, this enables users to acquire ‘credibility’, thereby addressing, albeit partially, the issue of whether users should trust advice from an anonymous source.  Internal forums usually retain users’ identity, to enable subsequent follow-up and offline discussion, as well as ensuring that debate remains, for the whole part, civilised.

o   Case-study – Mumsnet is a well-known parenting forum where users can seek help or ask for insights on virtually any topic, albeit with a domestic bias.  99.9% of users have anonymous handles and debate is forthright.  Interestingly, users can and do change their name at any point and many do so, temporarily, in order to offer contributions that they feel unable to make from behind their (still anonymous) online persona.  Proof perhaps that sometimes we don’t like having to remain accountable for things we say, even amongst people whom we have never met.

A final observation – I used to work as a trained Samaritans volunteer, something I’ve mentioned before with relation to KM, here.
There are a number of factors that combine to enable Samaritans to do their job, which is to provide emotional support to people in crisis, including those that may be feeling suicidal.  However, the most important one, in my view, is the fact that callers and visitors to Samaritans centres can be 100% anonymous if they wish, and can share as much or as little about their lives as they wish.

This freedom means there is no comeback.  Which means they can be 100% honest – something they can’t be with their husbands, wives, partners, friends or colleagues.  It’s very hard to let those to whom we are closest see us at our most vulnerable but, somewhat paradoxically, it’s far easier to do so with complete strangers, to whom we shall probably never speak again.

I hope I have shown that neither anonymity nor attribution are always appropriate.  What matters is the outcome that we as KMers are trying to achieve – if we need warts and all honesty to understand truly what happened, then anonymity will help but we run the risk the output may not be wholly credible. 

Conversely, if we want to enable feedback and continued engagement with credible sources, attribution will be needed, with the understanding that there may not be full transparency, at least not until trust has been established.

For a conversation about anonymity and attribution and how they affect KM, please contact me direct or via the Knoco website.