Today I met with the Chief Information Officer (CIO) of a large telecommunications company (telco) here in the UK.
Whilst the details of our chat remain confidential, a brief over-view of some of the issues might resonate with others that are also having to manage knowledge and information in vast quantities whilst relying on large numbers of contractors and service providers.Our conversation focused on the realities of managing knowledge in an organisation where the majority of the work is done by external suppliers. At the company in question, 300 permanent headcount are managing, and supported by, over 50 suppliers, at a ratio of 1:8 (i.e. 8 outsourced people for every permanent one).
· Lack of in-house knowledge, especially of a complex technical nature. One pertinent example was that of a 10 year contract, currently in its eighth year, with a large IT firm. The product at the heart of this contract has evolved so much that the client company now lacks sufficient knowledge to be able to use a different supplier. However, having learned from this, the client now insists that contracts ensure that it retains ownership of any intellectual property (IP). Also, it has stipulated that it retains responsibility for Enterprise Architecture governance (i.e. alignment of IT development with business strategic goals) as well as requiring its supplier to update the client’s own product artefacts (i.e. akin to knowledge assets). Despite these measures, the CIO conceded that its own in-house knowledge base is insufficient, leaving it vulnerable to some of its suppliers.
· The risk of knowledge loss has been met by requiring suppliers to ‘pair programmers’. This is effectively an in-built redundancy which ensures continuity of effort in the event of sickness or unplanned departure. This initiative has improved both speed of development and quality of product and these benefits have outweighed what initially appears to be a costly headcount. A further measure designed to mitigate the risk of supplier dependence is that of retaining the right to interview and approve anyone provided by the supplier to work for the client. As working relationships have strengthened and deepened, this right has been exercised only for key senior positions.
· The lessons identified from the performance reviews of large contracts (i.e. of which the previous points are but two examples) inform the client’s supplier strategy, which is itself reviewed on an annual basis. This ensures that learning from one contractual relationship can be carried over to others, where appropriate and practical to do so.
· All projects are subject to Project Implementation Reviews (PIR), during which lessons are captured and documented. Where necessary, actions are assigned to embed the learning, with the governance provided by the Project Management Office (PMO) ensuring that such retrospective learning happens consistently.
· However, interestingly there appeared to be few examples of ‘learning before’ projects (i.e. whereby a new Project Manager actively uses historic lessons and experienced personnel to ensure the new project repeats previous good practice and does not repeat past mistakes). Indeed, the preference for “starting with a clean sheet” appeared to be a cultural phenomenon but my host conceded that this ‘wheel re-invention’ must be costly, in terms of both time and money.
Overall, it was a useful insight into how this telco is using the contracts with its suppliers to manage its knowledge. They're not doing everything right and there are some glaring gaps in its KM tool-set but at least they're trying - many organisations don't even bother.
I shall now follow up with some information about KM plans, Peer Assists and some thoughts on how to develop a learning culture.
For more information about these and other KM tools, please visit the Knoco website.