Knowledge Management in Large Organizations - A Multi-Dimensional Process
- Yair Dambinsky
- Jul 1, 2003
- 7 min read
When I'm asked what distinguishes knowledge management activities at Rafael, I'm tempted to say "both and..." - both knowledge sharing and knowledge assets, both tacit and explicit knowledge, both infrastructure solutions and vertical solutions, both long-term planning and quick solutions, both technology and culture and processes, both planning and execution and evaluation, both search and navigation, both F2F meetings and virtual meetings, both data and information and knowledge and wisdom, both professional knowledge and process knowledge and knowledge about who knows what, both knowledge as flow and knowledge as content, both knowledge for managers and knowledge for employees, both knowledge preservation and knowledge deletion, both organizational leadership and consulting assistance, and more...
I decided to dedicate this article to explaining some of this complexity and perhaps answering the question "why?" for ourselves.
The simpler answer, and perhaps also the most correct one, is that knowledge is a resource found everywhere in the organization, and to bring organizational performance to its maximum, it's wrong to limit ourselves to one type or another of activity or knowledge. What should focus us is the strategic goals of the organization, not the state of knowledge accumulation on the way to achieving them. However, to convey the feeling I arrived at after about six years of dealing with knowledge management and almost two years at Rafael more clearly, I decided to illustrate and explain the concept of "both and" through several examples from those mentioned above.
Think Big, Start Small
This slogan may sound clichéd, but the more I engage in knowledge management and observe successful and less successful examples of knowledge management activities, the more I understand how deeply and genuinely this statement resonates.
Simply put, there are two very tempting pitfalls to be careful not to fall into. The first pit is related to the statement that "knowledge management is first and foremost a change in organizational culture, and therefore the activity should focus on change management and dealing with leadership, and technology should be left for last." The temptation is clear - everything said in this statement is incredibly true. However, organizations often lack the patience and attention to hear such statements over time, and if concrete solutions aren't seen within a reasonable timeframe, the activity could fail badly. The second pit is the pit of practice - "let's quickly put something that works, buy a portal, and get it online." If we build a solution quickly without a clear and supporting strategy and without understanding all aspects of the process, we'll quickly be pushed to the sidelines. We'll invest a significant amount of energy in implementing an activity that wasn't fully planned and may not even address a central need.
The right approach is to invest thought in strategy, goals, and solution architecture, while simultaneously implementing some of the solutions within a relatively short timeframe. Spiral development of the strategy while experiencing initial solutions is a good way, provided that a reasonable amount of thought was invested before setting out, so that those initial solutions will be "broadly" in the direction of the vector we want to reach.
The Two-Dimensional Structure of the Activity
About a year ago, I went on a short work tour to England, where I visited two well-known organizations: Xerox UK and IBM UK. On one hand, in perspective, I can say I was disappointed because I expected to learn great things from them. Maybe I didn't meet the right people there (at least at IBM, I know this was the case), but what I saw at both organizations led me to a very important insight regarding my activity at Rafael.
At Xerox UK, they were very focused on techniques for analyzing work processes using anthropological and other methods, with a primary focus on providing effective vertical solutions to user groups (similar to their solution, EUREKA, built for field technicians). I attempted to determine if there was any technological or conceptual infrastructure common to the different solutions. Still, I didn't identify anything of that nature, except for a strong methodology in the field of mapping using anthropological methods.
At IBM UK, they were the complete opposite. Their infrastructure (WebSphere Portal) was well implemented throughout the organization, and quality and successful use was made of it; however, every attempt I made to locate vertical thinking and unique solutions for different groups within the organization came to nothing.
When I returned, the picture was completely clear to me. I sat down and drew a matrix with infrastructure activities at the technological, methodological, and cultural levels on one side, and on the other side, user groups and specific needs that were waiting to receive solutions within the knowledge management activity framework.
Suddenly, everything became very clear: the goal is indeed to provide tailored solutions to different users within their work processes, but to do this efficiently and with quality, it's advisable to use a uniform methodology and infrastructure. Only working on both axes can ensure the success of the activity in a large organization.
Tacit and Explicit Knowledge (and also Data, Information, and Knowledge)
In several articles I read in the past, the issue arose of an organization's need to choose whether it intends to deal with tacit knowledge or explicit knowledge. Moreover, in at least one article, it was stated that an organization should not engage in both. The only thing I agree with is that the way of dealing with tacit knowledge sharing is completely different from the way of dealing with explicit knowledge.
Tacit knowledge exists in people's minds, and the only way to share it is by bringing together individuals with a high level of shared insights, allowing them to converse at a high level of abstraction and create a shared understanding of tacit knowledge. The most familiar means for sharing tacit knowledge is through knowledge communities, particularly face-to-face meetings of these communities. Online discussion groups in virtual communities are a close imitation, and among virtual tools, they are among the best, but they are not exactly like face-to-face meetings.
Explicit knowledge is that which exists on some medium, and therefore can be managed using various technological means.
Despite the different treatment methods, an employee or manager facing a task or decision doesn't care whether the knowledge they lack is explicit or tacit. They need to receive that knowledge at the required time - sometimes it will be a numerical figure, and sometimes an expert's name. Sometimes a deep insight in an insights repository, and sometimes a tip in a corridor conversation or a knowledge community meeting. The conclusion, again, is "both and." Knowledge communities are a central means for knowledge sharing in almost every organization. Still, they, too, want a platform for concentrating the explicit knowledge shared among their members.
Knowledge Communities - What Is It?
The term knowledge communities is familiar to everyone, but in many cases, people mean different things.Knowledge Communities - What Is It?
The term knowledge communities is familiar to everyone, but in many cases, people mean different things.
In some organizations (Bell Labs is an excellent example), the main problem is very high dispersion of experts or stakeholders, and therefore, a knowledge community is mainly a virtual community managed, usually, by someone with a defined role in headquarters. In smaller and less dispersed organizations, a knowledge community is typically a group of people who meet periodically voluntarily. At Rafael, most communities start with meetings and only later receive virtual support. Still, there are several large communities (hundreds of people) that rely heavily on the community's collaborative site (and meetings of homogeneous sub-communities).
Today, after learning about several organizations, I feel confident in saying that everything is accurate. The goal of a knowledge community is to create sharing and learning among groups of people who don't work together daily, but have a significant common denominator. Every organization, according to need and capabilities, needs to adapt the right community solution for itself. It's beneficial to learn from similar organizations, but it's crucial to ensure the solution isn't merely copied, but rather tailored to meet the specific needs of the organization.
Information Retrieval (Both Search and Navigation)
Until a few years ago, some thought that for information retrieval, it was enough to pour information into some bucket, then activate a smart search engine and reach any desired information. They quickly understood that search is indeed a necessary component in information retrieval. Still, it's not sufficient, and the ability to reach information "where it's supposed to be" is also required, meaning through navigation. One analogy is the comparison between a situation where a person goes to a library and immediately approaches the book they searched for (or even the appropriate page), versus a situation where they approach a shelf and start browsing.
When the need for navigation was understood, they tried to solve the problem similarly to how each person organizes their documents (in categories and subcategories, meaning in a hierarchical tree). Today, it's clear that this method creates serious problems, as there is no agreement at the organizational level, even at the first level, on how to divide customers, projects, or organizational units.
The way I believe in, and which is adopted today by more and more parties, is organizing material in a structured but associative semantic network. This alone could warrant several articles, so I won't elaborate; however, the very fact that organizational knowledge can be represented in a uniform organizational knowledge infrastructure gives enormous power and enables linking between information entities that exist in different and unconnected information systems within the organization.
Summary
The concept of "both and" in knowledge management activities is reflected in every perspective on the process. Knowledge is everywhere, and its management encompasses numerous aspects, making this feeling completely natural. The beauty and challenge of leading a knowledge management process lies in the awareness of the enormous variety on one hand, and focusing on a limited number of value-providing solutions on the other hand (again, "both and").
Comments