The Status of Knowledge Management and Knowledge Managers in Organizations
- Tzachi Drori
- Dec 1, 2004
- 3 min read
In recent months, discussions have emerged regarding the status and need for knowledge management and designated role responsibility in various organizations (from global commercial companies to non-profits). As someone with over 6 years of experience responsible for this area at RAD Data Communications, I would like to make several observations.
The main issue with knowledge management is its maturity. The concept of "maturity" requires a brief explanation. Consider, for example, the difference between civil engineering and software engineering. Civil engineering is the oldest engineering profession in the world, while software engineering is (probably) the youngest. The rules in civil engineering are clear and taught similarly across universities worldwide. Engineers from around the world use the same principles for building construction. Moreover, errors and mistakes in design and implementation are subject to judgment and punishment.
In contrast, software engineering is still considered (despite tremendous progress in the last 40 years) more of an art than engineering, where rules (if they exist) are considered recommendations rather than non-negotiable constraints. In software engineering, there is no judicial responsibility for errors and mistakes. The opposite is true – it's the only engineering profession where the customer pays for error correction (through "annual maintenance fees" and the like).
Returning to knowledge management, the typical comparison for the knowledge manager role is usually to the financial manager, with the question being why a financial manager is mandatory. In contrast, the need for a knowledge manager isn't unclear. This comparison likely stems from the connection between an organization's financial capital and its "intellectual capital." This pairing of the two roles does little to benefit the knowledge manager in terms of maturity. Like civil engineering, financial management is an established profession with rigid rules. It's also a "judgeable" profession, as we've seen recently. There is another significant difference: a financial manager doesn't need the organization's manager to perform their duties; they are independent and perform their work according to the same rules as their counterparts in other organizations. The organizational manager should not influence the financial manager's performance, and the financial manager doesn't face problems stemming from "organizational culture" – they are completely indifferent to it. Yet, the first rule we learn about successful knowledge management is the need for the organizational manager's support. The knowledge manager position is described as a position of trust for the manager. In many cases, changes in organizational leadership have a significant impact (sometimes to the point of terminating activities) on knowledge management. This situation makes knowledge management (and the knowledge manager) unstable and functionally and independently "toothless."
What, then, is the solution or possible direction? I believe the "correct" comparison is to the quality movement rather than financial management. Both movements (quality and knowledge) share a common origin – Japan. In the last 50 years, the quality movement has significantly changed work processes in organizations. A knowledge manager would do well to study the history of the quality movement and the change processes it caused. To outline a direction, I'll focus on two concepts created by the quality movement:
Cost of non-quality
This cost can be quantified relatively precisely in money and time units. For example, in software development companies, it's common to maintain testing groups to check software quality. This cost, significant in both money and time, stems from the lack of maturity in software engineering. Can we reasonably quantify the concept of "cost of non-knowledge"?
ISO audits
Despite criticism of these audits, it's worth noting that the quality movement has succeeded in producing a series of binding rules that can be externally verified. Organizations have turned "ISO compliance" into a concept to boast about and a marketing tool for their customers. The quality movement continues to optimally define these rules through CMM and CMMI. Is there room for creating external ISO audits for knowledge management?
As a condition for long-term success, the path to maturity in knowledge management involves establishing more binding and rigid rules than exist today (if at all). Knowledge management must become a marketing tool, differentiating competing organizations and a source of organizational pride. The quality movement has paved the way for us; we should study and follow it.
Comments