To Map or Not to Map? That is the Question

Many organizations seeking to manage knowledge are torn at the starting point. Every knowledge management expert can perform the entire process using a different method from their colleagues. Still, they all start from the same launching point: mapping knowledge centers and a strategic proposal for knowledge management. Seemingly trivial, yet not so. The main dilemma arises from the results. A knowledge mapping process typically culminates in a document. An important document indeed, which presents an action plan for subjects where there is knowledge, and knowledge worth managing; and yet a document.

There is no tangible result with which one can convince management and employees of the concreteness of the process, of its worthiness. Knowledge management is not an only child. In every subject, we begin and open with writing documents. However, the difference is twofold:

1. The mapping process can be long and expensive.

2. Knowledge management is not a subject deeply rooted in the existing organizational culture. It is still at a stage where "proof" of its worthiness and importance is required.

On the other hand, starting to manage knowledge randomly, without order, also does not seem like a promising step. What to do? The answer (of course) depends on the nature of the organization and its maturity in understanding knowledge management and its importance. And yet...

Below are several alternative launching points:

1. Opening with a pilot where the necessity of knowledge is clear and the applicability of knowledge management is not overly complex. Using the pilot as a marketing tool for management and employees. Mapping is a follow-up stage.

2. Mapping knowledge centers within a subgroup in the organization, where internal management understands the necessity of knowledge management, and implementing this approach in this group. Expanding the mapping and implementation circle to additional groups and the entire organization.

3. Selecting several subjects that are "candidates" for knowledge management from the organizational familiarity of several intersecting factors; examining the worthiness of knowledge management in them (knowledge level, cost, benefit, success) and prioritizing this partial group; implementation, marketing, and finally, extensive mapping.

Of course, there are additional variants. Regarding these, it can be said that they have been tested in the field and proven effective.

---

Want to learn more about KM strategy?

Here are some articles you might find interesting:

• Exponential Organizations - Book Review

• Me, You, and the Source of Knowledge...

• It’s not what you sell- it’s what you stand for - Book Review