Using Activation (Engagement) in Organizational Knowledge Management Processes
- Sivan Halevy
- Jan 1, 2004
- 4 min read
Knowledge management, like any organizational process, begins and ends with people. Employees are those who store knowledge, whether tacit or explicit, and they are the ones who will ultimately determine the scope and quality of content contributed for the common good. Given this, several challenges can serve as inhibiting factors in knowledge management processes, including a lack of cooperation, cynicism and suspicion, a lack of motivation, and a lack of interest.
To address these challenges, we propose the principle of activation, whereby a person transforms from a passive (listener, observer) to an active partner (participant, contributor, responsible, committed, and expressing opinions). This important principle, which is also applicable to many other areas of life, is very useful in knowledge management projects. It helps increase cooperation, level of commitment, and individual interest, thereby enhancing the chances of process success. Activation can and should exist in every stage of organizational knowledge management, from the characterization phase and introductory lectures on knowledge management, through needs definition, to later stages, including lessons learned, frontal activities supporting virtual communities, and more.
Several examples of creating immediate activation:
When delivering introductory lectures on knowledge management to professional or cross-functional groups (for example, a kickoff meeting for content experts), it's essential to encourage audience participation at every opportunity. For instance, when common concerns about knowledge management are mentioned—a topic that directly affects each participant—this topic can be presented as a discussion question directed to the audience. This way, listeners will be prompted to think individually about what they fear regarding knowledge management and what would prevent them from sharing knowledge. After collecting opinions, a surprising attitude survey conducted by KPMG can be presented, showing that contrary to common belief, the number one reason for not sharing knowledge is a lack of time, and the fear of losing power, as "power is knowledge," is a factor, but one that ranks seventh.
When collecting content from community members to create a shared documentation library, it's recommended to start by viewing materials contributed by other community members and asking that member: "What would you as a community member be happy to see in the repository?" This activity of immediate thinking and activation reduces defensiveness, connects the process to that member's immediate benefit, and increases cooperation. In the next stage, existing materials held by that community member can be mapped and listed. At the end of the meeting, instead of setting a deadline for sending materials, the community member can be asked to define the target date for sending all collected materials according to the list. This approach fosters a full commitment to the set date and provides a sense of partnership and accommodation to that community member's schedule. And here's a small curiosity - unfortunately, sometimes this question is what makes the difference between sending or not sending the materials. So it's always worth providing the opportunity...
In later stages of the knowledge management process, when a frontal discussion is conducted on a defined topic, for example when the knowledge management team wants to receive feedback from participants about the characterized solution, its suitability, and level of usage, activation can be conducted through a discussion involving the entire professional group where each participant is asked to express their opinion. A nice activity for conducting such a discussion could be a game of "thorn and rose" - we ask each participant to give a "thorn," meaning to say one negative thing, and a "rose," one positive thing about the characterized solution, the process, or the technological tool. This forces participants to consider the complete picture, including both positive and negative aspects, to be active and engaged partners, and to generate fruitful discussions.
We've mentioned repeatedly that what makes an insights repository a quality repository is the level of agreement regarding the insights detailed in it and the ability to generalize them to additional similar cases. To promote the use of the insights repository, it's essential to involve its future users as much as possible. For example, a discussion can be held about new insights entered into the repository, raising the obvious question: "Does everyone agree?" If not, corrections can be discussed to refine the insight into a shared understanding. What can be added/omitted from it to make it correct? In the next stage, discussion partners can be asked to identify other similar cases where the insight could be applied, and together, attempt to perform the generalization process. Our experience has shown that discussions of this type are not only interesting and challenging but also yield beautiful results. Still, beyond that, the partnership of that professional group in the process from a very early stage reduces the level of cynicism, contributes to developing thinking and understanding the practice of extracting and generalizing insights, and creates greater commitment to act according to their guidance.
Examples of creating long-term activation (empowerment process):
When we discuss long-term activation, we're actually referring to an empowerment process that strengthens an employee's capabilities and their understanding of these capabilities.
In every knowledge management activity, it's essential to identify several representatives who are interested in taking a more active part in the process and create an empowerment process with and for them.
The classic example of this is content experts. After they are selected, it's recommended to build with them, within a dedicated workshop framework, the role conception and meanings derived from it. It's preferable, of course, that the entry process into the role be gradual, allowing for deep development and understanding of the required skills and role expectations. Over time, we'll work on developing the employee's skills and increasing expectations in line with professional development. For example, initially, we expect the content expert to input content into relevant areas, later to identify knowledge needs and gaps, and find solutions for them, and then to develop and increase the level of knowledge in existing content. Finally, the expert positions themselves as a consultant who can and should be approached with professional questions.
These are just a limited number of examples. Still, of course, the principle of activation should be before our eyes in every activity, and there are endless ways to implement it.
Comentarios