Date   

Re: Knowledge Management and Organization Development? #HR-OD #governance

Patrick Lambe
 

Interesting data, Nick, an especially the discussion on getting a balance of skills - however, I think the effects could be read in two directions:

(a) the choice of partner has a causal (bias) effect on the characteristics of the KM programme - and we can see why it might, because resourcing and existing capabilities would be easier to deploy with a partner from an established function

(b) the focus of the KM programme influences the choice of partner - i.e. the “bias” is decided first and then relevant partners engaged.

I assume this data is where a single partner has been engaged. What about multiple partnerships being orchestrated together? Do we have data on this?

P


Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com


On 5 Oct 2022, at 6:36 PM, Nick Milton <nick.milton@...> wrote:

A side-issue from this question is, what effect does partnering with another discipline affect the direction your KM program takes?
 
This is something I try to explore in this blog post, based on 2020 survey data. 
 
The main conclusion, if the patterns in the data are real and not just noise, is that the choice of a partner discipline for KM may affect your KM program. For example;
 
Partnering with Learning and Development may result in a balanced KM team, an effective set of tacit knowledge approaches, and good synthesised knowledge, but may leave your documents in a more poorly managed state.
 
Partnering with IM may result in a team with a bias to IM skills rather than to facilitation skills, and less effective tacit components within the KM program. You may end up with a better organised and tagged set of documents, but with less attention to knowledge synthesis.
 
Partnering with Innovation may lead to a focus on change management skills and organisational skills, effective CoPs and Best Practices, but not so good at Retention and Lesson Learning.
 
Other combinations can be read from the graphs included
 
Nick Milton
Knoco Ltd



Re: Knowledge Management and Organization Development? #HR-OD #governance

Nick Milton
 

A side-issue from this question is, what effect does partnering with another discipline affect the direction your KM program takes?

 

This is something I try to explore in this blog post, based on 2020 survey data.

http://www.nickmilton.com/2020/06/the-issues-of-combining-km-with-another.html

 

The main conclusion, if the patterns in the data are real and not just noise, is that the choice of a partner discipline for KM may affect your KM program. For example;

 

Partnering with Learning and Development may result in a balanced KM team, an effective set of tacit knowledge approaches, and good synthesised knowledge, but may leave your documents in a more poorly managed state.

 

Partnering with IM may result in a team with a bias to IM skills rather than to facilitation skills, and less effective tacit components within the KM program. You may end up with a better organised and tagged set of documents, but with less attention to knowledge synthesis.

 

Partnering with Innovation may lead to a focus on change management skills and organisational skills, effective CoPs and Best Practices, but not so good at Retention and Lesson Learning.

 

Other combinations can be read from the graphs included

 

Nick Milton
Knoco Ltd

_._,_._,_


Re: KM Reporting Structure - Typical or Best Practice #governance

Nick Milton
 

You can find the results of a survey question on this topic (answered by 745 people) here

 

http://www.nickmilton.com/2022/08/whats-best-reporting-line-for-km.html

 

 

Nick Milton
Knoco Ltd

 

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Sandra Willis
Sent: 04 October 2022 22:43
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: [SIKM] KM Reporting Structure - Typical or Best Practice

 

Hi All,

I was wondering what others experience or have learned as a best practice (if that really can exist given organizations or often so different) in terms of the reporting structure for knowledge management.

Overall I have experienced KM having no greater level than Director and reporting into either a Digital/IT department or local Business Unit Leader dedicated, and sometimes rotating.

I will share my experiences: 

1. CPG company - highest level in KM was a Senior Manager - reporting to a rotating non-information professional VP embedded at the local business unit

2. CPG company - highest level in KM was a Director - reporting to a VP in a Data & Digital Solutions role

3. Law Firm - highest level in KM was Department Head - reporting to Director of IT

4. Pharmaceutical - highest level was local KM/Information Center Head - reported into multi-information center Director


Thank you,
Sandra 


Re: KM Reporting Structure - Typical or Best Practice #governance

Rory Huston
 
Edited

I've worked in partnership organisations, and for 80% of the time, reported into an influential partner.
By it's nature, KM is a multi-discplinary trade, so there is no perfect home.
Whilst seniority is important (e.g. somebody is able to represent you/bring you in at high level when you need it), the key characteristic is their level of interest, understanding, and belief in what you are doing.
If your agenda is as important as theirs in their minds eye, they will make what you need happen, and find the resources you need.


Re: KM Reporting Structure - Typical or Best Practice #governance

Stan Garfield
 


Re: Reference or expertise on KCS #call-center

Howie Cohen
 

Thanks to all .. I’ve shared the messages .. much appreciated 

Message sent from mobile device 

On Oct 4, 2022, at 2:11 AM, Pierre Maraninchi via groups.io <mara@...> wrote:



Happy to help too if needed.
I’ve helped small and large organizations design and implement KCS in various industries.

He can reach out to me directly if he wants to

/Pierre


Re: KM Reporting Structure - Typical or Best Practice #governance

Barbara Fillip
 

Hi Sandra,
For a while (almost 10 years), I've worked as a contractor under a CKO who reported directly to a Center Director (NASA Center).  NASA still has multiple CKOs, one for each NASA center and some others for major departments at headquarters I think.  There is some interesting history there around the evolution of KM at NASA and the emergence of CKOs.  

I'm now in a different industry where I'm the lead for an enterprise-level KM team of two, reporting to a Senior VP.  The rest of our KM staff is distributed along technical knowledge domains and does not report to me as they are embedded in business lines. It's possible to experience significant change in the reporting and titles even within a short period of time within a single organization.  In the past 3.5 years, I have been a Director and now Senior Advisor for KM.  I started in a team that included Knowledge, Innovation, and Technology (not IT).  I've reported to the Senior VP of a division that combined project management support, corporate training, KM and data analytics, among other things.  And for a while I reported directly to the CEO in an Executive Office team that included things like innovation, data analytics, KM, and strategic communications, then back to the other division.  When I'm in a good mood (like today), I see each organizational change as an opportunity to do some KM proselytizing with new teams, spreading the word far and wide across the organization by moving around.  :)

I don't anticipate we would ever have a CKO, but I can imagine things being reorganized to adjust to evolving corporate strategies.  Throughout these organizational changes, there has been steady support for KM as part of a bigger vision for the company's future.  That being said, I must admit that on a day-to-day basis, trying to stay the course and continue to build strong KM foundations, regardless of the name of the team or the reporting structure, is not an easy task. Even when the organizational structure is stable, the people might change, and that is sometimes more challenging than adjusting to different team configurations and team names.  Finally, even though I am glad not to be leading a KM team under the IT Division, my most constant and stable collaborators have been in the IT department.  

Best regards,
Barbara Fillip



On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 5:43 PM Sandra Willis <Sandra.Willis@...> wrote:
Hi All,

I was wondering what others experience or have learned as a best practice (if that really can exist given organizations or often so different) in terms of the reporting structure for knowledge management.

Overall I have experienced KM having no greater level than Director and reporting into either a Digital/IT department or local Business Unit Leader dedicated, and sometimes rotating.

I will share my experiences: 
1. CPG company - highest level in KM was a Senior Manager - reporting to a rotating non-information professional VP embedded at the local business unit
2. CPG company - highest level in KM was a Director - reporting to a VP in a Data & Digital Solutions role
3. Law Firm - highest level in KM was Department Head - reporting to Director of IT
4. Pharmaceutical - highest level was local KM/Information Center Head - reported into multi-information center Director

Thank you,
Sandra 


Re: KM Reporting Structure - Typical or Best Practice #governance

 

There was a time CKO was in fashion, giving the KM function a seat at the C-suite table. That ship may or may not have sailed. Haven't looked in some time. 

Some orgs put KM under HR or People Management as a director or even VP, which can be a better place than the IT function depending on how people-centric the company is. 

There was a time that R&D functions had KM reporting in to an R&D head, which makes a lot of sense. 

A lot of this is highly dependent on the industry/type of business and then on the company itself. 


--
-Tom
--

Tom Short Consulting
TSC
+1 415 300 7457

All of my previous SIKM Posts


KM Reporting Structure - Typical or Best Practice #governance

Sandra Willis
 

Hi All,

I was wondering what others experience or have learned as a best practice (if that really can exist given organizations or often so different) in terms of the reporting structure for knowledge management.

Overall I have experienced KM having no greater level than Director and reporting into either a Digital/IT department or local Business Unit Leader dedicated, and sometimes rotating.

I will share my experiences: 
1. CPG company - highest level in KM was a Senior Manager - reporting to a rotating non-information professional VP embedded at the local business unit
2. CPG company - highest level in KM was a Director - reporting to a VP in a Data & Digital Solutions role
3. Law Firm - highest level in KM was Department Head - reporting to Director of IT
4. Pharmaceutical - highest level was local KM/Information Center Head - reported into multi-information center Director

Thank you,
Sandra 


Re: Knowledge Management and Organization Development? #HR-OD #governance

John Hovell
 

Thanks everyone for sharing your thoughts and experiences with regard to KM partnerships with other disciplines. I thought about pulling together a little report, but I must admit I was happily overwhelmed by the responses and all the different directions it took, so maybe it's simply best left as a starter for future conversations...

Thanks again, happy to keep listening,
John


Re: Knowledge Management and Organization Development? #HR-OD #governance

Kim Glover
 

This is elegant simplicity, Dr. John: It is not to say that KM is everything or one thing yet not other things, but that it is a particular lens that can be applied to all domains.” Bravo!

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of John Lewis via groups.io
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 10:00 AM
To: main@sikm.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Knowledge Management and Organization Development? #HR-OD #governance

 

I like where Leif has taken this thread, as many KM discussions eventually lead to "I see KM as..." conversations.

I find this topic insightful to get at the core mental model which different KMers operate from.

Perhaps a paper or conference forum could spend more time to bring out these models and find valuable unions.

As I looked at other domains of study, I saw that math does not try to say what it is and what it is not, as it is related to and can be connected to all other domains.

While Bertrand Russell defined math simply as symbolic logic, to focus progress on symbolic logic itself, he did not exclude math from other domains.

And so just as math is a particular lens from which to view all domains, in addition to a study of its own, this has been my view of knowledge management.

It is not to say that KM is everything or one thing yet not other things, but that it is a particular lens that can be applied to all domains.

And I have found this view easy to illustrate in application.

It is a view that prefers we not leave epistemology in a stuffy philosophy course, but instead allow KM to become applied epistemology, to manage what we know and how we know, regardless of specific technologies or other domains of knowledge.

This has been my view. I am interested to hear others as well.

 

All the best,

 

Dr. John Lewis, Ed.D.

Coach | Speaker | Author of “Story Thinking

StoryThinkingLeadership.com

John@...

804-525-8429

 

“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” – Albert Einstein

www.amazon.com/author/drjohnlewis

 

 

On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 3:46 AM Leif Edvinsson <leifedvinsson@...> wrote:

You might also consider to see the Knowledge Flow as a dynamic Relational issue 

 

mån 3 okt. 2022 kl. 09:43 skrev Rory Huston <roryhuston@...>:

Interesting question.

I see KM as T shaped; we have deep specialism in knowledge but need to have some basics in project management, change management, comms, l&d, IT,  and OD skills to be a sucess.

The bigger the company or project, the bigger the teams and therefore specialisms. In a very large company you might see KM strategists, community managers and KM systems folks in a KM team. Big orgs have bigger complexity.

In a small company you might not have a KM team but a single person responsible for KM, information systems, and even librarianship or L&D as a role. Smaller projects need the basics covered well by a smaller team.

So how do we best partner?
I think the first thing to do is to understand enough about each of the displaces to know what you don't know, and develop an understanding of where you can do it, they can guide you, or you need them to lead. 
If you are in a big org, find meaty projects where you can work together and build a plan. In small teams, it's probably trying to find how to apply the basic concepts yourself.... and of course there are many spaces in between. 

This is probably a bit of a wishy washy answer but would be interested to hear your thoughts....

BTW.
I also found the appendix in 30401 that defines adjacent disciplines to KM handy as a "this is what KM is not" guide. Boundaries are important!


Re: Knowledge Management and Organization Development? #HR-OD #governance

Andy Farnsworth
 

Stan or Dave, can you explain the sentiment being expressed here?

Haridimos Tsoukas’s books and papers (although at times he is a little too in the Ralph D. Stacey/George Herbert Mead camp). 

I ask because I've been reading Stacey lately, with affinity, and wondering what camp I may be falling into....

---
Andy Farnsworth
Morning Strategy


Re: Knowledge Management and Organization Development? #HR-OD #governance

Douglas Weidner
 

John,
Always a substantive contribution.
Douglas

On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 12:42 AM John Lewis <johnlewisedd@...> wrote:
Very cool post Stan! Epistemology was called the First Philosophy by the great philosophers because all other domains of study rested upon our knowledge of knowledge itself. Now, sadly, as you found, there are books on creative memorization, but it is hard to find a comprehensive book related to learning. May I humbly offer Story Thinking to be added to your list? If someone wants to know how to learn, we need to ask them for which type: Rote or meaningful? Within AI, supervised or unsupervised? To perform what type of function, transactional or transformational, compliance or innovation, operations or research and development? For what type of thinking, fast or slow? Using what types of systems, answer-lookup or discovery? We can gain knowledge either way, but we gain understanding when we connect both approaches as they work together within the structure of story. It is a lost idea, making a comeback. A new idea found in neuroscience, and an idea as old as the Bible (Matthew 13:13). “You are IN a STORY, whether you know it or not.” — Carl Jung.


On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 1:10 PM Stan Garfield <stangarfield@...> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 10:58 AM, John Lewis wrote:
It is a view that prefers we not leave epistemology in a stuffy philosophy course, but instead allow KM to become applied epistemology, to manage what we know and how we know, regardless of specific technologies or other domains of knowledge.
Coincidentally, earlier today I posted a link to my 2019 article, Knowledge Management and Epistemology.


Re: Knowledge Management and Organization Development? #HR-OD #governance

Douglas Weidner
 

🙂

More soon, but in Sarasota, recovering from hurricane.Ian.

Douglas Weidner

On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 10:58 AM John Lewis <johnlewisedd@...> wrote:
I like where Leif has taken this thread, as many KM discussions eventually lead to "I see KM as..." conversations.
I find this topic insightful to get at the core mental model which different KMers operate from.
Perhaps a paper or conference forum could spend more time to bring out these models and find valuable unions.
As I looked at other domains of study, I saw that math does not try to say what it is and what it is not, as it is related to and can be connected to all other domains.
While Bertrand Russell defined math simply as symbolic logic, to focus progress on symbolic logic itself, he did not exclude math from other domains.
And so just as math is a particular lens from which to view all domains, in addition to a study of its own, this has been my view of knowledge management.
It is not to say that KM is everything or one thing yet not other things, but that it is a particular lens that can be applied to all domains.
And I have found this view easy to illustrate in application.
It is a view that prefers we not leave epistemology in a stuffy philosophy course, but instead allow KM to become applied epistemology, to manage what we know and how we know, regardless of specific technologies or other domains of knowledge.
This has been my view. I am interested to hear others as well.

All the best,

Dr. John Lewis, Ed.D.

Coach | Speaker | Author of “Story Thinking

StoryThinkingLeadership.com

John@...

804-525-8429

 

“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” – Albert Einstein

www.amazon.com/author/drjohnlewis

 


On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 3:46 AM Leif Edvinsson <leifedvinsson@...> wrote:
You might also consider to see the Knowledge Flow as a dynamic Relational issue 

mån 3 okt. 2022 kl. 09:43 skrev Rory Huston <roryhuston@...>:
Interesting question.

I see KM as T shaped; we have deep specialism in knowledge but need to have some basics in project management, change management, comms, l&d, IT,  and OD skills to be a sucess.

The bigger the company or project, the bigger the teams and therefore specialisms. In a very large company you might see KM strategists, community managers and KM systems folks in a KM team. Big orgs have bigger complexity.

In a small company you might not have a KM team but a single person responsible for KM, information systems, and even librarianship or L&D as a role. Smaller projects need the basics covered well by a smaller team.

So how do we best partner?
I think the first thing to do is to understand enough about each of the displaces to know what you don't know, and develop an understanding of where you can do it, they can guide you, or you need them to lead. 
If you are in a big org, find meaty projects where you can work together and build a plan. In small teams, it's probably trying to find how to apply the basic concepts yourself.... and of course there are many spaces in between. 

This is probably a bit of a wishy washy answer but would be interested to hear your thoughts....

BTW.
I also found the appendix in 30401 that defines adjacent disciplines to KM handy as a "this is what KM is not" guide. Boundaries are important!


Re: Knowledge Management and Organization Development? #HR-OD #governance

Leif Edvinsson
 

Very inspiring comment. How do we proceed with our Knowledge Flow?
Best greetings
Leif

mån 3 okt. 2022 kl. 16:58 skrev John Lewis <johnlewisedd@...>:

I like where Leif has taken this thread, as many KM discussions eventually lead to "I see KM as..." conversations.
I find this topic insightful to get at the core mental model which different KMers operate from.
Perhaps a paper or conference forum could spend more time to bring out these models and find valuable unions.
As I looked at other domains of study, I saw that math does not try to say what it is and what it is not, as it is related to and can be connected to all other domains.
While Bertrand Russell defined math simply as symbolic logic, to focus progress on symbolic logic itself, he did not exclude math from other domains.
And so just as math is a particular lens from which to view all domains, in addition to a study of its own, this has been my view of knowledge management.
It is not to say that KM is everything or one thing yet not other things, but that it is a particular lens that can be applied to all domains.
And I have found this view easy to illustrate in application.
It is a view that prefers we not leave epistemology in a stuffy philosophy course, but instead allow KM to become applied epistemology, to manage what we know and how we know, regardless of specific technologies or other domains of knowledge.
This has been my view. I am interested to hear others as well.

All the best,

Dr. John Lewis, Ed.D.

Coach | Speaker | Author of “Story Thinking

StoryThinkingLeadership.com

John@...

804-525-8429

 

“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” – Albert Einstein

www.amazon.com/author/drjohnlewis

 


On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 3:46 AM Leif Edvinsson <leifedvinsson@...> wrote:
You might also consider to see the Knowledge Flow as a dynamic Relational issue 

mån 3 okt. 2022 kl. 09:43 skrev Rory Huston <roryhuston@...>:
Interesting question.

I see KM as T shaped; we have deep specialism in knowledge but need to have some basics in project management, change management, comms, l&d, IT,  and OD skills to be a sucess.

The bigger the company or project, the bigger the teams and therefore specialisms. In a very large company you might see KM strategists, community managers and KM systems folks in a KM team. Big orgs have bigger complexity.

In a small company you might not have a KM team but a single person responsible for KM, information systems, and even librarianship or L&D as a role. Smaller projects need the basics covered well by a smaller team.

So how do we best partner?
I think the first thing to do is to understand enough about each of the displaces to know what you don't know, and develop an understanding of where you can do it, they can guide you, or you need them to lead. 
If you are in a big org, find meaty projects where you can work together and build a plan. In small teams, it's probably trying to find how to apply the basic concepts yourself.... and of course there are many spaces in between. 

This is probably a bit of a wishy washy answer but would be interested to hear your thoughts....

BTW.
I also found the appendix in 30401 that defines adjacent disciplines to KM handy as a "this is what KM is not" guide. Boundaries are important!


Re: Knowledge Management and Organization Development? #HR-OD #governance

Stan Garfield
 

On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 12:42 AM, John Lewis wrote:
Now, sadly, as you found, there are books on creative memorization, but it is hard to find a comprehensive book related to learning. May I humbly offer Story Thinking to be added to your list?
John, I updated my article to include your posts and a link to Story Thinking.


Re: Knowledge Management and Organization Development? #HR-OD #governance

Ari Kramer
 

Hi Rory - When it comes to integrating KM and partnering with others, I think the kind of “wishy washy” approach you describe here seems exactly right and often what is most effective (or at least realistic). Especially with so much focus now on digital, I imagine that in many of our orgs, the deepest capacity in a number of key “KM-adjascent” areas may actually be on the marketing or brand side - we just often face in different directions and speak a different kind of language. The key I think is identifying those select projects or organizational need areas with most potential to get us thinking and working together.

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> on behalf of Rory Huston via groups.io <roryhuston@...>
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 3:43:17 AM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Knowledge Management and Organization Development? #HR-OD #governance
 
Interesting question.

I see KM as T shaped; we have deep specialism in knowledge but need to have some basics in project management, change management, comms, l&d, IT,  and OD skills to be a sucess.

The bigger the company or project, the bigger the teams and therefore specialisms. In a very large company you might see KM strategists, community managers and KM systems folks in a KM team. Big orgs have bigger complexity.

In a small company you might not have a KM team but a single person responsible for KM, information systems, and even librarianship or L&D as a role. Smaller projects need the basics covered well by a smaller team.

So how do we best partner?
I think the first thing to do is to understand enough about each of the displaces to know what you don't know, and develop an understanding of where you can do it, they can guide you, or you need them to lead. 
If you are in a big org, find meaty projects where you can work together and build a plan. In small teams, it's probably trying to find how to apply the basic concepts yourself.... and of course there are many spaces in between. 

This is probably a bit of a wishy washy answer but would be interested to hear your thoughts....

BTW.
I also found the appendix in 30401 that defines adjacent disciplines to KM handy as a "this is what KM is not" guide. Boundaries are important!


Re: Reference or expertise on KCS #call-center

Pierre Maraninchi
 

Happy to help too if needed.
I’ve helped small and large organizations design and implement KCS in various industries.

He can reach out to me directly if he wants to

/Pierre


Re: Knowledge Management and Organization Development? #HR-OD #governance

John Lewis
 

Very cool post Stan! Epistemology was called the First Philosophy by the great philosophers because all other domains of study rested upon our knowledge of knowledge itself. Now, sadly, as you found, there are books on creative memorization, but it is hard to find a comprehensive book related to learning. May I humbly offer Story Thinking to be added to your list? If someone wants to know how to learn, we need to ask them for which type: Rote or meaningful? Within AI, supervised or unsupervised? To perform what type of function, transactional or transformational, compliance or innovation, operations or research and development? For what type of thinking, fast or slow? Using what types of systems, answer-lookup or discovery? We can gain knowledge either way, but we gain understanding when we connect both approaches as they work together within the structure of story. It is a lost idea, making a comeback. A new idea found in neuroscience, and an idea as old as the Bible (Matthew 13:13). “You are IN a STORY, whether you know it or not.” — Carl Jung.


On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 1:10 PM Stan Garfield <stangarfield@...> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 10:58 AM, John Lewis wrote:
It is a view that prefers we not leave epistemology in a stuffy philosophy course, but instead allow KM to become applied epistemology, to manage what we know and how we know, regardless of specific technologies or other domains of knowledge.
Coincidentally, earlier today I posted a link to my 2019 article, Knowledge Management and Epistemology.


Re: Reference or expertise on KCS #call-center

Maria Svoisky Goldberg
 

Hi Howie, 
We have implemented a successful KCS program within our support organization. I am happy to share what we did and what we learned. 
You might also want to look at the https://www.serviceinnovation.org/ for their resources. (They just had their annual member summit).

Best regards,
Maria

On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 11:43 AM Howie Cohen <howardscohenmba@...> wrote:
Team, 

          A friend is looking for some recommendations from anyone who has delivered or worked with a company to deliver KCS from initial startup through implementation.  

Any suggestions?
Howie