Date   

Re: Sharing knowledge externally? #knowledge-sharing

Robert M. Taylor
 

Our main work is published: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Asystemiq.earth+*.pdf mostly in reports.
We also publish working models and databases, e.g. https://plasticiq.org/ 
So I'd say that these formats are clearly made for public availability from the start and signed-off by any relevant stakeholder parties.
We're very motivated by the common good.
Of course some other work is more entangled with client organisations' specifics and so must remain confidential.
I think this was the answer you wanted.
Of course, much more is exchanged through ongoing public events and private conversations and collaboration too.


Re: Job search: Data Scientist leading Data and Knowledge Management (Remote/Hybrid) #jobs

Patrick Lambe
 

Good luck, Gavin!

For those of you who are interested to see Gavin in action, you’re welcome to attend ISKO Singapore’s panel event on “Data, Technology and Ethics” on October 21st - 2pm Singapore, 8am Paris, 2am EST, 11pm Pacific time.


P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

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


On 7 Oct 2022, at 9:12 PM, Gavin Chait <whythawk@...> wrote:

Dear community members, 
 
My https://openlocal.uk open data project has just finished and I am looking for new opportunities.
 
I am a data scientist leading knowledge management on data-driven software services, and managing teams implementing market intelligence and innovation projects globally. If you have budget for only one person to build, fix or manage your organisation knowledge and data management process, including technology and psychosociology, then I can do that for you.
 
I have lead national open data infrastructure development projects globally, with a special focus on Africa, with national government and intergovernmental organisations, like the World Bank. While at the Open Knowledge Foundation, I led the development team for CKAN which is the most popular open source data publication platform, and at GE Healthcare I developed and led implementation of their $1.2 million integrated global enterprise market knowledge and data management system. I am a contributor to the SIKM global knowledge management leaders forum, including speaking on data probity in knowledge management.
 
I have a genuine commitment to the ethical use of data and technology, and of the critical importance of knowledge discoverability in social and economic development.
 
I have dual British/South African citizenship, a French carte de sejour, and I speak English, Afrikaans and am learning French.
 
 
Summary profile:
 
  • Knowledge management, research & technology for development leadership:
    • Collaboratively engaging global stakeholders in project commissioning, planning & implementation,
    • Leading knowledge management & open data innovation to support information discovery,
    • Effectively communicating complex information in workshops, presentations and written reports.
  • Project & team management:
    • Recruiting, managing, and collaborating with globally distributed & diverse teams of 2 to 200 people,
    • Leading individual and organisation change management, professional development, & mentorship,
    • Ensuring appropriate project management, including Agile and/or Scrum methodology.
  • Innovative data, software & product development:
    • Synthesizing ambiguous briefs into development roadmaps, through to prototyping, build & launch,
    • Researching and developing information sources, and ensuring ethical and auditable data curation,
    • Coding in Python & JavaScript/TypeScript, analysis with Numpy & Pandas, visualisation in Matplotlib & D3, storage in PostGIS & Neo4j, apps in FastAPI/Django & Nuxt/Vue, plus Git/GitHub & Docker.
 
Please contact me direct, and you are welcome to forward my details as well.
 
Thanks and regards
 
Gavin
 

Gavin Chait 
 


Job search: Data Scientist leading Data and Knowledge Management (Remote/Hybrid) #jobs

 

Dear community members,

 

My https://openlocal.uk open data project has just finished and I am looking for new opportunities.

 

I am a data scientist leading knowledge management on data-driven software services, and managing teams implementing market intelligence and innovation projects globally. If you have budget for only one person to build, fix or manage your organisation knowledge and data management process, including technology and psychosociology, then I can do that for you.

 

I have lead national open data infrastructure development projects globally, with a special focus on Africa, with national government and intergovernmental organisations, like the World Bank. While at the Open Knowledge Foundation, I led the development team for CKAN which is the most popular open source data publication platform, and at GE Healthcare I developed and led implementation of their $1.2 million integrated global enterprise market knowledge and data management system. I am a contributor to the SIKM global knowledge management leaders forum, including speaking on data probity in knowledge management.

 

I have a genuine commitment to the ethical use of data and technology, and of the critical importance of knowledge discoverability in social and economic development.

 

I have dual British/South African citizenship, a French carte de sejour, and I speak English, Afrikaans and am learning French.

 

My CV (pdf): https://1drv.ms/b/s!Ahf3lolNNvOlnMl0iL-mTWDZl2lTZQ?e=SvGRdg

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gavinchait/

 

Summary profile:

 

  • Knowledge management, research & technology for development leadership:
    • Collaboratively engaging global stakeholders in project commissioning, planning & implementation,
    • Leading knowledge management & open data innovation to support information discovery,
    • Effectively communicating complex information in workshops, presentations and written reports.
  • Project & team management:
    • Recruiting, managing, and collaborating with globally distributed & diverse teams of 2 to 200 people,
    • Leading individual and organisation change management, professional development, & mentorship,
    • Ensuring appropriate project management, including Agile and/or Scrum methodology.
  • Innovative data, software & product development:
    • Synthesizing ambiguous briefs into development roadmaps, through to prototyping, build & launch,
    • Researching and developing information sources, and ensuring ethical and auditable data curation,
    • Coding in Python & JavaScript/TypeScript, analysis with Numpy & Pandas, visualisation in Matplotlib & D3, storage in PostGIS & Neo4j, apps in FastAPI/Django & Nuxt/Vue, plus Git/GitHub & Docker.

 

Please contact me direct, and you are welcome to forward my details as well.

 

Thanks and regards

 

Gavin

 


Gavin Chait

gchait@...

 


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

Ari Kramer
 

Another thread with lots of comments that are really hitting home... In my experience, when it comes to the reporting line for KM, two things seems to matter most. As others have alluded to, a key one is being with a leader/leaders who are able and willing to provide the type of guidance and help to develop the relationships that are necessary to grow the function in a way that is right for the overall organization. But another I don't hear discussed as much is being positioned in an area that is central to the purpose of the organization. While I totally get the idea that KM can technically be housed anywhere, if the ultimate goal is deep integration (at least for enterprise type KM roles), it seems like the function has best chance of being successful if you can get it embedded into or directly above an where many (if not all) of the organization's most central knowledge sharing systems and processes really come together - providing the strongest possible view of 'the factory floor,' so to speak. In my organization (a large national foundation), after initiating development of the function in when I was in our Communications dept., about a year ago that line of thinking drove me to recommend lining KM up with Grants Management - and folks supported it. So far, the move is feeling really promising... but I also realize it's still pretty early. I guess time will tell!


From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> on behalf of Patrick Lambe via groups.io <plambe@...>
Sent: Friday, October 7, 2022 6:03:35 AM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [SIKM] KM Reporting Structure - Typical or Best Practice #governance
 
This is really good stuff Robert, and accords with my observations as a consultant working with different functional groups trying to get KM off the ground. To that I would add:

Organisation Development tends to “get" KM at the strategic level, and if they commit can generally be trusted to carry it through - IF they can maintain senior support.

You say HR “nowadays” is split between talent and process. That’s been the case for as long as I remember, although HR (like IM, librarianship, KM) has agonised as a profession for the past several decades about the need to transition from being an administrative function to a strategic function. And yet the process still rules, anything that breaks, threatens, opens up to scrutiny, or lies outside the process will not usually get energy and is often actively (or passively) resisted.

I’ve seen KM being launched out of Strategic Planning, but when SP is a distinct office or function that is not really using participatory approaches to strategy, then it can produce the KM strategy and roadmap but often cannot get the wheels turning in implementation.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

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


On 7 Oct 2022, at 5:35 PM, Robert M. Taylor via groups.io <Robertmartintaylor@...> wrote:

This does interest me. I have a view that KM is it's own functional area, but I can at least share the headlines of my experience of different reporting lines as Head of KM.

  • CEO/Managing Partner - two or three times. What I find in common is the laser focus on just do one thing. Of course, I'm always across lots of things but in both cases they were very much making the direct connection of KM to one of their priorities at a time and looking for progress in just that one area. Overall enjoyed these experiences.
  • Operations Director - twice. Neither one had KM in their top priorities. One led to me and KM being cut pretty quickly, the other was a holding pattern.
  • HR Director - utterly hopeless. HR nowadays tends to have two sides - the Talent side and HR process side and this director was firmly in the second camp. No interest at all. Curiously, I got on well and did some pretty good work with her team helping them iron-out processes with KM support.
  • Marketing Director - twice. Once was the best experience because she totally devoted herself to KM, and was great as a leader, and my role was as KM expert/PM. The other was more of a holding pattern.
  • IT Director twice - Neither was very good. Second - quite liked him and understood him and thought we had made a good connection. Decided he didn't want to do KM and shut the shop (which somehow he was able to do, despite KM having priority work with business customers).

What I want to say about all of these in general, looking across these experiences, they are three or so cases:

  1. They absolutely champion you, guide you, open doors and unblock things, whilst acknowledging you're the KM lead and expert. Only once as above. A rarity.
  2. They bend you to their purpose. They don't really buy in to the KM purpose and have other priorities, but so long as they can fit you into what they're really focused on, it works, sometimes better (sometimes really quite well), sometimes worse.
  3. They're not really interested and will ignore/dump you and KM any time.
You can probably tell which case is which from my experiences as listed! I do want to add as well that I was aware what was going on and have always spent a considerable amount of focus on stakeholder management as a result. You have to.

You can't tell just because they tell you how vital KM is tha they really believe or don't. You should pay attention to what they really focus on. We're a young profession not yet recognised as distinct. There's something about our work that is cross-cutting and doesn't fit a matrix or hierarchy very well. If you can't get a reporting line that really will champion KM you at least need one that will value you for something and let you get on with the rest.
Mostly, I find as KM lead I have more contacts with more people at various levels and am more involved with the actual craft and knowledge of how the work is done than how it is controlled - whereas the latter is much more the focus of many execs who have forgotten or never knew how the actual work of the company is actually done by its people.

As others have said, CKO didn't really catch on in terms of a main board or operating board top head.


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

Patrick Lambe
 

This is really good stuff Robert, and accords with my observations as a consultant working with different functional groups trying to get KM off the ground. To that I would add:

Organisation Development tends to “get" KM at the strategic level, and if they commit can generally be trusted to carry it through - IF they can maintain senior support.

You say HR “nowadays” is split between talent and process. That’s been the case for as long as I remember, although HR (like IM, librarianship, KM) has agonised as a profession for the past several decades about the need to transition from being an administrative function to a strategic function. And yet the process still rules, anything that breaks, threatens, opens up to scrutiny, or lies outside the process will not usually get energy and is often actively (or passively) resisted.

I’ve seen KM being launched out of Strategic Planning, but when SP is a distinct office or function that is not really using participatory approaches to strategy, then it can produce the KM strategy and roadmap but often cannot get the wheels turning in implementation.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

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


On 7 Oct 2022, at 5:35 PM, Robert M. Taylor via groups.io <Robertmartintaylor@...> wrote:

This does interest me. I have a view that KM is it's own functional area, but I can at least share the headlines of my experience of different reporting lines as Head of KM.

  • CEO/Managing Partner - two or three times. What I find in common is the laser focus on just do one thing. Of course, I'm always across lots of things but in both cases they were very much making the direct connection of KM to one of their priorities at a time and looking for progress in just that one area. Overall enjoyed these experiences.
  • Operations Director - twice. Neither one had KM in their top priorities. One led to me and KM being cut pretty quickly, the other was a holding pattern.
  • HR Director - utterly hopeless. HR nowadays tends to have two sides - the Talent side and HR process side and this director was firmly in the second camp. No interest at all. Curiously, I got on well and did some pretty good work with her team helping them iron-out processes with KM support.
  • Marketing Director - twice. Once was the best experience because she totally devoted herself to KM, and was great as a leader, and my role was as KM expert/PM. The other was more of a holding pattern.
  • IT Director twice - Neither was very good. Second - quite liked him and understood him and thought we had made a good connection. Decided he didn't want to do KM and shut the shop (which somehow he was able to do, despite KM having priority work with business customers).

What I want to say about all of these in general, looking across these experiences, they are three or so cases:

  1. They absolutely champion you, guide you, open doors and unblock things, whilst acknowledging you're the KM lead and expert. Only once as above. A rarity.
  2. They bend you to their purpose. They don't really buy in to the KM purpose and have other priorities, but so long as they can fit you into what they're really focused on, it works, sometimes better (sometimes really quite well), sometimes worse.
  3. They're not really interested and will ignore/dump you and KM any time.
You can probably tell which case is which from my experiences as listed! I do want to add as well that I was aware what was going on and have always spent a considerable amount of focus on stakeholder management as a result. You have to.

You can't tell just because they tell you how vital KM is tha they really believe or don't. You should pay attention to what they really focus on. We're a young profession not yet recognised as distinct. There's something about our work that is cross-cutting and doesn't fit a matrix or hierarchy very well. If you can't get a reporting line that really will champion KM you at least need one that will value you for something and let you get on with the rest.
Mostly, I find as KM lead I have more contacts with more people at various levels and am more involved with the actual craft and knowledge of how the work is done than how it is controlled - whereas the latter is much more the focus of many execs who have forgotten or never knew how the actual work of the company is actually done by its people.

As others have said, CKO didn't really catch on in terms of a main board or operating board top head.


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

Robert M. Taylor
 

This does interest me. I have a view that KM is it's own functional area, but I can at least share the headlines of my experience of different reporting lines as Head of KM.

  • CEO/Managing Partner - two or three times. What I find in common is the laser focus on just do one thing. Of course, I'm always across lots of things but in both cases they were very much making the direct connection of KM to one of their priorities at a time and looking for progress in just that one area. Overall enjoyed these experiences.
  • Operations Director - twice. Neither one had KM in their top priorities. One led to me and KM being cut pretty quickly, the other was a holding pattern.
  • HR Director - utterly hopeless. HR nowadays tends to have two sides - the Talent side and HR process side and this director was firmly in the second camp. No interest at all. Curiously, I got on well and did some pretty good work with her team helping them iron-out processes with KM support.
  • Marketing Director - twice. Once was the best experience because she totally devoted herself to KM, and was great as a leader, and my role was as KM expert/PM. The other was more of a holding pattern.
  • IT Director twice - Neither was very good. Second - quite liked him and understood him and thought we had made a good connection. Decided he didn't want to do KM and shut the shop (which somehow he was able to do, despite KM having priority work with business customers).

What I want to say about all of these in general, looking across these experiences, they are three or so cases:

  1. They absolutely champion you, guide you, open doors and unblock things, whilst acknowledging you're the KM lead and expert. Only once as above. A rarity.
  2. They bend you to their purpose. They don't really buy in to the KM purpose and have other priorities, but so long as they can fit you into what they're really focused on, it works, sometimes better (sometimes really quite well), sometimes worse.
  3. They're not really interested and will ignore/dump you and KM any time.
You can probably tell which case is which from my experiences as listed! I do want to add as well that I was aware what was going on and have always spent a considerable amount of focus on stakeholder management as a result. You have to.

You can't tell just because they tell you how vital KM is tha they really believe or don't. You should pay attention to what they really focus on. We're a young profession not yet recognised as distinct. There's something about our work that is cross-cutting and doesn't fit a matrix or hierarchy very well. If you can't get a reporting line that really will champion KM you at least need one that will value you for something and let you get on with the rest.
Mostly, I find as KM lead I have more contacts with more people at various levels and am more involved with the actual craft and knowledge of how the work is done than how it is controlled - whereas the latter is much more the focus of many execs who have forgotten or never knew how the actual work of the company is actually done by its people.

As others have said, CKO didn't really catch on in terms of a main board or operating board top head.


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

Stan Garfield
 

On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 11:19 AM, Andy Farnsworth wrote:

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....

Here is the reply from Dave Snowden:

Basically the issue with me for Stacey is that he is takes a constructionist/post modern perspective and in his latter work (the earlier was better) seems more to be using Complexity to support his work on Mead and Norbert Elias.  He is also far too close to psychodynamics for my taste and has been taken up by the Tavistock Institute which is not a good sign.  My own perspective is Neo-materialist and to my mind complexity exists independently of perception having ontological, epistemological and phenomenological aspects - but simply reality exists and can be known independently of human perception.   
 
Also it was very very difficult to talk to Ralph unless you were in his inner circle, and Chris Mowles seems to be perpetuating the error.  Their University of Hertfordshire group (Complexity & Management Centre), from my perspective, have a slight problem with approaches to complexity outside of their rather idiosyncratic take on the subject. Ralph at one stage condemned myself, Max Boisot and others as ’systems thinkers’ which is a gross insult and they refused to defend it.  At that point and after his performance at the Liverpool conference. most, with regret, gave up on him.
 
Hari, who is a good friend, is more sympathetic to Mead but doesn’t fall completely into the errors that Stacey adopted, hence the recommendation.
 


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

Stan Garfield
 

See additional replies in the Twitter thread and the LinkedIn thread.


Re: Reference or expertise on KCS #call-center

Phil Verghis
 

Thanks Howie. Cheers. Always happy to pay it forward.


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

Nick Milton
 

Agree with both points Patrick

 

There are not enough data points to say anything meaningful about multiple partners I am afraid

 

Nick Milton
Knoco

 

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Patrick Lambe
Sent: 05 October 2022 11:53
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Knowledge Management and Organization Development? #HR-OD

 

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? #quality #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? #quality #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? #quality #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