Rethinking KM - Transactional and Strategic KM #definition #strategy


Randhir Pushpa
 

Dear All,

Wish you a Happy, Prosperous and Knowledge filled 2016.

I continue my series of mails on redefining and rethinking on the way KM is positioned. As a practitioner I can see KM function growing in stature within organizations, demanding a focus as core as that of HR, Marketing, Finance, Operations etc.

Reviews are happening in organizations on how last year was and how to improve. One of the interesting suggestion I got on KM from my leadership group was that, it is becoming too transactional and should become more strategic. 

I was happy with that comment, because it meant that business leaders could see that there is more that KM can offer. It would be interesting to learn and define the strategic part of KM.

While thinking of strategic part of KM, I realised that KM plays a more prominent role as compared to any other function in the growth of an organization. For an organization to be more agile, flexible or innovative, it has to adopt KM practices. 

I would love to hear from you on your thoughts in this regard.

Thanks

Dr.Randhir Pushpa


Douglas Weidner
 

Dear Dr. Randhir,

Happy New Year to all as well.

 

I fully agree with your personal insights, we witness in the KM Certification realm as well

KM function growing in stature within organizations

 

And, I like your comment.

For an organization to be more agile, flexible or innovative, it has to adopt KM practices. 

But in my experience, I would change its focus somewhat, to wit:

 

“The world is entering into the K Age (economy, society, … whatever) and KM successfully enables the requisite transformation.”

 

So, KM isn’t just a toolbox of tactical skills and approaches, as desirable as they may be, but KM addresses the strategic, transformational issues as well, of which there are many.

 

Douglas Weidner, Chief CKM Instructor

Chairman, International Knowledge Management Institute

Home of KMBOK™, KMM™ and the KM Transformation Solution
www.kminstitute.org
 



      

 

 

 

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2016 12:43 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: [sikmleaders] Rethinking KM - Transactional and Strategic KM

 

 

Dear All,

 

Wish you a Happy, Prosperous and Knowledge filled 2016.

 

I continue my series of mails on redefining and rethinking on the way KM is positioned. As a practitioner I can see KM function growing in stature within organizations, demanding a focus as core as that of HR, Marketing, Finance, Operations etc.

 

Reviews are happening in organizations on how last year was and how to improve. One of the interesting suggestion I got on KM from my leadership group was that, it is becoming too transactional and should become more strategic. 

 

I was happy with that comment, because it meant that business leaders could see that there is more that KM can offer. It would be interesting to learn and define the strategic part of KM.

 

While thinking of strategic part of KM, I realised that KM plays a more prominent role as compared to any other function in the growth of an organization. For an organization to be more agile, flexible or innovative, it has to adopt KM practices. 

 

I would love to hear from you on your thoughts in this regard.

 

Thanks

 

Dr.Randhir Pushpa


Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Randhir,

Happy New Year to you too!

I realised that KM plays a more prominent role as compared to any
other function in the growth of an organization. For an organization
to be more agile, flexible or innovative, it has to adopt KM
practices.
Those two statements are WAY too unqualified for my liking. More prominent than product engineering, sales, or marketing in inducing growth?? And that the ONLY way to be more agile, flexible, or innovative is to adopt KM practices??

The evidence suggests otherwise. Just as we don't need a doctor to administer a bandaid, KM is not necessary to deploy in all situations.

KM excels where situations are complex and there are diffuse drivers of change. There's a threshold where KM becomes more necessary and I think it's worth recognising that there are some cases where the cost will exceed the value.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Director & Principal Consultant
knowquestion Pty Ltd
E: sb@knowquestion.com.au
M: 0401 829 096
====================================

On 3/01/2016 4:42 AM, 'Randhir R.P' randhir.rp@gmail.com [sikmleaders] wrote:
Dear All,

Wish you a Happy, Prosperous and Knowledge filled 2016.

I continue my series of mails on redefining and rethinking on the way KM
is positioned. As a practitioner I can see KM function growing in
stature within organizations, demanding a focus as core as that of HR,
Marketing, Finance, Operations etc.

Reviews are happening in organizations on how last year was and how to
improve. One of the interesting suggestion I got on KM from my
leadership group was that, it is becoming too transactional and should
become more strategic.

I was happy with that comment, because it meant that business leaders
could see that there is more that KM can offer. It would be interesting
to learn and define the strategic part of KM.

While thinking of strategic part of KM, I realised that KM plays a more
prominent role as compared to any other function in the growth of an
organization. For an organization to be more agile, flexible or
innovative, it has to adopt KM practices.

I would love to hear from you on your thoughts in this regard.

Thanks

Dr.Randhir Pushpa


Albert Simard
 

Many years ago, I shifted my focus from knowledge management to knowledge strategy.  I did this because, having witnessed many KM programs achieve initial success only to fall by the wayside or, worse still, outright KM failures from the outset, I concluded that lack of a knowledge strategy was a key factor.  So, I started addressing questions such as how do we achieve executive support for KM and how do we sustain it?  This led to how does knowledge work relate to organizational success?  And then there were the missing elements of how does KM relate to negotiation and collaboration – predominant activities in any organization?  How can we integrate the yin and yang of social and technological approaches to KM?  To what extent and how can we manage social structures?   So many questions that need to be answered before KM can truly mature.

 

Al Simard


Albert Simard
 

Stephen –

I agree that although KM practices support organizational agility, the two are not the same thing.  Agility is a capacity to rapidly shift direction or change goals in response to or, better still, in anticipation of changes to an organization’s environment.  Agility begins with a strategic decision to become agile, coupled with implementing business models, policies, and processes that enable it.  For example, the ideal of continuous change cannot actually be achieved because change takes time.  There are steps that must be completed to implement change.

 

Perhaps the ultimate example is changing government policy.  The traditional cycle of 7 to 10 years is totally incompatible with today’s rapidly changing world.  Yet, legally, stakeholders must be consulted to identify issues and comment on proposed changes.  Rules and regulations may need revision.  |As an aside, everything must be right – government cannot conduct social experiments.  Perhaps a law or two need modification and (we all know how long that takes!).  There must be communication and stakeholders need time to adjust their processes.  Finally, any change that costs industry money will likely face court challenges!  Every step takes time and cannot be eliminated.  Although the private sector does not have the legal constraints faced by the public sector, any large company faces many internal bureaucratic barriers to change that must be overcome (back to negotiation and conflict forms of social interaction mentioned earlier).

 

For the public sector, I sowed the seed of adopting a different policy revision model.  I propose shifting from reviewing policies at 5-year or longer intervals followed by a 2-3 year revision cycle to continuous monitoring coupled with annual revisions and required reporting of bits and pieces of modularized policies.  Whether such an idea will land on hard rock or fertile soil remains to be seen.  However, the idea is similar for the private sector, although with a substantially shorter time frame.  First, a strategic decision is needed to become an agile organizational followed by implementing business processes, supported by KM to execute the decision. 

 

Al Simard             


Alice MacGillivray <alice@...>
 

Hello Randhir.  Congratulations on your growth and increased understanding.  You have obviously done some good work and relevance is being recognized.

I remember many efforts to emphasize the importance of strategy and senior positions in organizations when the field was young.  One effort was—I believe—by Joe Firestone: "knowledge management” is strategic by nature and "knowledge processing” was a term that never caught on for the day to day work with tools, processes etc.  I don’t often quote Mark McElroy, but I liked his idea that knowledge management was the strategic umbrella to enable organizational learning (which still has legs).  

To me it is obvious that if knowledge is a key (probably the most important) asset in an organization, work with it has to be strategic.  

Thus the large, diverse tool kits we cart around in our minds to apply in different ways in different contexts.  And thus some of the confusion about knowledge management from the people who want to contain everything in very small boxes. 

Alice


 

With respect to government and policy, If I could add something here after a career in the military and working with government agencies for 40 years…the Federal civilian agencies in government in the US) are not focused on performance, rather they are focused on compliance.  This is in spite of the Government Performance and Results Act of the past decade.

 

Further, federal government operates to a large part on an annual basis and very often on a just in time basis due to the budget authorization and appropriation process that drives the Federal Government…agility will more than not escape them as does the foresight to establish consistent and disciplined processes for the capture, retention and reuse of their critical and relevant knowledge without which real agility is not really possible on a sustainable basis.

 

Best

 

Bill Kaplan

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: January 03, 2016 10:05
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: Rethinking KM - Transactional and Strategic KM

 

 

Stephen –

I agree that although KM practices support organizational agility, the two are not the same thing.  Agility is a capacity to rapidly shift direction or change goals in response to or, better still, in anticipation of changes to an organization’s environment.  Agility begins with a strategic decision to become agile, coupled with implementing business models, policies, and processes that enable it.  For example, the ideal of continuous change cannot actually be achieved because change takes time.  There are steps that must be completed to implement change.

 

Perhaps the ultimate example is changing government policy.  The traditional cycle of 7 to 10 years is totally incompatible with today’s rapidly changing world.  Yet, legally, stakeholders must be consulted to identify issues and comment on proposed changes.  Rules and regulations may need revision.  |As an aside, everything must be right – government cannot conduct social experiments.  Perhaps a law or two need modification and (we all know how long that takes!).  There must be communication and stakeholders need time to adjust their processes.  Finally, any change that costs industry money will likely face court challenges!  Every step takes time and cannot be eliminated.  Although the private sector does not have the legal constraints faced by the public sector, any large company faces many internal bureaucratic barriers to change that must be overcome (back to negotiation and conflict forms of social interaction mentioned earlier).

 

For the public sector, I sowed the seed of adopting a different policy revision model.  I propose shifting from reviewing policies at 5-year or longer intervals followed by a 2-3 year revision cycle to continuous monitoring coupled with annual revisions and required reporting of bits and pieces of modularized policies.  Whether such an idea will land on hard rock or fertile soil remains to be seen.  However, the idea is similar for the private sector, although with a substantially shorter time frame.  First, a strategic decision is needed to become an agile organizational followed by implementing business processes, supported by KM to execute the decision. 

 

Al Simard             


Randhir Pushpa
 

Hi Stephen,

Let me stick my neck out and say that Yes, I do mean to say that knowledge and its management is the most important and core focus of an organization. 

Organizations are nothing but a collection of Knowledge, which are present in different forms. One can define an organization in terms of different knowledge it has and what it does to/with that knowledge. 

Looking from that view every function needs to do KM and every organization needs to know what it has.

A comparison between Product Engineering groups of competing organizations will show why some groups are more effective than the others and the answer will always be related the way knowledge is managed and is available. Knowledge as a process, culture and object.

Innovation is simple terms is new knowledge. Business agility, the ability to rapidly change or respond to stimuli depends to a large extent knowledge about is coming up and how best to react. How best to react depends on how much knowledge the decision maker can summon/gather to make the decision. We can go deeper and deeper into the relevance of knowledge.

Regards

Randhir

On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Stephen Bounds km@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:
 

Hi Randhir,

Happy New Year to you too!

> I realised that KM plays a more prominent role as compared to any
> other function in the growth of an organization. For an organization
> to be more agile, flexible or innovative, it has to adopt KM
> practices.

Those two statements are WAY too unqualified for my liking. More
prominent than product engineering, sales, or marketing in inducing
growth?? And that the ONLY way to be more agile, flexible, or innovative
is to adopt KM practices??

The evidence suggests otherwise. Just as we don't need a doctor to
administer a bandaid, KM is not necessary to deploy in all situations.

KM excels where situations are complex and there are diffuse drivers of
change. There's a threshold where KM becomes more necessary and I think
it's worth recognising that there are some cases where the cost will
exceed the value.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Director & Principal Consultant
knowquestion Pty Ltd
E: sb@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================

On 3/01/2016 4:42 AM, 'Randhir R.P' randhir.rp@... [sikmleaders]
wrote:


> Dear All,
>
> Wish you a Happy, Prosperous and Knowledge filled 2016.
>
> I continue my series of mails on redefining and rethinking on the way KM
> is positioned. As a practitioner I can see KM function growing in
> stature within organizations, demanding a focus as core as that of HR,
> Marketing, Finance, Operations etc.
>
> Reviews are happening in organizations on how last year was and how to
> improve. One of the interesting suggestion I got on KM from my
> leadership group was that, it is becoming too transactional and should
> become more strategic.
>
> I was happy with that comment, because it meant that business leaders
> could see that there is more that KM can offer. It would be interesting
> to learn and define the strategic part of KM.
>
> While thinking of strategic part of KM, I realised that KM plays a more
> prominent role as compared to any other function in the growth of an
> organization. For an organization to be more agile, flexible or
> innovative, it has to adopt KM practices.
>
> I would love to hear from you on your thoughts in this regard.
>
> Thanks
>
> Dr.Randhir Pushpa
>
>



Randhir Pushpa
 

Hi Douglas,

Thank you for your mail. I agree with you that KM addresses the strategic, transformational issues. I would like to know if we have examples and case studies on KM being used effectively for this.

Regards

Randhir



On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 1:44 AM, 'Douglas Weidner' douglas.weidner@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:
 

Dear Dr. Randhir,

Happy New Year to all as well.

 

I fully agree with your personal insights, we witness in the KM Certification realm as well

KM function growing in stature within organizations

 

And, I like your comment.

For an organization to be more agile, flexible or innovative, it has to adopt KM practices. 

But in my experience, I would change its focus somewhat, to wit:

 

“The world is entering into the K Age (economy, society, … whatever) and KM successfully enables the requisite transformation.”

 

So, KM isn’t just a toolbox of tactical skills and approaches, as desirable as they may be, but KM addresses the strategic, transformational issues as well, of which there are many.

 

Douglas Weidner, Chief CKM Instructor

Chairman, International Knowledge Management Institute

Home of KMBOK™, KMM™ and the KM Transformation Solution
www.kminstitute.org
 



      

 

 

 

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2016 12:43 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: [sikmleaders] Rethinking KM - Transactional and Strategic KM

 

 

Dear All,

 

Wish you a Happy, Prosperous and Knowledge filled 2016.

 

I continue my series of mails on redefining and rethinking on the way KM is positioned. As a practitioner I can see KM function growing in stature within organizations, demanding a focus as core as that of HR, Marketing, Finance, Operations etc.

 

Reviews are happening in organizations on how last year was and how to improve. One of the interesting suggestion I got on KM from my leadership group was that, it is becoming too transactional and should become more strategic. 

 

I was happy with that comment, because it meant that business leaders could see that there is more that KM can offer. It would be interesting to learn and define the strategic part of KM.

 

While thinking of strategic part of KM, I realised that KM plays a more prominent role as compared to any other function in the growth of an organization. For an organization to be more agile, flexible or innovative, it has to adopt KM practices. 

 

I would love to hear from you on your thoughts in this regard.

 

Thanks

 

Dr.Randhir Pushpa



Randhir Pushpa
 

Hi Albert,

Would be very interesting to know from you what you learned on the Strategic KM part. KM will become prominent in organizations if we are able to show it can be used to help achieve success and organizational goals.

Regards

Randhir

On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Albert Simard albert.simard@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:
 

Many years ago, I shifted my focus from knowledge management to knowledge strategy.  I did this because, having witnessed many KM programs achieve initial success only to fall by the wayside or, worse still, outright KM failures from the outset, I concluded that lack of a knowledge strategy was a key factor.  So, I started addressing questions such as how do we achieve executive support for KM and how do we sustain it?  This led to how does knowledge work relate to organizational success?  And then there were the missing elements of how does KM relate to negotiation and collaboration – predominant activities in any organization?  How can we integrate the yin and yang of social and technological approaches to KM?  To what extent and how can we manage social structures?   So many questions that need to be answered before KM can truly mature.

 

Al Simard



Albert Simard
 

Randhir - I contend that KM is not the most important thing in an organization.  KM is not an end in itself but rather a means to an end - organizational success.  At a strategic level, all organizations consist of four structures - social, business, technological, and knowledge.  All four must be integrated and work towards a common goal for the organization to succeed.  At a management level, we find the traditional triumvirate of people, processes, and technology, to which KMers add we add knowledge. 


IMO, the key underlying problem is that no one has really integrated the four structures very well.  Each structure primarily operates within its context and attempts to optimize its processes, often to the detriment of the other structures.  For example, enhancing IT takes resources that are then not available for business needs.  When was the last time that an IT shop considered how social structures interact with their systems?  Hence the importance of negotiation and conflict resolution along with sharing and collaboration as modes of social interaction within organizations.


Albert Simard
 

Randhir - I have learned much in my explorations of knowledge strategy.

Listed below, in random order, are some thoughts as they come to mind. 


*  First and foremost, we have more to learn than we presently know.

*  There are four organizational structures: social, business, technological, and knowledge.

*  It is possible to use enterprise architecture and systems analysis techniques to integrate the four organizational structures.

*  Social structures are the most important; they determine everything else.

*  Social structures consist of context and interaction.

*  Social interaction consists of four modes: sharing, collaboration, negotiation, and competition, base on compatibility of interests and goals.

*  KM has little to say about negotiation and competition which are key  forms of social interaction.

*  Trust - a key aspect of social context is much more complex than suggested by individual research studies.

*  Trust operates at three levels - individual, group, and organizational.  It is bi directional, but not necessarily balanced.  It is highly context sensitive.

*  Most, if not all organizations comprise four management regimes: authoritative hierarchy, organizational structure, negotiated agreement, and responsible autonomy.

*  Knowledge must be managed very differently within each regime.

*  As in pumping water uphill, knowledge must be made to flow from responsible autonomy to authoritative hierarchy.

*  Psychological knowledge is key to organizational decision making.


Some of these ideas have been published while others have been presented.  Many are available on my Slide Share page    


Albert Simard
 

PS - Links to most of my publications can be found on my LinkedIn page.


Al Simard


 

Al

 

Have always appreciated your insights and perspectives over the years. Thank you

 

Bill Kaplan

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: January 04, 2016 09:46
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: Rethinking KM - Transactional and Strategic KM

 

 

PS - Links to most of my publications can be found on my LinkedIn page.

 

Al Simard


Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Randhir,

Careful, you're falling into the trap of saying that KM is relevant to any act that *uses* knowledge. This can't and should not be supported.

I would lend my support to Alice's point of view. Like her, I credit Joe Firestone and Mark McElroy with the development of the three-tier view of knowledge management where:

- business processing is the application of knowledge to do work
- knowledge processing is the evaluation and selection of alternative solutions to solve problems
- knowledge management, technically speaking, *must* be an intervention to change the status quo of a system

In this model, all three tiers use knowledge but it is only so-called "meta-epistemic" acts that should be formally considered KM.

Joe was a passionate advocate for the model and it was a really important development in delineating knowledge management as a discipline and it deserves broader dissemination and adoption in the KM community. It is rather abstract though; if you prefer essentially the same concepts in a more business friendly package, you might consider David Griffiths' K3 spiral [http://bounds.net.au/node/137].

As my own contribution, I have developed the Problem Solving Pattern, a variant that seeks to unify the three-tier model, Boyd's OODA and information processing to incorporate organisational IM/RM needs [http://bounds.net.au/node/58]. In this model, "KM" is any intervention that seeks to sustainably alter the operations of the iterative and nested cycles of problem solving in a system or organisation.

Regardless of the model chosen, "knowledge processing" (KP) is not Knowledge Management. It is simply the act of evaluating alternative solutions and selecting the best one (subjectively). However, because knowledge managers know lots of methods to help people identity and choose between solutions, this work can fall to the KM role by default.

The split can be defined thus: You can help people make the right choices in a specific situation (knowledge processing), or you can monitor and intervene in your organisation's systems to mold them into something that operates in a sustainably better way (knowledge management).

At the most basic level, an understanding of system dynamics will a help but that doesn't necessarily mean that a formal KM program is necessary.

For example, there's currently a trend to bind agile and KM together. Agile is a classic knowledge processing technique, but one which may or may not require the use of knowledge management to successfully implement (eg if there are cultural barriers to overcome).

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Director & Principal Consultant
knowquestion Pty Ltd
E: sb@knowquestion.com.au
M: 0401 829 096
====================================

On 4/01/2016 12:05 PM, 'Randhir R.P' randhir.rp@gmail.com [sikmleaders] wrote:
Hi Stephen,

Let me stick my neck out and say that Yes, I do mean to say that
knowledge and its management is the most important and core focus of an
organization.

Organizations are nothing but a collection of Knowledge, which are
present in different forms. One can define an organization in terms of
different knowledge it has and what it does to/with that knowledge.

Looking from that view every function needs to do KM and every
organization needs to know what it has.

A comparison between Product Engineering groups of competing
organizations will show why some groups are more effective than the
others and the answer will always be related the way knowledge is
managed and is available. Knowledge as a process, culture and object.

Innovation is simple terms is new knowledge. Business agility, the
ability to rapidly change or respond to stimuli depends to a large
extent knowledge about is coming up and how best to react. How best to
react depends on how much knowledge the decision maker can summon/gather
to make the decision. We can go deeper and deeper into the relevance of
knowledge.

Regards

Randhir

On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Stephen Bounds km@bounds.net.au
<mailto:km@bounds.net.au> [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>> wrote:

__

Hi Randhir,

Happy New Year to you too!

> I realised that KM plays a more prominent role as compared to any
> other function in the growth of an organization. For an organization
> to be more agile, flexible or innovative, it has to adopt KM
> practices.

Those two statements are WAY too unqualified for my liking. More
prominent than product engineering, sales, or marketing in inducing
growth?? And that the ONLY way to be more agile, flexible, or
innovative
is to adopt KM practices??

The evidence suggests otherwise. Just as we don't need a doctor to
administer a bandaid, KM is not necessary to deploy in all situations.

KM excels where situations are complex and there are diffuse drivers of
change. There's a threshold where KM becomes more necessary and I think
it's worth recognising that there are some cases where the cost will
exceed the value.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Director & Principal Consultant
knowquestion Pty Ltd
E: sb@knowquestion.com.au <mailto:sb@knowquestion.com.au>
M: 0401 829 096
====================================

On 3/01/2016 4:42 AM, 'Randhir R.P' randhir.rp@gmail.com
<mailto:randhir.rp@gmail.com> [sikmleaders]
wrote:


> Dear All,
>
> Wish you a Happy, Prosperous and Knowledge filled 2016.
>
> I continue my series of mails on redefining and rethinking on the
way KM
> is positioned. As a practitioner I can see KM function growing in
> stature within organizations, demanding a focus as core as that
of HR,
> Marketing, Finance, Operations etc.
>
> Reviews are happening in organizations on how last year was and
how to
> improve. One of the interesting suggestion I got on KM from my
> leadership group was that, it is becoming too transactional and
should
> become more strategic.
>
> I was happy with that comment, because it meant that business leaders
> could see that there is more that KM can offer. It would be
interesting
> to learn and define the strategic part of KM.
>
> While thinking of strategic part of KM, I realised that KM plays
a more
> prominent role as compared to any other function in the growth of an
> organization. For an organization to be more agile, flexible or
> innovative, it has to adopt KM practices.
>
> I would love to hear from you on your thoughts in this regard.
>
> Thanks
>
> Dr.Randhir Pushpa
>
>



chuck georgo <chuck@...>
 

After spending the better part of 20 years working in or around the topic of KM, to include three very frustrating years working to implement KM within a VERY large military organization, I must say (and I mean no harm), that IMHO the primary reason why the KM movement for the most part has been such an utter failure, is that when we talk about KM, we describe it as we would talking to to one another.

 

If we are to be more successful, we CANNOT be purists or academics, using phrases like “meta-epistemic.” KM theories, strategies, processes, and practices MUST be spoken of in practical and easy to understand terms, in the language of the primary beneficiaries of KM – whether it’s government, an auto manufacturer, a pharmaceutical, a bank, or the military, successful implementation requires use of THEIR language, and it must be kept simple.

 

For what it’s worth, I have found it useful to attract people to the concepts of KM by describing it like this:

 

KM is simply:

 

1.       Understanding, capturing and sharing what you already know about stuff that matters the most to your organization;

2.       Documenting what you don’t know that you wish you did so you can make better decisions about the stuff in #1; and

3.       Then working to find, borrow, develop and share the knowledge you need to fill the gap(s) between 1 and 2 above.

 

Anything more complicated than this, and you will probably face many challenges engaging decision makers/leaders in the endeavor.

 

r/Chuck

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Monday, January 4, 2016 3:01 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Rethinking KM - Transactional and Strategic KM

 

 

Hi Randhir,

Careful, you're falling into the trap of saying that KM is relevant to
any act that *uses* knowledge. This can't and should not be supported.

I would lend my support to Alice's point of view. Like her, I credit Joe
Firestone and Mark McElroy with the development of the three-tier view
of knowledge management where:

- business processing is the application of knowledge to do work
- knowledge processing is the evaluation and selection of alternative
solutions to solve problems
- knowledge management, technically speaking, *must* be an intervention
to change the status quo of a system

In this model, all three tiers use knowledge but it is only so-called
"meta-epistemic" acts that should be formally considered KM.

Joe was a passionate advocate for the model and it was a really
important development in delineating knowledge management as a
discipline and it deserves broader dissemination and adoption in the KM
community. It is rather abstract though; if you prefer essentially the
same concepts in a more business friendly package, you might consider
David Griffiths' K3 spiral [http://bounds.net.au/node/137].

As my own contribution, I have developed the Problem Solving Pattern, a
variant that seeks to unify the three-tier model, Boyd's OODA and
information processing to incorporate organisational IM/RM needs
[http://bounds.net.au/node/58]. In this model, "KM" is any intervention
that seeks to sustainably alter the operations of the iterative and
nested cycles of problem solving in a system or organisation.

Regardless of the model chosen, "knowledge processing" (KP) is not
Knowledge Management. It is simply the act of evaluating alternative
solutions and selecting the best one (subjectively). However, because
knowledge managers know lots of methods to help people identity and
choose between solutions, this work can fall to the KM role by default.

The split can be defined thus: You can help people make the right
choices in a specific situation (knowledge processing), or you can
monitor and intervene in your organisation's systems to mold them into
something that operates in a sustainably better way (knowledge management).

At the most basic level, an understanding of system dynamics will a help
but that doesn't necessarily mean that a formal KM program is necessary.

For example, there's currently a trend to bind agile and KM together.
Agile is a classic knowledge processing technique, but one which may or
may not require the use of knowledge management to successfully
implement (eg if there are cultural barriers to overcome).

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Director & Principal Consultant
knowquestion Pty Ltd
E: sb@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================

On 4/01/2016 12:05 PM, 'Randhir R.P' randhir.rp@... [sikmleaders]
wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Let me stick my neck out and say that Yes, I do mean to say that
> knowledge and its management is the most important and core focus of an
> organization.
>
> Organizations are nothing but a collection of Knowledge, which are
> present in different forms. One can define an organization in terms of
> different knowledge it has and what it does to/with that knowledge.
>
> Looking from that view every function needs to do KM and every
> organization needs to know what it has.
>
> A comparison between Product Engineering groups of competing
> organizations will show why some groups are more effective than the
> others and the answer will always be related the way knowledge is
> managed and is available. Knowledge as a process, culture and object.
>
> Innovation is simple terms is new knowledge. Business agility, the
> ability to rapidly change or respond to stimuli depends to a large
> extent knowledge about is coming up and how best to react. How best to
> react depends on how much knowledge the decision maker can summon/gather
> to make the decision. We can go deeper and deeper into the relevance of
> knowledge.
>
> Regards
>
> Randhir
>
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Stephen Bounds km@...
> <mailto:km@...> [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...
> <mailto:sikmleaders@...>> wrote:
>
> __
>
> Hi Randhir,
>
> Happy New Year to you too!
>
> > I realised that KM plays a more prominent role as compared to any
> > other function in the growth of an organization. For an organization
> > to be more agile, flexible or innovative, it has to adopt KM
> > practices.
>
> Those two statements are WAY too unqualified for my liking. More
> prominent than product engineering, sales, or marketing in inducing
> growth?? And that the ONLY way to be more agile, flexible, or
> innovative
> is to adopt KM practices??
>
> The evidence suggests otherwise. Just as we don't need a doctor to
> administer a bandaid, KM is not necessary to deploy in all situations.
>
> KM excels where situations are complex and there are diffuse drivers of
> change. There's a threshold where KM becomes more necessary and I think
> it's worth recognising that there are some cases where the cost will
> exceed the value.
>
> Cheers,
> -- Stephen.
>
> ====================================
> Stephen Bounds
> Director & Principal Consultant
> knowquestion Pty Ltd
> E: sb@... <mailto:sb@...>
> M: 0401 829 096
> ====================================
>
> On 3/01/2016 4:42 AM, 'Randhir R.P' randhir.rp@...
> <mailto:randhir.rp@...> [sikmleaders]
> wrote:
>
>
> > Dear All,
> >
> > Wish you a Happy, Prosperous and Knowledge filled 2016.
> >
> > I continue my series of mails on redefining and rethinking on the
> way KM
> > is positioned. As a practitioner I can see KM function growing in
> > stature within organizations, demanding a focus as core as that
> of HR,
> > Marketing, Finance, Operations etc.
> >
> > Reviews are happening in organizations on how last year was and
> how to
> > improve. One of the interesting suggestion I got on KM from my
> > leadership group was that, it is becoming too transactional and
> should
> > become more strategic.
> >
> > I was happy with that comment, because it meant that business leaders
> > could see that there is more that KM can offer. It would be
> interesting
> > to learn and define the strategic part of KM.
> >
> > While thinking of strategic part of KM, I realised that KM plays
> a more
> > prominent role as compared to any other function in the growth of an
> > organization. For an organization to be more agile, flexible or
> > innovative, it has to adopt KM practices.
> >
> > I would love to hear from you on your thoughts in this regard.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Dr.Randhir Pushpa
> >
> >
>
>
>


Randhir Pushpa
 

Hi Alice,

Thank you!

Knowledge is the key asset of an organization. Like atoms are the basic building blocks of matter that make up everyday objects, knowledge is the building block of an organization. Why we are not able to see it clearly is because we are part of that system and we constitute the knowledge that we are trying to access. If we stand apart and see an organization as collection of knowledge in different forms, then we will also be able to see the interventions that needs to be done to improve an organization.

As you said we get to see only what we want to see. 

Regards

Randhir



On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 12:00 AM, Alice MacGillivray alice@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:
 

Hello Randhir.  Congratulations on your growth and increased understanding.  You have obviously done some good work and relevance is being recognized.


I remember many efforts to emphasize the importance of strategy and senior positions in organizations when the field was young.  One effort was—I believe—by Joe Firestone: "knowledge management” is strategic by nature and "knowledge processing” was a term that never caught on for the day to day work with tools, processes etc.  I don’t often quote Mark McElroy, but I liked his idea that knowledge management was the strategic umbrella to enable organizational learning (which still has legs).  

To me it is obvious that if knowledge is a key (probably the most important) asset in an organization, work with it has to be strategic.  

Thus the large, diverse tool kits we cart around in our minds to apply in different ways in different contexts.  And thus some of the confusion about knowledge management from the people who want to contain everything in very small boxes. 

Alice



Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Chuck,

But we *are* talking to each other now. Trying to dumb down the discussion of concepts between professional peers is, to borrow the computing term, a premature optimisation.

Your definition of KM is not wrong, but very narrow. It's a common scenario -- taking your personal experience of organisational problems and generalising that to be "what KM is".

And more than anything else, KM needs a theoretical grounding which allows reasoning from first principles. Merely having a theory is not being "purist" or "academic". Quite the contrary: having a theory is the first step in successfully applying KM to achieve robust, practical and repeatable outcomes.

I make no apologies for using precise terms when precision is required. Jargon exists in every profession for a reason.

If you have a simpler way to describe the concept that Joe Firestone is talking about, or if you think the idea is wrong in some way, I'm all ears.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Director & Principal Consultant
knowquestion Pty Ltd
E: sb@knowquestion.com.au
M: 0401 829 096
====================================

On 5/01/2016 10:27 AM, 'chuck georgo' chuck@georgo.com [sikmleaders] wrote:
After spending the better part of 20 years working in or around the
topic of KM, to include three very frustrating years working to
implement KM within a VERY large military organization, I must say (and
I mean no harm), that IMHO the primary reason why the KM movement for
the most part has been such an utter failure, is that when we talk about
KM, we describe it as we would talking to to one another.

If we are to be more successful, we CANNOT be purists or academics,
using phrases like “meta-epistemic.” KM theories, strategies, processes,
and practices MUST be spoken of in practical and easy to understand
terms, in the language of the primary beneficiaries of KM – whether it’s
government, an auto manufacturer, a pharmaceutical, a bank, or the
military, successful implementation requires use of THEIR language, and
it must be kept simple.

For what it’s worth, I have found it useful to attract people to the
concepts of KM by describing it like this:

KM is simply:

1.Understanding, capturing and sharing what you already know about stuff
that matters the most to your organization;

2.Documenting what you don’t know that you wish you did so you can make
better decisions about the stuff in #1; and

3.Then working to find, borrow, develop and share the knowledge you need
to fill the gap(s) between 1 and 2 above.

Anything more complicated than this, and you will probably face many
challenges engaging decision makers/leaders in the endeavor.

r/Chuck

*From:*sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com]
*Sent:* Monday, January 4, 2016 3:01 PM
*To:* sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com
*Subject:* Re: [sikmleaders] Rethinking KM - Transactional and Strategic KM

Hi Randhir,

Careful, you're falling into the trap of saying that KM is relevant to
any act that *uses* knowledge. This can't and should not be supported.

I would lend my support to Alice's point of view. Like her, I credit Joe
Firestone and Mark McElroy with the development of the three-tier view
of knowledge management where:

- business processing is the application of knowledge to do work
- knowledge processing is the evaluation and selection of alternative
solutions to solve problems
- knowledge management, technically speaking, *must* be an intervention
to change the status quo of a system

In this model, all three tiers use knowledge but it is only so-called
"meta-epistemic" acts that should be formally considered KM.

Joe was a passionate advocate for the model and it was a really
important development in delineating knowledge management as a
discipline and it deserves broader dissemination and adoption in the KM
community. It is rather abstract though; if you prefer essentially the
same concepts in a more business friendly package, you might consider
David Griffiths' K3 spiral [http://bounds.net.au/node/137].

As my own contribution, I have developed the Problem Solving Pattern, a
variant that seeks to unify the three-tier model, Boyd's OODA and
information processing to incorporate organisational IM/RM needs
[http://bounds.net.au/node/58]. In this model, "KM" is any intervention
that seeks to sustainably alter the operations of the iterative and
nested cycles of problem solving in a system or organisation.

Regardless of the model chosen, "knowledge processing" (KP) is not
Knowledge Management. It is simply the act of evaluating alternative
solutions and selecting the best one (subjectively). However, because
knowledge managers know lots of methods to help people identity and
choose between solutions, this work can fall to the KM role by default.

The split can be defined thus: You can help people make the right
choices in a specific situation (knowledge processing), or you can
monitor and intervene in your organisation's systems to mold them into
something that operates in a sustainably better way (knowledge management).

At the most basic level, an understanding of system dynamics will a help
but that doesn't necessarily mean that a formal KM program is necessary.

For example, there's currently a trend to bind agile and KM together.
Agile is a classic knowledge processing technique, but one which may or
may not require the use of knowledge management to successfully
implement (eg if there are cultural barriers to overcome).

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Director & Principal Consultant
knowquestion Pty Ltd
E: sb@knowquestion.com.au <mailto:sb@knowquestion.com.au>
M: 0401 829 096
====================================

On 4/01/2016 12:05 PM, 'Randhir R.P' randhir.rp@gmail.com
<mailto:randhir.rp@gmail.com> [sikmleaders]
wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Let me stick my neck out and say that Yes, I do mean to say that
> knowledge and its management is the most important and core focus of an
> organization.
>
> Organizations are nothing but a collection of Knowledge, which are
> present in different forms. One can define an organization in terms of
> different knowledge it has and what it does to/with that knowledge.
>
> Looking from that view every function needs to do KM and every
> organization needs to know what it has.
>
> A comparison between Product Engineering groups of competing
> organizations will show why some groups are more effective than the
> others and the answer will always be related the way knowledge is
> managed and is available. Knowledge as a process, culture and object.
>
> Innovation is simple terms is new knowledge. Business agility, the
> ability to rapidly change or respond to stimuli depends to a large
> extent knowledge about is coming up and how best to react. How best to
> react depends on how much knowledge the decision maker can summon/gather
> to make the decision. We can go deeper and deeper into the relevance of
> knowledge.
>
> Regards
>
> Randhir
>
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Stephen Bounds km@bounds.net.au
<mailto:km@bounds.net.au>
> <mailto:km@bounds.net.au> [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com%0b>>
<mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>> wrote:
>
> __
>
> Hi Randhir,
>
> Happy New Year to you too!
>
> > I realised that KM plays a more prominent role as compared to any
> > other function in the growth of an organization. For an organization
> > to be more agile, flexible or innovative, it has to adopt KM
> > practices.
>
> Those two statements are WAY too unqualified for my liking. More
> prominent than product engineering, sales, or marketing in inducing
> growth?? And that the ONLY way to be more agile, flexible, or
> innovative
> is to adopt KM practices??
>
> The evidence suggests otherwise. Just as we don't need a doctor to
> administer a bandaid, KM is not necessary to deploy in all situations.
>
> KM excels where situations are complex and there are diffuse drivers of
> change. There's a threshold where KM becomes more necessary and I think
> it's worth recognising that there are some cases where the cost will
> exceed the value.
>
> Cheers,
> -- Stephen.
>
> ====================================
> Stephen Bounds
> Director & Principal Consultant
> knowquestion Pty Ltd
> E: sb@knowquestion.com.au <mailto:sb@knowquestion.com.au>
<mailto:sb@knowquestion.com.au>
> M: 0401 829 096
> ====================================
>
> On 3/01/2016 4:42 AM, 'Randhir R.P' randhir.rp@gmail.com
<mailto:randhir.rp@gmail.com>
> <mailto:randhir.rp@gmail.com> [sikmleaders]
> wrote:
>
>
> > Dear All,
> >
> > Wish you a Happy, Prosperous and Knowledge filled 2016.
> >
> > I continue my series of mails on redefining and rethinking on the
> way KM
> > is positioned. As a practitioner I can see KM function growing in
> > stature within organizations, demanding a focus as core as that
> of HR,
> > Marketing, Finance, Operations etc.
> >
> > Reviews are happening in organizations on how last year was and
> how to
> > improve. One of the interesting suggestion I got on KM from my
> > leadership group was that, it is becoming too transactional and
> should
> > become more strategic.
> >
> > I was happy with that comment, because it meant that business leaders
> > could see that there is more that KM can offer. It would be
> interesting
> > to learn and define the strategic part of KM.
> >
> > While thinking of strategic part of KM, I realised that KM plays
> a more
> > prominent role as compared to any other function in the growth of an
> > organization. For an organization to be more agile, flexible or
> > innovative, it has to adopt KM practices.
> >
> > I would love to hear from you on your thoughts in this regard.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Dr.Randhir Pushpa
> >
> >
>
>
>


Randhir Pushpa
 

Hi Albert,

I agree with you, on KM being not an in itself but rather a means to an end. So is the case with any function of an organization, be it Marketing, sales, HR or quality. They are a means to an end. While managing knowledge is a means to an end, knowledge perse is both means and an end. Take the case of a product of an organization. It is the reflection of knowledge of an organization in different forms. It reflects its understanding of its customers, its ability to stay current, its ability to bring together different technologies, its ability to collaborate across the world. 

I though disagree about the four structure that you mentioned. Knowledge cannot be considered separately, but as part of the other structures. For example Social structures interacting with systems. There is application of knowledge that is happening there.

Regards

Randhir

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 7:02 PM, albert.simard@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:
 

Randhir - I contend that KM is not the most important thing in an organization.  KM is not an end in itself but rather a means to an end - organizational success.  At a strategic level, all organizations consist of four structures - social, business, technological, and knowledge.  All four must be integrated and work towards a common goal for the organization to succeed.  At a management level, we find the traditional triumvirate of people, processes, and technology, to which KMers add we add knowledge. 


IMO, the key underlying problem is that no one has really integrated the four structures very well.  Each structure primarily operates within its context and attempts to optimize its processes, often to the detriment of the other structures.  For example, enhancing IT takes resources that are then not available for business needs.  When was the last time that an IT shop considered how social structures interact with their systems?  Hence the importance of negotiation and conflict resolution along with sharing and collaboration as modes of social interaction within organizations.



Randhir Pushpa
 

Hi Stephen,

I think the major disconnect is in the definition of KM. Anything an organization does involves processing of knowledge. To truly leverage knowledge, 'Knowledge Management' should emphasize that. When that happens every one in the organization will have the responsibility to manage and work with knowledge more effectively.

That completely changes the way we see organization and the roles of employees be that at the leadership level or at functional level. 

We should not be separating Business Processing from Knowledge processing. Business processing is an act of Knowledge processing and improvements on the same can be done through Lessons Learned and Best Practice adoption.

Regards

Randhir

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 4:31 AM, Stephen Bounds km@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:
 

Hi Randhir,

Careful, you're falling into the trap of saying that KM is relevant to
any act that *uses* knowledge. This can't and should not be supported.

I would lend my support to Alice's point of view. Like her, I credit Joe
Firestone and Mark McElroy with the development of the three-tier view
of knowledge management where:

- business processing is the application of knowledge to do work
- knowledge processing is the evaluation and selection of alternative
solutions to solve problems
- knowledge management, technically speaking, *must* be an intervention
to change the status quo of a system

In this model, all three tiers use knowledge but it is only so-called
"meta-epistemic" acts that should be formally considered KM.

Joe was a passionate advocate for the model and it was a really
important development in delineating knowledge management as a
discipline and it deserves broader dissemination and adoption in the KM
community. It is rather abstract though; if you prefer essentially the
same concepts in a more business friendly package, you might consider
David Griffiths' K3 spiral [http://bounds.net.au/node/137].

As my own contribution, I have developed the Problem Solving Pattern, a
variant that seeks to unify the three-tier model, Boyd's OODA and
information processing to incorporate organisational IM/RM needs
[http://bounds.net.au/node/58]. In this model, "KM" is any intervention
that seeks to sustainably alter the operations of the iterative and
nested cycles of problem solving in a system or organisation.

Regardless of the model chosen, "knowledge processing" (KP) is not
Knowledge Management. It is simply the act of evaluating alternative
solutions and selecting the best one (subjectively). However, because
knowledge managers know lots of methods to help people identity and
choose between solutions, this work can fall to the KM role by default.

The split can be defined thus: You can help people make the right
choices in a specific situation (knowledge processing), or you can
monitor and intervene in your organisation's systems to mold them into
something that operates in a sustainably better way (knowledge management).

At the most basic level, an understanding of system dynamics will a help
but that doesn't necessarily mean that a formal KM program is necessary.

For example, there's currently a trend to bind agile and KM together.
Agile is a classic knowledge processing technique, but one which may or
may not require the use of knowledge management to successfully
implement (eg if there are cultural barriers to overcome).

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Director & Principal Consultant
knowquestion Pty Ltd
E: sb@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================

On 4/01/2016 12:05 PM, 'Randhir R.P' randhir.rp@... [sikmleaders]
wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Let me stick my neck out and say that Yes, I do mean to say that
> knowledge and its management is the most important and core focus of an
> organization.
>
> Organizations are nothing but a collection of Knowledge, which are
> present in different forms. One can define an organization in terms of
> different knowledge it has and what it does to/with that knowledge.
>
> Looking from that view every function needs to do KM and every
> organization needs to know what it has.
>
> A comparison between Product Engineering groups of competing
> organizations will show why some groups are more effective than the
> others and the answer will always be related the way knowledge is
> managed and is available. Knowledge as a process, culture and object.
>
> Innovation is simple terms is new knowledge. Business agility, the
> ability to rapidly change or respond to stimuli depends to a large
> extent knowledge about is coming up and how best to react. How best to
> react depends on how much knowledge the decision maker can summon/gather
> to make the decision. We can go deeper and deeper into the relevance of
> knowledge.
>
> Regards
>
> Randhir
>
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Stephen Bounds km@...
> km@...> [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...
> sikmleaders@...>> wrote:
>
> __
>
> Hi Randhir,
>
> Happy New Year to you too!
>
> > I realised that KM plays a more prominent role as compared to any
> > other function in the growth of an organization. For an organization
> > to be more agile, flexible or innovative, it has to adopt KM
> > practices.
>
> Those two statements are WAY too unqualified for my liking. More
> prominent than product engineering, sales, or marketing in inducing
> growth?? And that the ONLY way to be more agile, flexible, or
> innovative
> is to adopt KM practices??
>
> The evidence suggests otherwise. Just as we don't need a doctor to
> administer a bandaid, KM is not necessary to deploy in all situations.
>
> KM excels where situations are complex and there are diffuse drivers of
> change. There's a threshold where KM becomes more necessary and I think
> it's worth recognising that there are some cases where the cost will
> exceed the value.
>
> Cheers,
> -- Stephen.
>
> ====================================
> Stephen Bounds
> Director & Principal Consultant
> knowquestion Pty Ltd
> E: sb@... sb@...>
> M: 0401 829 096
> ====================================
>
> On 3/01/2016 4:42 AM, 'Randhir R.P' randhir.rp@...
> randhir.rp@...> [sikmleaders]


> wrote:
>
>
> > Dear All,
> >
> > Wish you a Happy, Prosperous and Knowledge filled 2016.
> >
> > I continue my series of mails on redefining and rethinking on the
> way KM
> > is positioned. As a practitioner I can see KM function growing in
> > stature within organizations, demanding a focus as core as that
> of HR,
> > Marketing, Finance, Operations etc.
> >
> > Reviews are happening in organizations on how last year was and
> how to
> > improve. One of the interesting suggestion I got on KM from my
> > leadership group was that, it is becoming too transactional and
> should
> > become more strategic.
> >
> > I was happy with that comment, because it meant that business leaders
> > could see that there is more that KM can offer. It would be
> interesting
> > to learn and define the strategic part of KM.
> >
> > While thinking of strategic part of KM, I realised that KM plays
> a more
> > prominent role as compared to any other function in the growth of an
> > organization. For an organization to be more agile, flexible or
> > innovative, it has to adopt KM practices.
> >
> > I would love to hear from you on your thoughts in this regard.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Dr.Randhir Pushpa
> >
> >
>
>
>