To add to Matt’s good insight below…it is important to focus on the “critical and relevant” knowledge of the organization based on the knowledge needs of the organization. It also must be part of a consistent and disciplined process for knowledge capture and retention that is tied to specific business and operational outcomes AND that is part of the business and operational processes of the organization.  Think also “use of knowledge and flow of knowledge” across the organization.

Bill

Learn more about the solutions and value we provide at www.workingknowledge-csp.com

About 15 years ago, I attended an APQC regional meeting in Detroit.  It included a visit to the Ford factory where they described their lessons learned experience.  My primary take-away was that it was easy to solicit contributions.  Their challenge was to motivate people to reuse what had been learned by others rather than reinventing things.

Al Simard

Matt – Scrapping programs implemented by one’s predecessor is not uncommon in the public sector.  In fact, one of the major risks for KM is a change in senior management.  New executives (and governments) typically want to “put their mark” on the programs (and agencies) they inherit.  One doesn’t get noticed for continuing something that has been working well nearly as much as for starting something new.  I have seen many good programs (including KM) trashed by well-meaning but misguided managers and executives who thought they knew better than people with 10 or 20 years of experience in running things.  For KM, my advice is to position KM as close to the corporate executive level as possible, align the program closely with the long-term goals and strategy of the organization, deliver what you promise, and be prepared to adapt to new management and shifting priorities.

Al

Agree Al.  Let me add that in the public sector the planning and budgeting for projects, like a KM project, is hostage to the annual budget cycles where the organization must plan and request funding much in advance.  Very often, in the case of the US federal sector, organizations find year end $$ and no way to sustain the project in the next and out years. As well, as you stated, many public sector leaders aren’t thinking so much about the people and constituencies they are supposed to lead and support, but more about their legacy’s and leaving their mark.  This occurs even in the highest offices of leadership in the US.

Murray –

As a former scientist, anyone who writes an article without acknowledging those whose prior research provided a foundation for their work simply isn’t doing good science.  And it is entirely appropriate that their article should be rejected for publication.  Science is supposed to be self-correcting and you just demonstrated that it is!

On the other hand, I have received more than one blind review in which it was obvious that the reviewer wanted me to cite their obscure work that was not openly available.  But what the heck, it costs nothing to add a reference or two to the list!

Al 

Bill -  Right on.  The challenge (in Canada, as well as the US) is to design a long-term program with short-term deliverables.  And not just for KM.  I worked as the KM guy in an IT shop in which the annual budget was about a third of what was needed for an agency of its size.  It took months to get funded research projects under way, during which time no funds could be expended.   However, managers would inevitably hold their unspent funds until a couple of months before the end of the fiscal year.  The requirement that anything purchased in the year had to be delivered before the last day of the year precluded starting much of anything.  That is unless you are the IT director and you have a list of needed technology readily at hand, in which you could quickly issue a purchase order for delivery in a week or two and install in next year.  Not the best way to run an agency, but, hey – whatever works.

Al

J