KM - consulting firms #strategy #consulting


Christoph Voegeli
 

Dear KM Experts 

'Shared' KM greetings from sunny Indonesia !

I am reaching put to you to engage and to collect yor expert (view) knowledge about KM in Consulting Firms!.

Based on some initial readings I believe that Consulting Firms can be a good example / benchmark to compare with other industry sectors (pls note that my perspective is about "holistic" KM .....rather than just one aspect ....e.g. sharing of knowlede .....or use of knowledge repository)

There are multible references that particularuly the big five (E&Y. KPMG, PWC, Accenture......)
 put quite substancial resources and energy into KM (KM Anayst . Researcher KM Director ...positions .....portals...sharing tools .....etc..) 

It is believed that overall the below characterisitcs can be attributed to them.

Knowledge intensive (sector)

Use ( implemented -strategies and tools) KM more than 15 years ago

Engaged in Km (in two ways) 

1) KM consulting (selling their services to companies that seek km consulting services ) evaluation or audit / proposed km program /framewok / implementation suppprt /  follow up ....etc.

2) KM for their internal (own) management of knowledge 

Advanced standing (marured) in terms of understanding using and leveraging KM

I am interesyed to knwo the following

A)

I appreciate your comments on the above (agreement or disagreement)

B)

I would be very happy to hear from you which research papers (hollistic KM in consulting firms - big 5) you recommend


I am looking to read your comments / suggestions 

Kind regards 

Chris



Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Chris,

The wide adoption of KM in consulting firms comes from the direct, financial benefits of its effective application.

In other words: consulting firms often sell knowledge as business solutions. If a consulting firm doesn't have to generate new knowledge from scratch, it is substantially quicker and cheaper to produce. Since even a low rate of reuse can produce substantial benefits, the

Legal firms have a similar incentive to adopt KM in the guise of precedent management, but the most common financial structure of legal firms (where individual are under extreme pressure to focus on billable hours) makes it trickier to get buy-in for contributing to a non-billable outcome.

Do consulting and law firms do effective KM? Yes, most of them. But they have limited applicability to how KM needs to be implemented elsewhere. We need to be looking at deeper principles, not just seeking to ape what they do.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 28/09/2018 1:17 PM, Chris Chris manager4hotel@... [sikmleaders] wrote:

 

Dear KM Experts 


'Shared' KM greetings from sunny Indonesia !

I am reaching put to you to engage and to collect yor expert (view) knowledge about KM in Consulting Firms!.

Based on some initial readings I believe that Consulting Firms can be a good example / benchmark to compare with other industry sectors (pls note that my perspective is about "holistic" KM .....rather than just one aspect ....e.g. sharing of knowlede .....or use of knowledge repository)

There are multible references that particularuly the big five (E&Y. KPMG, PWC, Accenture......)
 put quite substancial resources and energy into KM (KM Anayst . Researcher KM Director ...positions .....portals...sharing tools .....etc..) 

It is believed that overall the below characterisitcs can be attributed to them.

Knowledge intensive (sector)

Use ( implemented -strategies and tools) KM more than 15 years ago

Engaged in Km (in two ways) 

1) KM consulting (selling their services to companies that seek km consulting services ) evaluation or audit / proposed km program /framewok / implementation suppprt /  follow up ....etc.

2) KM for their internal (own) management of knowledge 

Advanced standing (marured) in terms of understanding using and leveraging KM

I am interesyed to knwo the following

A)

I appreciate your comments on the above (agreement or disagreement)

B)

I would be very happy to hear from you which research papers (hollistic KM in consulting firms - big 5) you recommend


I am looking to read your comments / suggestions 

Kind regards 

Chris




tman9999@...
 

Chris - why are you asking this question? Why do you want to know about these firms and their KM practices?

Thanks.
Tom Shorten


Christoph Voegeli
 

Dear Stephen 

Thank you very much for responding to my group-mail.

I understand and agree on the financial aspect (storing and recycling KN is more $ for a consulting company) .......That concept may work well ( better / more effectively) for certain industry (bur not for others) sectors. Beside consulting ......possibly oil exploration, mining .......(.bcs the process / focus is simple and straight fwd.....and fast substancial benefits can be realized).

However iisn't it good to start looking at a simple model ....first and after that is understood in totality to move to more complex ones......and I find consutling firm KM intrigueing bcs they apply KM in two ways .....internally and externally.

Are there readings (research papers you are aware of that you would recommend) that concern about consulting firms KM (s
What strategies / frameworks / structures and tools they use)?

One more thank you taking out some of your valuable time to respond to me.

Kind regards 

Chris






On Friday, September 28, 2018, 9:55:49 PM GMT+7, Stephen Bounds km@... [sikmleaders] wrote:


 

Hi Chris,

The wide adoption of KM in consulting firms comes from the direct, financial benefits of its effective application.

In other words: consulting firms often sell knowledge as business solutions. If a consulting firm doesn't have to generate new knowledge from scratch, it is substantially quicker and cheaper to produce. Since even a low rate of reuse can produce substantial benefits, the

Legal firms have a similar incentive to adopt KM in the guise of precedent management, but the most common financial structure of legal firms (where individual are under extreme pressure to focus on billable hours) makes it trickier to get buy-in for contributing to a non-billable outcome.

Do consulting and law firms do effective KM? Yes, most of them. But they have limited applicability to how KM needs to be implemented elsewhere. We need to be looking at deeper principles, not just seeking to ape what they do.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 28/09/2018 1:17 PM, Chris Chris manager4hotel@... [sikmleaders] wrote:
 

Dear KM Experts 


'Shared' KM greetings from sunny Indonesia !

I am reaching put to you to engage and to collect yor expert (view) knowledge about KM in Consulting Firms!.

Based on some initial readings I believe that Consulting Firms can be a good example / benchmark to compare with other industry sectors (pls note that my perspective is about "holistic" KM .....rather than just one aspect ....e.g. sharing of knowlede .....or use of knowledge repository)

There are multible references that particularuly the big five (E&Y. KPMG, PWC, Accenture......)
 put quite substancial resources and energy into KM (KM Anayst . Researcher KM Director ...positions .....portals...sharing tools .....etc..) 

It is believed that overall the below characterisitcs can be attributed to them.

Knowledge intensive (sector)

Use ( implemented -strategies and tools) KM more than 15 years ago

Engaged in Km (in two ways) 

1) KM consulting (selling their services to companies that seek km consulting services ) evaluation or audit / proposed km program /framewok / implementation suppprt /  follow up ....etc.

2) KM for their internal (own) management of knowledge 

Advanced standing (marured) in terms of understanding using and leveraging KM

I am interesyed to knwo the following

A)

I appreciate your comments on the above (agreement or disagreement)

B)

I would be very happy to hear from you which research papers (hollistic KM in consulting firms - big 5) you recommend


I am looking to read your comments / suggestions 

Kind regards 

Chris




Christoph Voegeli
 

Dear Tom 

Thank you for your email.

From what I know so far consulting firms are very active and engaged (e.g. the big 5 
....  over the years they have shown up regularily as top KM companies in - for example -  the MAKE award) with KM.That may be indication that they are leaders in the field / best in class. (So there sld be something one can learn from them...... ..or takung another perspective .....yes they are very active in KM ......bcs they have to - so they can maximize revenues and this industy has the advantage that KN discovery and re-utilisation ( one solution  found can be sold to other clients over and over again).is a simple straight fwd process (but are consulting firms only doing that ...finding storing and (multible times) reselling knowledge? 

If the llater is right than organisations like MAKE sld rethink if it is fair and justifiable to award them again and agian (adjust / change criteria). 

If you think that consulting firms are not "KM Best in class ".......what companies / industry sectors are ?


Looking fwd to hear from you 


Rgds Chris



On Friday, September 28, 2018, 10:30:59 PM GMT+7, tman9999@... [sikmleaders] wrote:


 

Chris - why are you asking this question? Why do you want to know about these firms and their KM practices?

Thanks.
Tom Shorten


Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Chris,

To answer your question, if you want to look at existing frameworks for consultants you can't really go wrong with Buckman. It's the original blueprint for high-value knowledge reuse which is broadly what gets adopted by consulting companies, multinational mining companies, and innovation-driven companies like 3M.

I don't think it's about a simple model versus a complex model though. The capability maturity model for this consulting-style KM tends to look something like this. While technically it could be adapted to any kind of organisation, it prioritises explicit knowledge, moving knowledge across silos, and standardised processes for knowledge capture and sharing. I believe the last 20 years of KM gives us ample evidence that this approach will fail in 95% of organisations. The cost-benefit simply doesn't stack up -- too much cost for too little return.

Rather, I think the future of KM will be more like deploying a team of engineers. The KM solutions for any given scenario in an organisation will be quite unique and fit for purpose, but designs will originate in a common base of KM expertise and training.

Although I have some personal thoughts about what that future could look like (with props to the PhD work of Andre Saito), I fully acknowledge that we have little community consensus at this point in time.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 29/09/2018 2:50 AM, Chris Chris manager4hotel@... [sikmleaders] wrote:

 
Dear Stephen 

Thank you very much for responding to my group-mail.

I understand and agree on the financial aspect (storing and recycling KN is more $ for a consulting company) .......That concept may work well ( better / more effectively) for certain industry (bur not for others) sectors. Beside consulting ......possibly oil exploration, mining .......(.bcs the process / focus is simple and straight fwd.....and fast substancial benefits can be realized).

However iisn't it good to start looking at a simple model ....first and after that is understood in totality to move to more complex ones......and I find consutling firm KM intrigueing bcs they apply KM in two ways .....internally and externally.

Are there readings (research papers you are aware of that you would recommend) that concern about consulting firms KM (s
What strategies / frameworks / structures and tools they use)?

One more thank you taking out some of your valuable time to respond to me.

Kind regards 

Chris






On Friday, September 28, 2018, 9:55:49 PM GMT+7, Stephen Bounds km@... [sikmleaders] wrote:


 

Hi Chris,

The wide adoption of KM in consulting firms comes from the direct, financial benefits of its effective application.

In other words: consulting firms often sell knowledge as business solutions. If a consulting firm doesn't have to generate new knowledge from scratch, it is substantially quicker and cheaper to produce. Since even a low rate of reuse can produce substantial benefits, the

Legal firms have a similar incentive to adopt KM in the guise of precedent management, but the most common financial structure of legal firms (where individual are under extreme pressure to focus on billable hours) makes it trickier to get buy-in for contributing to a non-billable outcome.

Do consulting and law firms do effective KM? Yes, most of them. But they have limited applicability to how KM needs to be implemented elsewhere. We need to be looking at deeper principles, not just seeking to ape what they do.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 28/09/2018 1:17 PM, Chris Chris manager4hotel@... [sikmleaders] wrote:
 

Dear KM Experts 


'Shared' KM greetings from sunny Indonesia !

I am reaching put to you to engage and to collect yor expert (view) knowledge about KM in Consulting Firms!.

Based on some initial readings I believe that Consulting Firms can be a good example / benchmark to compare with other industry sectors (pls note that my perspective is about "holistic" KM .....rather than just one aspect ....e.g. sharing of knowlede .....or use of knowledge repository)

There are multible references that particularuly the big five (E&Y. KPMG, PWC, Accenture......)
 put quite substancial resources and energy into KM (KM Anayst . Researcher KM Director ...positions .....portals...sharing tools .....etc..) 

It is believed that overall the below characterisitcs can be attributed to them.

Knowledge intensive (sector)

Use ( implemented -strategies and tools) KM more than 15 years ago

Engaged in Km (in two ways) 

1) KM consulting (selling their services to companies that seek km consulting services ) evaluation or audit / proposed km program /framewok / implementation suppprt /  follow up ....etc.

2) KM for their internal (own) management of knowledge 

Advanced standing (marured) in terms of understanding using and leveraging KM

I am interesyed to knwo the following

A)

I appreciate your comments on the above (agreement or disagreement)

B)

I would be very happy to hear from you which research papers (hollistic KM in consulting firms - big 5) you recommend


I am looking to read your comments / suggestions 

Kind regards 

Chris





tman9999@...
 

Chris - while it is true that the large consulting firms all put a good deal of effort on managing information and artifacts, it is debatable how good a job they do at managing actual tacit knowledge and expertise. The Big 4 firms have 100,000-200,000+ staff, the bulk of whom are professional staff - ie, knowledge workers. As a result it’s no wonder that these firms put some emphasis on KM. But managing “stuff” (knowledge as a stock) isn’t the same as managing expertise (knowledge as a flow).

The former can be helpful for organizing and cataloguing proposals, work papers and engagement deliverables, making them findable by others who ostensibly would re-use them. There are numerous reasons why even this apparent no-brainer doesn’t always work out as intended in the large firms.

Managing knowledge as a flow is even trickier, for it is at least in part a function of getting the right people working on the right project or task at the right time. Small (<50 employees) companies are in a better position to do this than large (>1000) organizations. As a result, the big professional services firms struggle with this, too. The goals of managing knowledge as a flow are innovation and productivity improvement. The challenge is getting the right people on task when needed. With tens of thousands of people, any one of whom might have a valuable insight that, when combined with the insights and perspectives of three others, could produce the next amazing service offering for the firm, you’re looking at a needle in the haystack problem.

If you would like to see an example of an organization that really means it when they say they take KM seriously, check out the US Army. The Wildland Fire Service is another one, having adopted many of the US Army’s approaches. The common thread between these two? Failure to learn from past actions means people die needlessly.

For the most part the same can’t be said in companies or most other organizations. As a result, politics, culture, ego, and financial constraints conspire to derail many KM efforts, regardless of how well-conceived they may be. At least, that has been what I’ve observed more often than not. Not always. But frequently.

Tom Short


Valdis Krebs
 

>> But managing “stuff” (knowledge as a stock) isn’t the same as managing expertise (knowledge as a flow). 

So true, Tom!  

Expertise/wisdom/context is best managed as a flow via trusted relationships. Flows and relationships are more important as you move up the organizational hierarchy.  You can stock data/facts/info used by low level folks in the org, but you can't do that with execs, who not only need cross-cutting ties within the organization, but trusted relationships on the outside with advisors, customers, suppliers, and even regulators and competitors.

Based on our 20+ years of org consulting, stock the data/info for the bottom 1/3 and map the flows and relationships for the top 2/3 is a pretty safe rule-of-thumb for KM in modern organizations.  Yet, like all rules, it can vary according to context -- consulting orgs will be much different than product-based orgs. A sub-rule of  the above is: the more the performance of your job depends upon an unknown/non-predictable future the more you will rely on trusted relationships and networks to make-sense of what is happening and what choices may be available.

Valdis Krebs
Orgnet, LLC
@orgnet


Christoph Voegeli
 

Dear Vladis 


Very Interesting ....do you know if there is research avail on this (deviding - lower levels info mgmt and higer / 2/3 KM.....flow) ?

Thanks ...I learned somwthing new from you

Rgds chris

On Monday, October 1, 2018, 12:02:16 AM GMT+7, orgnet9@... [sikmleaders] wrote:


 

>> But managing “stuff” (knowledge as a stock) isn’t the same as managing expertise (knowledge as a flow). 


So true, Tom!  

Expertise/wisdom/context is best managed as a flow via trusted relationships. Flows and relationships are more important as you move up the organizational hierarchy.  You can stock data/facts/info used by low level folks in the org, but you can't do that with execs, who not only need cross-cutting ties within the organization, but trusted relationships on the outside with advisors, customers, suppliers, and even regulators and competitors.

Based on our 20+ years of org consulting, stock the data/info for the bottom 1/3 and map the flows and relationships for the top 2/3 is a pretty safe rule-of-thumb for KM in modern organizations.  Yet, like all rules, it can vary according to context -- consulting orgs will be much different than product-based orgs. A sub-rule of  the above is: the more the performance of your job depends upon an unknown/non-predictable future the more you will rely on trusted relationships and networks to make-sense of what is happening and what choices may be available.

Valdis Krebs
Orgnet, LLC
@orgnet


Cristina Whelan
 

Hi All

Vladis, you hit the nail on the head here! This is the most challenging part of KM from my perspective: fostering the development of right relationships to deliver value to your most valuable users. Still, I spend most of my time concentrating on 'stocking info for the bottom 1/3'.

I wanted to know how you think mapping flows and relationships helps with knowledge sharing? Also, how can we forge new relationships when you realise the connections aren't happening?

I work for a global organisation and I know we have people with very similar expertise across the globe that would benefit from connecting with each other. Yet, due to the profile of these professionals (senior executives), the use of a digital workspace or collaboration platform is not front of mind as they prefer to interact with peers on a direct basis. We are missing incredible opportunities to capture and share their knowledge more widely due to these one-to-one relationships. 

Anyone has any ideas of how we can transform one-to-one interactions into resources that can be accessed by others? I've tried CoP's but struggled to get traction...

Thank you in advance!


---In sikmleaders@..., <orgnet9@...> wrote :

>> But managing “stuff” (knowledge as a stock) isn’t the same as managing expertise (knowledge as a flow). 

So true, Tom!  

Expertise/wisdom/context is best managed as a flow via trusted relationships. Flows and relationships are more important as you move up the organizational hierarchy.  You can stock data/facts/info used by low level folks in the org, but you can't do that with execs, who not only need cross-cutting ties within the organization, but trusted relationships on the outside with advisors, customers, suppliers, and even regulators and competitors.

Based on our 20+ years of org consulting, stock the data/info for the bottom 1/3 and map the flows and relationships for the top 2/3 is a pretty safe rule-of-thumb for KM in modern organizations.  Yet, like all rules, it can vary according to context -- consulting orgs will be much different than product-based orgs. A sub-rule of  the above is: the more the performance of your job depends upon an unknown/non-predictable future the more you will rely on trusted relationships and networks to make-sense of what is happening and what choices may be available.

Valdis Krebs
Orgnet, LLC
@orgnet


John Hovell
 

Fun and challenging questions here, thanks for sharing. Not sure if it helps to hear this Cristina, but I think you’re not alone in that challenge (e.g. preference for personal relationships and minimal international capture/share).

 

I wonder if this is an example of where the convergence of a few disciplines is helpful – I’m thinking about KM, Org Development, Diversity & Inclusion, and Design Thinking in this case? In other words, its collaborative on the content side (e.g. capturing/sharing) and its collaborative on the design side (e.g. sharing/capturing techniques, group dynamics, culture, empathy, etc.)?

 

So many more thoughts/questions here, but I’ll pause, thanks for sparking something!

 

Thanks,

John Hovell

John.Hovell@...

http://www.STRATactical.com

 

 

From: sikmleaders@...
Sent: Monday, October 1, 2018 9:05 AM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM - consulting firms

 

 

Hi All

 

Vladis, you hit the nail on the head here! This is the most challenging part of KM from my perspective: fostering the development of right relationships to deliver value to your most valuable users. Still, I spend most of my time concentrating on 'stocking info for the bottom 1/3'.

 

I wanted to know how you think mapping flows and relationships helps with knowledge sharing? Also, how can we forge new relationships when you realise the connections aren't happening?

 

I work for a global organisation and I know we have people with very similar expertise across the globe that would benefit from connecting with each other. Yet, due to the profile of these professionals (senior executives), the use of a digital workspace or collaboration platform is not front of mind as they prefer to interact with peers on a direct basis. We are missing incredible opportunities to capture and share their knowledge more widely due to these one-to-one relationships. 

 

Anyone has any ideas of how we can transform one-to-one interactions into resources that can be accessed by others? I've tried CoP's but struggled to get traction...

 

Thank you in advance!



---In sikmleaders@..., <orgnet9@...> wrote :

>> But managing “stuff” (knowledge as a stock) isn’t the same as managing expertise (knowledge as a flow). 

 

So true, Tom!  

 

Expertise/wisdom/context is best managed as a flow via trusted relationships. Flows and relationships are more important as you move up the organizational hierarchy.  You can stock data/facts/info used by low level folks in the org, but you can't do that with execs, who not only need cross-cutting ties within the organization, but trusted relationships on the outside with advisors, customers, suppliers, and even regulators and competitors.

 

Based on our 20+ years of org consulting, stock the data/info for the bottom 1/3 and map the flows and relationships for the top 2/3 is a pretty safe rule-of-thumb for KM in modern organizations.  Yet, like all rules, it can vary according to context -- consulting orgs will be much different than product-based orgs. A sub-rule of  the above is: the more the performance of your job depends upon an unknown/non-predictable future the more you will rely on trusted relationships and networks to make-sense of what is happening and what choices may be available.

 

Valdis Krebs

Orgnet, LLC

@orgnet

 


Valdis Krebs
 

Hello Christina,

First my name V a l d i s, not Vladis.

Second, yes we agree.  Storing data/facts/info is easy and lends itself to computers and IT.  The technology part of KM is easy, the sociology part of KM is difficult.  

We have been doing organizational network analysis for over 20 years with large and small companies, for profit and non-profit.  Our clients always want to see the knowledge landscape of their organizations -- who is sharing knowledge? who is providing expertise/advice? who is providing career/personal support? Where are the emergent communities of practice/knowledge/interest? and so on.  They want to see the pattern of conversations that actually get things done in the org for their customers -- from initial design convos to customer support discusions.

We did a SIKM call recently and our presentation should be available -- we talked about what happens in the white/empty space on the org chart.  Here are a few articles we have written about our work that focus/touch on KM in organizations.

Enjoy!

Valdis

Orgnet, LLC

 


Christoph Voegeli
 

Dear KM Experts 

This is all very interesting stuff......

Since you both (cristina and valdis) seem to be in consulting how do you show (meassure) the value (benefit) you create through your work (....we know about the difficulty to meassure).

The last 7 yers I engaged with km more intensively i only came across one  tool  .... skandia / leif edvinsson.

Thank tou for engaging 

Rgds 

Chris








On Monday, October 1, 2018, 8:38:32 PM GMT+7, cristina.whelan@... [sikmleaders] wrote:


 

Hi All


Vladis, you hit the nail on the head here! This is the most challenging part of KM from my perspective: fostering the development of right relationships to deliver value to your most valuable users. Still, I spend most of my time concentrating on 'stocking info for the bottom 1/3'.

I wanted to know how you think mapping flows and relationships helps with knowledge sharing? Also, how can we forge new relationships when you realise the connections aren't happening?

I work for a global organisation and I know we have people with very similar expertise across the globe that would benefit from connecting with each other. Yet, due to the profile of these professionals (senior executives), the use of a digital workspace or collaboration platform is not front of mind as they prefer to interact with peers on a direct basis. We are missing incredible opportunities to capture and share their knowledge more widely due to these one-to-one relationships. 

Anyone has any ideas of how we can transform one-to-one interactions into resources that can be accessed by others? I've tried CoP's but struggled to get traction...

Thank you in advance!


---In sikmleaders@..., wrote :

>> But managing “stuff” (knowledge as a stock) isn’t the same as managing expertise (knowledge as a flow). 

So true, Tom!  

Expertise/wisdom/context is best managed as a flow via trusted relationships. Flows and relationships are more important as you move up the organizational hierarchy.  You can stock data/facts/info used by low level folks in the org, but you can't do that with execs, who not only need cross-cutting ties within the organization, but trusted relationships on the outside with advisors, customers, suppliers, and even regulators and competitors.

Based on our 20+ years of org consulting, stock the data/info for the bottom 1/3 and map the flows and relationships for the top 2/3 is a pretty safe rule-of-thumb for KM in modern organizations.  Yet, like all rules, it can vary according to context -- consulting orgs will be much different than product-based orgs. A sub-rule of  the above is: the more the performance of your job depends upon an unknown/non-predictable future the more you will rely on trusted relationships and networks to make-sense of what is happening and what choices may be available.

Valdis Krebs
Orgnet, LLC
@orgnet


tman9999@...
 

Measuring the benefits of a KM effort is not as straightforward as measure profit/loss or revenue. It depends upon the objective of the KM effort in the first place. Some KM efforts are aimed at driving increased innovation in products or services, while others are aimed at process innovation and productivity improvement. Still others might be aimed at employee retention or employee engagement.

After that, it comes down to understanding how a given Km initiative affects the desired outcome. In many (most?) cases the metric that will be most credible will end up being an “in-process” metric, like number of instances of a desired behavior, rather than an outcome metric, like increased employee productivity.

You’re asking a lot of questions, Chris, that this group has discussed ad nauseum over the last several years. What is it you’re trying to do? How are these inputs helping you?


Murray Jennex
 
Edited

The attached paper has a set of statistically validated measures for KM success, they should provide guidance on where and what to measure and include hard and soft measures...murray jennex
Jennex_Smolnik_Croasdell_hicss49_final.pdf


-----Original Message-----
From: tman9999@... [sikmleaders]
To: sikmleaders
Sent: Mon, Oct 1, 2018 8:04 pm
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM - consulting firms

Measuring the benefits of a KM effort is not as straightforward as measure profit/loss or revenue. It depends upon the objective of the KM effort in the first place. Some KM efforts are aimed at driving increased innovation in products or services, while others are aimed at process innovation and productivity improvement. Still others might be aimed at employee retention or employee engagement.

After that, it comes down to understanding how a given Km initiative affects the desired outcome. In many (most?) cases the metric that will be most credible will end up being an “in-process” metric, like number of instances of a desired behavior, rather than an outcome metric, like increased employee productivity.

You’re asking a lot of questions, Chris, that this group has discussed ad nauseum over the last several years. What is it you’re trying to do? How are these inputs helping you?


------------------------------------
Posted by:
tman9999@...
------------------------------------


------------------------------------

Yahoo Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sikmleaders/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sikmleaders/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    sikmleaders-digest@...
    sikmleaders-fullfeatured@...

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    sikmleaders-unsubscribe@...

<*> Your use of Yahoo Groups is subject to:
    https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/



Patrick Lambe
 

Thanks for sharing this Murray.

I’m trying to chase down one of your references in this paper - 

Jennex, M.E., (2006). “Why We Can’t Return to the Moon: The Need for Knowledge Management.” International Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(1), pp. i-iv.

I cant find it in the IJKM tables of contents or on Google Scholar - was it an editorial and how would I get hold of a copy?

P

Patrick Lambe

Partner
+65 62210383



twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 2 Oct 2018, at 11:40 AM, Murray Jennex murphjen@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:

[Attachment(s) from Murray Jennex included below]

The attached paper has a set of statistically validated measures for KM success, they should provide guidance on where and what to measure and include hard and soft measures...murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: tman9999@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...>
To: sikmleaders <sikmleaders@...>
Sent: Mon, Oct 1, 2018 8:04 pm
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM - consulting firms

Measuring the benefits of a KM effort is not as straightforward as measure profit/loss or revenue. It depends upon the objective of the KM effort in the first place. Some KM efforts are aimed at driving increased innovation in products or services, while others are aimed at process innovation and productivity improvement. Still others might be aimed at employee retention or employee engagement. 

After that, it comes down to understanding how a given Km initiative affects the desired outcome. In many (most?) cases the metric that will be most credible will end up being an “in-process” metric, like number of instances of a desired behavior, rather than an outcome metric, like increased employee productivity. 

You’re asking a lot of questions, Chris, that this group has discussed ad nauseum over the last several years. What is it you’re trying to do? How are these inputs helping you? 


------------------------------------
Posted by: 
tman9999@...
------------------------------------


------------------------------------

Yahoo Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sikmleaders/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sikmleaders/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    sikmleaders-digest@... 
    sikmleaders-fullfeatured@...

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    sikmleaders-unsubscribe@...

<*> Your use of Yahoo Groups is subject to:
    https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/





Thomas Vander Wal
 

Patrick —

I found full text of the “Why We Can’t Return to the Moon…” on Research Gate. It can be found here - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239541112_Why_We_Can%27t_Return_to_the_Moon_The_Need_for_Knowledge_Management 

All the best,
Thomas

-- 
Professional blog: www.personalinfocloud.com
Personal: www.vanderwal.net

Mobile/Work +1 240.481.8063
Twitter (personal): @vanderwal
Twitter (work): @infocloud


Murray Jennex
 

Thanks for posting the link Thomas, I've been trying to send the pdf but its getting blocked.....murray


-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Vander Wal thomas@... [sikmleaders]
To: mark.tilbury@... [sikmleaders]
Sent: Tue, Oct 2, 2018 6:57 am
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] KM - consulting firms



Patrick —

I found full text of the “Why We Can’t Return to the Moon…” on Research Gate. It can be found here - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239541112_Why_We_Can%27t_Return_to_the_Moon_The_Need_for_Knowledge_Management 

All the best,
Thomas

-- 
Professional blog: www.personalinfocloud.com
Personal: www.vanderwal.net

Mobile/Work +1 240.481.8063
Twitter (personal): @vanderwal
Twitter (work): @infocloud




Christoph Voegeli
 

Dear tman9999

Thank you for your response.

Apologies for anoying you with questions that were already discussed in the past.

However, {sometimes) I believe  engaging in (written) conversations about "old" (questions) issues can lead to new knowledge (reflecting).

I will look back at earlier discussing strings to hopefully avoid repetition.

Kind regards

Chris 


 

 


From: tman9999@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...>
To: sikmleaders <sikmleaders@...>
Sent: Mon, Oct 1, 2018 8:04 pm
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM - consulting firms

Measuring the benefits of a KM effort is not as straightforward as measure profit/loss or revenue. It depends upon the objective of the KM effort in the first place. Some KM efforts are aimed at driving increased innovation in products or services, while others are aimed at process innovation and productivity improvement. Still others might be aimed at employee retention or employee engagement. 

After that, it comes down to understanding how a given Km initiative affects the desired outcome. In many (most?) cases the metric that will be most credible will end up being an “in-process” metric, like number of instances of a desired behavior, rather than an outcome metric, like increased employee productivity. 

You’re asking a lot of questions, Chris, that this group has discussed ad nauseum over the last several years. What is it you’re trying to do? How are these inputs helping you? 







Cristina Whelan
 

Thank you, John.

 

You suggest a very interesting approach. I certainly think we will have to adopt a combination of disciplines, and it makes a lot of sense on paper. My challenge is operationalising it in a sustainable way. I understand we need to put some effort at the start to get things going and pilot some initiatives to monitor and report success. I wanted to see if anyone has experienced an approach that grows and develops organically without the need for the constant push from the KM function.

 

Any thoughts or am I dreaming alone here?

 

Cristina Whelan

Knowledge Manager, Advisory Services

 

D +44 (0)20 7391 9528

M +44 (0) 7900 706468

cristina.whelan@...  

 

grantthornton.global

 

 

Grant Thornton International Ltd
20 Fenchurch Street, Level 25

London EC3M 3BY

 

From: sikmleaders@... <sikmleaders@...>
Sent: 01 October 2018 14:47
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: RE: [sikmleaders] Re: KM - consulting firms

 

 

Fun and challenging questions here, thanks for sharing. Not sure if it helps to hear this Cristina, but I think you’re not alone in that challenge (e.g. preference for personal relationships and minimal international capture/share).

 

I wonder if this is an example of where the convergence of a few disciplines is helpful – I’m thinking about KM, Org Development, Diversity & Inclusion, and Design Thinking in this case? In other words, its collaborative on the content side (e.g. capturing/sharing) and its collaborative on the design side (e.g. sharing/capturing techniques, group dynamics, culture, empathy, etc.)?

 

So many more thoughts/questions here, but I’ll pause, thanks for sparking something!

 

Thanks,

John Hovell

John.Hovell@...

http://www.STRATactical.com

 

 

From: sikmleaders@... <sikmleaders@...>
Sent: Monday, October 1, 2018 9:05 AM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM - consulting firms

 

 

Hi All

 

Vladis, you hit the nail on the head here! This is the most challenging part of KM from my perspective: fostering the development of right relationships to deliver value to your most valuable users. Still, I spend most of my time concentrating on 'stocking info for the bottom 1/3'.

 

I wanted to know how you think mapping flows and relationships helps with knowledge sharing? Also, how can we forge new relationships when you realise the connections aren't happening?

 

I work for a global organisation and I know we have people with very similar expertise across the globe that would benefit from connecting with each other. Yet, due to the profile of these professionals (senior executives), the use of a digital workspace or collaboration platform is not front of mind as they prefer to interact with peers on a direct basis. We are missing incredible opportunities to capture and share their knowledge more widely due to these one-to-one relationships. 

 

Anyone has any ideas of how we can transform one-to-one interactions into resources that can be accessed by others? I've tried CoP's but struggled to get traction...

 

Thank you in advance!



---In sikmleaders@..., <orgnet9@...> wrote :

>> But managing “stuff” (knowledge as a stock) isn’t the same as managing expertise (knowledge as a flow). 

 

So true, Tom!  

 

Expertise/wisdom/context is best managed as a flow via trusted relationships. Flows and relationships are more important as you move up the organizational hierarchy.  You can stock data/facts/info used by low level folks in the org, but you can't do that with execs, who not only need cross-cutting ties within the organization, but trusted relationships on the outside with advisors, customers, suppliers, and even regulators and competitors.

 

Based on our 20+ years of org consulting, stock the data/info for the bottom 1/3 and map the flows and relationships for the top 2/3 is a pretty safe rule-of-thumb for KM in modern organizations.  Yet, like all rules, it can vary according to context -- consulting orgs will be much different than product-based orgs. A sub-rule of  the above is: the more the performance of your job depends upon an unknown/non-predictable future the more you will rely on trusted relationships and networks to make-sense of what is happening and what choices may be available.

 

Valdis Krebs

Orgnet, LLC

@orgnet

 

Grant Thornton International Ltd (GTIL) is a company limited by guarantee incorporated in England and Wales with registered number 05523714 (registered office: Grant Thornton International Ltd, 20 Fenchurch Street, Level 25, London, EC3M 3BY). GTIL and the member firms are not a worldwide partnership. Services are delivered by the member firms. GTIL and its member firms are not agents of, and do not obligate, one another and are not liable for one another’s acts or omissions. Please see www.GrantThornton.global for further details.

The name “Grant Thornton”, the Grant Thornton logo, including the Mobius symbol/device, and “Instinct for Growth” are trademarks of GTIL. All copyright is owned by GTIL, including the copyright in the Grant Thornton logo; all rights are reserved.

This email (and any attachments) is confidential and may also be legally privileged. Anything in this email (and any attachments) which does not relate to official business of GTIL is neither given nor endorsed by GTIL. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete it from your system and destroy any copies of it (and any attachments).