The Knowledge Services Handbook: A Guide for the Knowledge Strategist 9783110635577, 9783110631876

Citation preview

The Knowledge Services Handbook

Knowledge Services

Edited by Guy St. Clair Editorial Board Michelle Dollinger, Manager at Deloitte – Global Tech, Media, Telecom Industry Knowledge Leader (USA) Dr Susan Henczel, Consultant to libraries, information organizations and professional associations (Australia) Dr. Lee Igel, Clinical Associate Professor, Tisch Institute for Global Sport, New York University (USA) Barrie Levy, Knowledge Services Coordinator/Knowledge Strategist, Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates, Architects and Associate Lecturer, Columbia University in the City of New York (USA) Anne Kershaw, Owner and Managing Director, Reasonable Discovery, LLC and Lecturer, Columbia University in the City of New York (USA)

Guy St. Clair and Barrie Levy

The Knowledge Services Handbook A Guide for the Knowledge Strategist A Companion Volume to Knowledge Services: A Strategic Framework for the 21st Century Organization

ISBN 978-3-11-063187-6 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-063557-7 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-063202-6 ISSN 2625-6126 Library of Congress Control Number: 2019950569 Bibliografische Information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Cover Image: shuoshu / DigitalVision Vectors / gettyimages.com Typesetting: Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd. Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com

“I suddenly realized that Keynes and all the brilliant economic students in the room were interested in the behavior of commodities, while I was interested in the behavior of people.” –Peter F. Drucker after a lecture by John Maynard Keynes

Preface: Enabling the knowledge sharing culture Knowledge services is described as the approach that streamlines the management of an organization’s knowledge by converging information management, knowledge management (KM), and strategic learning into a single enterprisewide discipline. Its goal is to ensure the highest levels of knowledge sharing within the organization, and, as an operational function, knowledge services contributes significantly to the successful achievement of the organization’s stated and agreed-upon mission and vision. The Knowledge Services Handbook – a companion volume to Knowledge Services: A Strategic Framework for the 21st Century Organization (De Gruyter 2016) – is a single reference for supporting knowledge strategists in their work. When published, Knowledge Services included both a “theoretical” perspective about knowledge services and offered a “prescriptive direction” for working in knowledge services. Yet for a knowledge practitioner just starting in knowledge services, an even more distilled, practical guide was also needed, a focused “road map” for the knowledge strategist to enable hitting the ground running. The Knowledge Services Handbook is that road map. As knowledge strategists (or aspiring knowledge strategists) seek to ensure that knowledge services is practiced as well as it can be in the organizations in which they are employed, they recognize that they must be familiar with the wide range of topics, methodologies, and leadership requirements that guide them in their work. They are responsible for directing the trajectory of knowledge services – developing and implementing the knowledge strategy for the knowledge domains of their organizations. As methodologies and requirements continue to be introduced and refined in the workplace, it is incumbent on the knowledge strategist to remain as current as possible regarding these trends and best practices. With technology ever improving and the general pace of completing tasks continually demanding faster responses to knowledge sharing opportunities, the necessity for having information readily available and knowledge sharing processes successfully integrated is more important than ever, if for no other reason than to establish that knowledge sharing in the organization will remain best-in-class to ensure that the organization’s intellectual capital is not lost due to turnover or retirement. With this handbook, we go beyond the Knowledge Services theoretical approach and move deeper into the practicalities of knowledge services. Describing this book as “a single reference for supporting knowledge strategists” states exactly what we expect to do. Knowledge strategists (whether so titled or not) are the employees in every organization tasked with a very important (indeed, critical) responsibility; they require the prescriptive and practical https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110635577-201

VIII

Preface: Enabling the knowledge sharing culture

direction provided in this book as they seek to meet the challenges of knowledge strategy implementation in their organizations. They have strategic knowledge services management responsibilities, including authority and accountability for successful knowledge services. At the same time, those responsibilities succeed only when the knowledge strategist’s leadership skills are developed, and the employee is recognized and supported as a leader in the organization. For the most successful knowledge strategists, knowledge services truly is a balanced management and leadership methodology that meets the definition found in the earlier book, that is, “an approach to the management of intellectual capital that converges information management, knowledge management, and strategic learning into a single enterprise-wide discipline.” Additionally, knowledge strategists must not only excel in the subjects identified in Knowledge Services: A Strategic Framework for the 21st Century Organization, they must also be able to facilitate bridging these fundamentals back to the organization’s knowledge domain – putting knowledge services to work for their organization. And knowledge strategists – make no mistake about it – must before all else deal with these fundamentals from a collaborative point of view, a point of view that puts the people affected by the knowledge strategy first. This people-focused approach to knowledge services is essential for how the contemporary workplace functions. As much as top-down support is key, a more collaborative approach to implementation has proven to achieve a higher, more successful level of adoption, over a push-down-thehierarchy approach. As a practical handbook, the format of the present volume is structured to provide ample opportunities for thinking about the application of knowledge services and its transition into an integrated and actionable, enterprise-wide knowledge strategy. Each section of the book’s three chapters includes a topic essay that describes the essential characteristics and the application that links the topic to knowledge services. The essays are followed by “other voices” contributing to the book, individuals recognized for their expertise in knowledge services who also – based on their own experience and expertise – provide guidelines and suggestions for implementing knowledge services and developing and managing the organizational knowledge strategy. A set of consolidated considerations is then attached as a checklist, giving readers a “tear sheet” that distills the topic essay and other voices even further, highlighting the main action items that a knowledge strategist implementing a knowledge strategy would need to consider in order to be successful. In fact, the “checklist of considerations” is primarily directed to the knowledge strategist, to ensure that the strategist has a set of topics to study, providing motivation for additional attention, if desired. The checklist is followed by a list of discussion

Preface: Enabling the knowledge sharing culture

IX

questions, chosen to provide readers with a framework for facilitating conversations with colleagues in the employing organization. Who will read The Knowledge Services Handbook? Since the book’s purpose is to provide practical content for how to be a successful knowledge strategist, our identified readership is clear. First, we expect knowledge strategists, and those seeking to become knowledge strategists, to be the primary readership. A second group of readers links closely to knowledge strategists. It is the large body of knowledge workers – “aspiring” knowledge strategists. They are usually employees in an organization who are not thought of as knowledge professionals per se. They have acquired some knowledge sharing management and leadership responsibilities because they have subject matter expertise, a common situation found in almost all areas of an organization. With this specialization they work as de facto knowledge specialists. Indeed, they often have informal responsibilities closely related to those of knowledge strategists. This practice leads, in some organizations, to the classification of these individuals – people who act and communicate with knowledge within a specific subject area – in a broader organizational role of “knowledge specialist.” In this case, formal strategic or academic learning for knowledge services, or even professional development, is often limited or self-driven. Beyond formal and informal knowledge services practitioners, we have prepared this book for other employees for whom we think the handbook will be valuable. An entire group of working professionals – knowledge services professionals, knowledge analysts, knowledge systems specialists, knowledge coordinators, knowledge editors, and knowledge historians (including many who do not necessarily have expertise in knowledge services) – will find the guidelines offered in The Knowledge Services Handbook of value. Naturally, Peter F. Drucker’s famous term – the knowledge worker – comes into the picture, describing the many employees in every type of organization who are, in fact, often knowledge workers who generally connect with professionals in other disciplines. They usually work with captured knowledge – tangible information – in physical or electronic repositories, with the distinction being that the knowledge these professionals manage is strategic, directly connected to organizational or corporate effectiveness. They, too, are included in our targeted readership, and the guidance we offer in The Knowledge Services Handbook is organized specifically so they can benefit, whether they have been trained or educated in working as knowledge services “professionals” or not. Finally, continuing to the next level of the management and leadership spectrum, in addition to the more senior management staff, the book can benefit enterprise leaders, C-suite officers, and board-level stakeholders. Many senior leaders have identified knowledge sharing issues and have concerns about

X

Preface: Enabling the knowledge sharing culture

the value of knowledge in organizational success, but they do not have experience or expertise in dealing with these matters. Naturally they themselves are not necessarily going to undertake the actions recommended here, nor would they be expected to do so. They are managers after all; their role is to delegate. But to delegate effectively they require at least a foundational understanding of what can be accomplished if a knowledge strategy is successful. It is thus our goal in The Knowledge Services Handbook to provide managers and enterprise leaders with what they need. While there is no one-size-fits-all knowledge services prototype or single knowledge strategy development model, this book offers a set of guidelines for understanding and working with an approach for finding practical and applicable knowledge services solutions. The approach will focus on people themselves and how they put their collaborative knowledge sharing skills to use. Readers will benefit from understanding the fundamental criteria that support a knowledge services leader or champion in their efforts for the larger enterprise or organization, and we provide those criteria here. At the same time, as concerned knowledge workers and knowledge strategists seek to solve specific knowledge sharing problems or embrace specific knowledge sharing opportunities, the guidance included here will show them how to utilize what they learn as they approach the problem or opportunity. We want readers to succeed in performing their work in their knowledge domains, and what we offer here will enable them to do so. Guy St. Clair and Barrie Levy New York, NY 15 May 2019

Acknowledgements Many people have graciously assisted us in developing The Knowledge Services Handbook: A Guide for the Knowledge Strategist. Like most authors, we are deeply grateful and, at the same time, if we have omitted anyone who worked with us, we sincerely regret the omission. Nevertheless, we are happy to acknowledge the many friends, clients, students, fellow lecturers, and academic faculty, and our colleagues who work with us at De Gruyter, Claudia Heyer and John Ryan. We also thank the Editorial Board guiding this new series from De Gruyter. This is the first volume in Knowledge Services, and we are proud to have Michelle Dollinger, Susan Henczel, Lee Igel, Anne Kershaw, and co-author Barrie Levy serving on the board. At the same time, we are particularly grateful to our friends and professional colleagues who have responded to our call for “other voices.” The evidence of their strong commitment to knowledge services as a critical management discipline is clearly demonstrated in their contributions to the book, and we are happy to acknowledge the work of James Brogan, John Callahan, Elizabeth Haas Edersheim, Molly Forester, Stan Garfield, Susan Henczel, Frances Hesselbein, Lee Igel, Anne Kershaw, Kevin Manion, Christopher Mundy, Ben Royce, Kerri Rosalia, Valerie Sichi-Kritzman, and Dale Stanley. Finally, we must give special recognition to the support and editorial skills of Andrew Berner. He has been a steadfast partner in making our writing better, and we are honored to acknowledge him and to thank him for all that he has done for us.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110635577-202

Contents 1

Building the knowledge culture 1 1.1 The KM/knowledge services continuum 1 1.2 Management and knowledge services 8 1.3 Leadership and knowledge leadership 27 1.4 The knowledge strategist 42 1.5 The organization as a knowledge culture 55

2

Applied knowledge services 67 2.1 Collaboration in the knowledge services workplace 67 2.2 Critical success factors: the knowledge services audit 79 2.3 Measures and metrics for knowledge services 91 2.4 The knowledge services strategic framework: a recommended strategy 104 2.5 Knowledge services in context: ECM and knowledge asset management 119

3

The way forward 131 3.1 Change management and change implementation: the fundamental knowledge services competency 131 3.2 From knowledge strategist to knowledge thought leader

148

Epilogue: knowledge services: the critical management discipline for the twenty-first century organization 161 Appendix 1: The knowledge services strategy: a guide for the knowledge strategist (an outline for KD/KS/KU) 169 Appendix 2: Knowledge services: your foundation for building the twenty-first century knowledge organization 175 A knowledge services glossary: a guide for conversation Works cited Index

203

207

About Guy St. Clair and Barrie Levy

211

183

1 Building the knowledge culture 1.1 The KM/knowledge services continuum When Peter F. Drucker first introduced the concept of the knowledge worker in 1959, he did those of us destined to work with information, knowledge, and strategic learning a big favor. He said that people employed as knowledge workers would be required to have a good deal of formal education. He also pointed out that they would be required to acquire and to apply theoretical knowledge. It was, he noted, “a different approach to work and a different mind-set.” His “different approach” would come to fruition towards the end of the twentieth century with knowledge services, a framework for curating, developing, and sharing organizational knowledge. Yet historically speaking, Drucker’s notion of a “different mind-set” was already underway when knowledge services entered the picture. While knowledge services was being put forward in some organizational environments as “an approach to the management of an organization’s knowledge,” considerable effort and energy were already being expended. Organizations were using knowledge management (KM), a slightly earlier effort for managing intellectual capital (and one still ongoing – hence the word “continuum” in this section’s title). The transition to knowledge “services” happened for a simple reason: for many leaders and managers, the idea of “managing” an amorphous concept such as knowledge was too nebulous, too unshaped, and too far away from the day-to-day work of the organization. What they needed was a mechanism for which they could establish a financial value, and for which they could determine a return on investment when it was evaluated, just as they did with the other service operations required for the organization’s success. Knowledge services was a more holistic approach and made more sense to them than knowledge “management”. Knowledge services did not fall into place to substitute for what had become KM. Indeed, as we see from the three components coming together to form knowledge services, KM is a constituent component of knowledge services and plays a crucial role in the convergence of the three-pronged approach. As an enterprise-wide management methodology enabling companies and organizations to achieve excellence, both in the performance of internal staff and in interactions with external customers, stakeholders, and other affiliates, the knowledge services goal is to determine how information management, knowledge management, and strategic learning are connected and used as a single methodology. It is a practical method for establishing benefits and addressing problems related to the organization’s knowledge, and in applying knowledge services, the knowledge https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110635577-001

2

1 Building the knowledge culture

Knowledge Services: the management and servicedelivery methodology that converges information management, knowledge management, and strategic learning into a single overarching operational function.

In Ma form na atio ge me n nt

Knowledge Management

Knowledge Services

gic ate g Str arnin Le

Fig. 1.1: Knowledge Services Defined.

strategist succeeds in this effort by working with – and sharing with colleagues in the organization – easy-to-understand descriptions of the three elements of the discipline: – Information management is a process for acquiring, maintaining, and distributing information, and, ultimately, disposing of the information through established governance (e.g.: archiving or deleting). – KM is a method for working with the organization’s intellectual capital, the combined knowledge of all organizational stakeholders, and KM – also a process – is the element of the knowledge services practice that enables the capture, development, sharing, and utilization of organizational knowledge for the benefit of the organization. – Strategic learning is carried out through any training and education relating to organizational knowledge – in any format, formal or informal. Together these components engage collaborative knowledge services processes to accomplish the organization’s strategic objectives. Successful knowledge development, knowledge sharing, and knowledge utilization (KD/KS/KU) underpin these knowledge services processes. Basic to each knowledge services activity, the organization’s knowledge workers – led by its knowledge strategist – ultimately support the achievement of the organizational mission through the successful management of the organization’s knowledge assets. It is not difficult to see why the three elements are so strongly connected. When the term “knowledge services” comes into the conversation, a recurring question will be asked by colleagues seeking to learn how to work with a knowledge strategist. It’s a question all knowledge strategists must know how to

1.1 The KM/knowledge services continuum

Information Management – Internal Libraries, Repositories – External Content – Data Analytics – Privacy and Security – Information Governance – eDiscovery – Records Management

Knowledge Management – Communities of Practice – Skills/Expertise Databases – Social Network Analysis – Collaboration Tools – Enterprise Content Management – Digital Asset Management

3

Strategic Learning – Individual Learning – Team Learning – Professional Development – Management and Leadership Development

Adapted from Stanley and Hunt, 2015

Fig. 1.2: The Elements of Knowledge Services (after Hunt and Stanley).

answer when asked by knowledge services novices: “Just what is knowledge services?” There is a response for this question, noting that every business and organization runs into challenges in managing what its people know, how they share what they know when they are required to share it, and how they make use of it. It doesn’t matter whether the enterprise is for-profit, not-for-profit, or anything else; as an organization, its knowledge must be developed, shared, and used. Identifying the organization’s intellectual capital (or advising in its development) and then building or reshaping the organization as a knowledge sharing structure ensures that knowledge is shared and utilized. It is an ongoing effort (as an organization should not stay constant for fear of plateauing and losing its competitive advantage) that leads the knowledge strategist to say something such as, “as the organization’s knowledge strategist, I am charged with figuring out how to overcome these challenges.” Over time, there has been a wide range of different approaches pertaining to knowledge in the organizations where knowledge workers are employed. While most of this work might properly fall somewhere in the category of organizational development or organizational effectiveness, the workplace environment has now positioned issues relating to the management of intellectual capital in many different business units within the organization. While information management, KM, strategic learning, knowledge leadership, database development, enterprise content management, information architecture, competitive intelligence, and other topics that could be listed here have been in some part responsible for – and have had enormous impact on – the job of a knowledge strategist, their job is to try to react to knowledge challenges and opportunities holistically, leveraging all facets of the organization at large. Any organization is comprised (in its simplest construct) of a group of people coming together to accomplish an agreed-upon goal

4

1 Building the knowledge culture

or goals. In most cases, the group’s intellectual capital – the group’s knowledge – is often not shared as well as it should or could be shared. The organization’s information, knowledge, strategic learning outcomes, and the tacit and explicit knowledge developed by all organizational affiliates (the famous “everything everybody in the company knows that gives it a competitive advantage” coined by Thomas Stewart in 1997) should be identified, captured, and stored with the expectation of further development, sharing, and use. It often happens that there is no plan or strategy for this knowledge development, knowledge sharing, and knowledge utilization (the KD/KS/KU mentioned earlier). This organizational asset – the organization’s “intellectual capital” or as we have now come to think of it, the organization’s “knowledge” – is not used as well as it should be used and, more seriously, even when it is available, it is not always used for the benefit of the larger organization. The channel for addressing this challenge (or the solution to a “problem” in some cases to which knowledge strategists are expected to respond) has been codified with knowledge services. With its emphasis on knowledge sharing and its focus on the interactions among people and between people and information, the baseline for capturing, curating, and using information, knowledge, and strategic learning can start to be developed. Knowledge services – the underlying foundation for the organization’s knowledge strategy, with its purpose of supporting these knowledge sharing exchanges – is developed, led, and managed by the knowledge strategist, in the ultimate pursuit of creating (or strengthening) the organization as a knowledge culture. When this happens, the organization becomes one in which the entire enterprise benefits from excellence in KD/KS/KU. This framework is designed to deal with the challenge – the solution to the problem – and it includes a set of recognized steps that support the development and implementation of the solution. The knowledge strategist begins with describing the challenge, followed by a definition of knowledge services as applied in the particular organization (particularly in terms of identifying successful knowledge services applications already in place, if any). The knowledge strategist then seeks to customize knowledge services for the organization, often including less tangible (but nonetheless critical) observations such as describing knowledge services in the language or jargon of the organization in which it is practiced. Secondly, as noted, KM is part of knowledge services as one of the discipline’s three foundational elements, and that context must be taken into account in some organizations, since KM may have been in place prior to transitioning to knowledge services. What we have with knowledge services is but one element of the everexpanding organizational attempt to “manage” knowledge, to get a handle on

1.1 The KM/knowledge services continuum

5

what is required for success in every organization, regardless of its size, its subject/focus, or its functional purpose. As with other activities associated with knowledge services, identifying strategies for success with knowledge services has moved up the list of priorities for any person with management responsibility, as data-driven decision-making has become a necessity in the workplace. Knowledge services is now understood to be a central element in knowledge asset management, and the whole KM/knowledge services “package” is recognized more and more as critical to organizational success. As with all operational functions, knowledge services cannot contribute to organizational success unless high performance standards are achieved. The very embodiment of performance in the workplace has to do with the planning process: determining expectations, establishing goals and objectives, implementing strategies for achieving those goals and objectives, determining metrics and measures for how well those goals are met, and the establishment of rewards (or consequences if these expectations are not met). This is certainly the case with knowledge services, with the knowledge strategist leading the way. The knowledge strategist must consider and must discuss with colleagues what they – as a “knowledge leadership team” – are seeking to do and give careful and thoughtful attention to what they want the knowledge services role in the organization to be.

– Learning Management Systems

Information Management

Strategic Learning

– Combining external content with internal knowledge

Knowledge Management

– Facilitation – Mentoring – Tacit Learning Programs

Adapted from Stanley and Hunt, 2015

Fig. 1.3: Knowledge Services: How the Elements Interact (after Hunt and Stanley).

At the same time, it is important to reach an understanding about the collateral and synergistic relationship between KM and knowledge services, but also to recognize that KM and knowledge services are not the same. Knowledge services emphasizes the literal sharing of knowledge. Knowledge services succeeds

6

1 Building the knowledge culture

because it builds on a collaborative framework supporting each interaction between and among players in the organization. They are called upon to obtain content in order to function in their jobs, or they are called upon to provide the same for others who require it and request it of them. They do this through conversation, but there are also more formal opportunities for knowledge sharing, through focus groups, communities of practice, and a wide variety of other occasions through which the organization’s employees and affiliates can interact with other people – in person or virtually. And they come to recognize – these knowledge sharing workers – that it is to their and their organization’s advantage to take every opportunity to interact with others, to be sure that what they know and learn and use is available for colleagues throughout the enterprise, as their colleagues recognize and do with their knowledge. The organization is only strengthened through such knowledge sharing. How is such an advantageous knowledge sharing environment initiated? Or, if there is already some level of knowledge sharing in the organization, how is the current level of knowledge sharing strengthened? The initiative begins with developing a sound communication strategy. It should be carried out throughout the organization and provide everyone with an understanding of the direction the strategist hopes to take the organization so that individuals can see themselves benefitting from participating in the intended knowledge sharing network. This is done with an emphasis on: 1. Collaboration. The knowledge strategist can begin an informal study. This includes conversation, introductory enterprise-wide meetings with various personnel at all staff levels, and attendance at various meetings throughout the organization to simply listen and observe. This will inform a knowledge strategist’s initial perceptions and provide a baseline impression of how staff currently collaborate and at what level collaborative knowledge sharing takes place. 2. Simplified knowledge sharing. Employees with whom the knowledge strategist comes in contact – even if they do not think of themselves as knowledge workers – respond positively if cumbersome procedures can be streamlined or eliminated altogether with simpler knowledge sharing activities. Oftentimes, there is a seemingly built-in inhibition of “this is how we’ve always done it” that effectively thwarts innovative thinking and behavior, and especially knowledge sharing. This should be questioned and discussed with the goal of making people more identifiable, processes easier, or knowledge assets more findable. 3. Time for knowledge sharing. A recurring barrier to knowledge sharing takes place in organizations that, while not necessarily large in staff size, have large responsibilities and mandates. In such situations, many staff

1.1 The KM/knowledge services continuum

7

members do not think they have time to contribute their knowledge and participate in information gathering. If this is the case, the knowledge strategist has to prove – in terms that will resonate with those needing to be more involved – why codifying their information now will actually save staff time in future pursuits. By building the proper databases with information, or creating the right templates, or taking the time to benefit from lessons learned, future tasks will be completed more quickly with more informed, reusable assets. 4. Improved know-how about knowledge sharing. It is up to the knowledge strategist to determine the balance of information being “pushed” (documented) versus “pulled” (retrieved) from data repositories. Most organizations rely too heavily on information and knowledge sharing systems that require user initiative for locating and accessing needed information and knowledge pulled, but don’t have a sound process in making sure it is kept up to date and thoughtfully contributed to. If staff is to be successful at establishing themselves as a knowledge sharing network, this balance of documenting and retrieving – what Stan Garfield refers to as “capture and reuse” – must have established processes that are communicated and known to staff. 5. Strategic learning and training. When the knowledge strategist is in the early stages of developing an organization’s knowledge strategy, many staff are simply not aware of information and knowledge systems or repositories available for their use. The knowledge strategist becomes aware that learning programs need to include training about efficient ways of finding accurate, timely, and relevant information and about procedures that enable staff to carry out their work effectively (for example, systematic training on the use of the organizational intranet, or implementation of a new workflow). At the same time, staff training for such topics as mentoring, coaching, succession planning, and the like are particularly important when new staff members are on-boarded. If the organization expects to experience a significant percentage of senior staff retirement and new staff recruited, it is vital to capture and transfer institutional knowledge and to have a system in place for succession planning. As the knowledge strategist matures into the role, the five topics listed here help one think comprehensively about what encompasses a strong knowledge sharing network. Each of the above will take time, but if successful, the knowledge strategist will begin to sense that the support of other staff has been gained, along with the authority, responsibility, and accountability that come with the position.

8

1 Building the knowledge culture

The KM/knowledge services continuum: checklist of considerations □

□ □ □ □

□

Outline – in two columns – your understanding of the differences and similarities between knowledge services and knowledge management. Compare and contrast your descriptions. Take note within different business units of the organization of people who meet your definition of “knowledge worker.” Identify enablers or “drivers” that can lead to the successful implementation of knowledge services in your organization. Identify impediments to knowledge services success in the organization. Make one of your goals be (if it’s not already in place for the organization) that the convergence of information management, knowledge management (KM), and strategic learning into a single enterprise-wide discipline is stated as a specific management objective for the organization. Become comfortable with determining expectations, establishing goals and objectives, implementing strategies for achieving those goals and objectives, and determining metrics and measures for establishing how well those goals are met.

The KM/knowledge services continuum: discussion questions 1.

2.

3. 4.

5.

As the knowledge strategist, you are tasked to be the organization’s “go-to” knowledge expert. How can your understanding of knowledge services help you in your organization? Solicit feedback from others in your organization before making this “elevator pitch.” Describe the subject of this book. What is knowledge? What is knowledge services? How do your definitions tailor for your organization? Do your definitions resonate with others throughout your organization? How does excellence in knowledge strategy development and implementation lead to the establishment of the organization as a knowledge culture? Aristotle famously contrasted two types of knowledge: “techne” (technical know-how) and “phronesis” (practical wisdom). Is one more prominent or more useful in your workplace? What about in a workplace that has a specific focus on KD/KS/KU? Can the two terms “knowledge management” and “knowledge services” be used interchangeably?

1.2 Management and knowledge services The knowledge strategist has a specific role to play in the organization, to bring an enterprise-wide sense of order to the management of the organization’s intellectual capital. The primary purpose of management comes to the fore.

1.2 Management and knowledge services

9

Simply put, it is the manager’s job to “get things done,” and these words also describe what drives knowledge strategists in their work. Most managers understand that management is an organizational function that uses available resources efficiently and effectively, to ensure that the organization’s goals and objectives are achieved. Knowledge strategists would then support that and add the caveat that how well information and knowledge are managed impacts organizational effectiveness (a.k.a. “organizational success,” or “the achievement of the corporate mission”). As knowledge strategists approach their work, they should recognize that even though management and leadership are discussed separately, we recognize that the two disciplines work concurrently in order to successfully achieve any organizational mission. Such is the case with the development and implementation of an organizational knowledge strategy. In this section, our goal is to provide management guidelines to enable the knowledge strategist to move the organization’s knowledge domain into a proactive, results-oriented knowledge development, knowledge sharing, and knowledge utilization (KD/KS/KU) arrangement. The knowledge strategist has the responsibility and authority (as well as the accountability) for taking actions that empower the development of a strategic framework to establish or enhance the organization’s knowledge culture. We generally speak about this framework as a plan of action, an organized structure designed to achieve a particular goal (or set of goals), and as we move forward, we use management methodologies to be certain that what we want to get done gets done. Of particular interest and value to the knowledge strategist is attention to the attributes expected to be found in good management. As a reflection of the continuing growth of information and technology, the traditional foundational components that comprise “good management” have been refocused. The approach to successful management is built on the people-process-technology “triad.” To account for the need to develop the knowledge strategy in terms of the bigger operational strategy, we add two more pillars – strategic alignment and content management – to accompany the triad. When these five attributes are thought of in tandem, only then can the organization achieve operational efficiency and effectiveness. But be careful. Time and time again we see that organizations have neglected the people component and were more concerned with how process and technology could be used to move the organization forward. Many enterprise managers focus too heavily on the anticipated benefits that can come from high-end technology “solutions.” But without the people being engaged and “on board” with these new technologies and processes, they will never be fully

10

1 Building the knowledge culture

adopted and reach maximum potential. Remember, it is still the people that need to adopt the change and support the strategy. Process and technology should not be seen as solutions, but as the framework and tools that support people in carrying out tasks. Without people engagement, the time and effort, not to mention the price tag, of developing new ways of working are truly a waste. It is the job of the knowledge strategist to remind managers to balance the triad accordingly. An approach to managing knowledge services has been put forward, recognizing that with knowledge services the knowledge strategist is, indeed, dealing with a new work environment, the “new age” of knowledge services so often spoken of. The shift to knowledge services and the significance of the change in the contemporary work landscape creates new concerns and challenges for managers. . . How best to manage and structure an emerging knowledge-based landscape which challenges the fundamental relationship between manager and worker is problematic. . . Traditional approaches for developing strategies and structures would be ineffective in this developing services work environment, where talent is the differentiator of twenty-first century competition (Mills and Snyder 2010).

For the knowledge strategist, “the shift to knowledge services” provides an opportunity, and the collaborative knowledge services approach will become the management framework as the strategist develops and then implements the enterprise-wide knowledge strategy for the organization. Similarly, if there has already been some direction undertaken, the knowledge strategist will build on strengthening and enhancing the knowledge strategy already in place through the use of collaboration and knowledge sharing. Peter Drucker, also quoted frequently in the study and application of knowledge services, was not shy about expressing the “big picture” side of knowledge and how it is to be managed. In one much-quoted statement he noted that “Knowledge has become the key resource for economic strength. Knowledge knows no boundaries. There is no domestic knowledge and no international knowledge. There is only knowledge.” (Drucker 1999). It was a concept that grew from a point he had made ten years earlier when he referred to the importance of managing from a less technical and scientific management point of view. He headed the statement “Management is a Liberal Art,” and – being Drucker – he spoke from his specific perspective: Management is what tradition used to call a liberal art – “liberal” because it deals with the fundamentals of knowledge, self-knowledge, wisdom, and leadership; “art” because it deals with practice and application. Managers draw on all of the knowledge and insights of the humanities and the social sciences – on psychology and philosophy, on economics

1.2 Management and knowledge services

11

and history, on the physical sciences and ethics. But they have to focus this knowledge on effectiveness and results – on healing a sick patient, teaching a student, building a bridge, designing and selling a “user-friendly” software program (Drucker 1989).

It becomes important for the knowledge strategist to recognize that there is a place for a humanist side in management, just as there is a place for the scientific and technical. It is an idea that has been given much attention over the years, and still holds true as a fundamental work ideal today. Knowledge services must become an essential part of the management toolkit, “two sides of the same coin,” as those with responsibility for knowledge strategy will successfully organize the new process for managing the organization’s intellectual capital.

You can’t manage knowledge. You work with knowledge. KM is simply: Working with Knowledge. – Laurence Prusak (after De Cagna)

Knowledge Services is putting knowledge management to work – It’s the practical side of KM. – St. Clair and Stanley

Fig. 1.4: Transitioning from KM to Knowledge Services.

With these new directions, it is easy to see how the people-process-technology triad expands, and – particularly in knowledge services – becomes part of a larger “ideal” management outline, now a five-part focus, with attention not only on people (first), process, and technology but incorporating strategic alignment and content management. With strategic alignment, the knowledge strategist looks at all the different elements and objectives of successful KD/ KS/KU and seeks to ensure that the organization’s knowledge strategy meets with and contributes to the success of the overall organizational strategy. Content management as institutional knowledge is becoming more abundant and at its core is what provides an organization its competitive advantage; with employees being required to make data-based decisions, it is thus essential for the knowledge strategist to ensure the ability for information to be captured and reused.

12

1 Building the knowledge culture

For the knowledge strategist, tasked with building the organizational knowledge strategy on a foundation of knowledge services, four underlying themes come into the play for the larger organization. The enterprise must: – be perceived and enabled as a knowledge culture by all its stakeholders (and, in particular, the organization’s managers and leaders, as exemplified by their participation as sponsors) – value knowledge and the role knowledge services plays in the creation of business value – define elements of organizational success and define how these are monitored and measured – use change management as an operational construct When these themes are recognized as part of the organization’s functional structure and all enterprise affiliates understand how they affect organizational success, attention to a strengthened knowledge services focus can begin and the knowledge culture – elusive until now – is at hand. It comes about because the work of the knowledge strategist is defined in terms of how these themes are incorporated into the management fabric of the organization. It is the knowledge strategist who understands how knowledge builds on and connects with an understanding of the organization of information, knowledge, and strategic learning and of how those disciplines converge for the benefit of the larger enterprise. Additionally, it is the knowledge strategist’s job to make the connection between strategy and the planning, design, and implementation of information, knowledge, and strategic learning activities. In this role, the knowledge strategist is thus positioned for a management role in delivering knowledge services, the practical side of KM, and for putting knowledge management to work in support of the larger organizational mission. It is an important distinction, this management role for the knowledge strategist. Recognizing that these employees are part of organizations that deliver information-, knowledge-, and strategic learning-based solutions to a given audience, these strategists find themselves being identified not only as managers, but as thought leaders for the organization. Knowledge strategists have gained the professional expertise, skills, and competencies to provide an overarching and holistic knowledge services framework for the organization, and are now seen as a “go-to” person who enables the information, knowledge, and strategic learning scattered throughout the organization to connect and work together for the betterment of individuals and the organization at large. These same skills and competencies ensure that knowledge workers

1.2 Management and knowledge services

13

We use We use management to control how what we want to get done gets done

We use

leadership

strategy

to provide guidance and direction to ensure what we want to get done gets done

to achieve our goals

Fig. 1.5: The Knowledge Services Opportunity.

understand their responsibility to guarantee that excellence in KD/KS/KU is also carried out for the knowledge culture which the larger enterprise is now foundationally supported upon. A knowledge strategist should also take pause to distinguish between KM and knowledge services while carrying out their management responsibilities. One must understand that “knowledge management” is sometimes an inappropriate descriptor and recognize that knowledge per se cannot be managed. As Dale Stanley points out, the most practical approach is to focus on knowledge services. Instead of attempting to define KM, Stanley advises organizational management to understand why knowledge services is more value-centric: “That is, once knowledge has been developed, value is created by facilitating an interaction (knowledge sharing) among those who have knowledge and those who need to work with knowledge. It is the creation of knowledge value through KD/KS/KU, finding and leveraging opportunities that produce tangible results.” (Stanley 2008) Knowledge strategists are the natural employees for creating knowledge value for they are true knowledge, information, and strategic learning catalysts. They clearly understand the place of positive change in the workplace and they express no doubts about their role in the creation of knowledge value. Indeed, knowledge strategists distinguish themselves by providing added value to the information, knowledge, and strategic learning delivery process. Regardless of the language used in the organization, the knowledge strategist recognizes that the knowledge sharing framework being built relates specifically to the current workplace and includes precise elements for application in the organization, regardless of the specific type of organization. In the modern workplace, there are without question management challenges that must be recognized, and the knowledge strategist must frequently adapt. The most obvious is the impact of

14

1 Building the knowledge culture

technology on the knowledge strategist’s ability to produce the highest quality of knowledge sharing they can enact. It is important to note, however, that it is not necessarily the job of knowledge strategist to intimately understand all the technology that must be implemented to fully carry out KD/KS/KU – the hardware and software that works best for your organization (and budget). But as the knowledge strategist you understand, on a conceptual, strategic level, the types of knowledge sharing activities that must take place and how they should take place. You can lean on other subject matter experts – software developers, data scientists, infrastructure and network personnel, etc. – to play their role in carrying out the needs of knowledge strategy development. There is no doubt that some level of understanding about these roles helps, as often the knowledge strategist becomes the liaison and/or facilitator between the end user (knowledge workers) and the folks carrying out the implementation, and being able – to some extent – to “speak everyone’s language” is an essential component for ensuring that the knowledge strategist is addressing the root of the problems more effectively. It is an area of a knowledge strategist’s role that needs continuous learning, but as much as some components of a knowledge strategist’s “toolkit” remain constant over time (facilitation, communication, change management, strategy development, etc.), the facets related to technology are ever changing. So, it is important to stay connected to the larger industry to take note of trends and best practices, or the strategist runs the risk of plateauing with knowledge strategy development and implementation. Remember, it’s a constant evolution, not a race to the finish line. Additional challenges can arise with respect to the knowledge strategist’s supervisory efforts while providing continuing attention for empowering employees. The knowledge strategist should provide direct reports (but even more so, staff at large) with every opportunity to be trained in new processes or technologies, and to participate in professional development and strategic learning activities. However, it is sometimes the case, when managing people with various personalities and points of view, that what the knowledge strategist knows to be helpful might not resonate as such with others. It is here that communication and change management (both topics discussed in depth later in this book) become so important. The knowledge strategist must understand that in any service-oriented role, including knowledge services, the strategist is not going to please everyone all the time – and that is okay. The strategists have done their due diligence in understanding the knowledge needs of the organization and know that whatever they implement can always be improved upon or updated as new needs arise. And as what the knowledge strategist implements proves of value, the laggers will join!

1.2 Management and knowledge services

15

At the same time, it is also important that the knowledge strategist identifies opportunities for themselves by working with other knowledge professionals. This becomes more rewarding as time passes; it turns out that one of the benefits of exploring the relationship is intergenerational management – that younger employees have expectations often different from those of older managers, expectations which can be incorporated with much benefit into the knowledge services management framework. One such expectation is that knowledge workers like the idea of being more engaged in the workplace. The knowledge strategist has an excellent opportunity for strengthening the professional performance of the knowledge domain by keeping in mind several questions that can be asked of younger employees, such as: – In your work with knowledge services, is there some part of our knowledge strategy that you know you could do a good job with but haven’t had the opportunity yet? – What’s something you’re doing in the workplace that excites you and you would like to do more of? – What success have you had in the workplace with something you figured out for yourself, without having someone show you what to do? – When you complete a task that involves working with someone else, has that person praised what you did for (or with) them? How did you react? Would you want to do that kind of task again? And have that praise? For the knowledge strategist, the structure of the management framework for the knowledge services function will build on the application of management, leadership, and knowledge services principles for working with information, knowledge, and strategic learning in and throughout the organization, as the knowledge strategist is, in fact, building an enterprise-wide knowledge strategy. It combines prescriptive directions (“how-to”) for applying knowledge services with attention not only to current and particular needs but to the philosophy and history of management and leadership and their connection with information and knowledge services in general. In doing so, the strategy will enable knowledge workers (and all other workers in the organization) to use this background, in combination with the strategist’s own management skills, for developing and implementing an actionable and reliable knowledge sharing environment and for establishing the value of the knowledge services strategy to build the organizational knowledge culture.

16

1 Building the knowledge culture

Other voices: Kerri Rosalia on management and institutional knowledge services Since 2007, Kerri Rosalia has been the Director of the Mastics Moriches Shirley Community Library in Shirley, New York. Her undergraduate studies were at Dowling College, and her first graduate degree (MLS) is from St. John’s University in New York. Her further studies include the Master of Science (MS) degree in Knowledge and Information Strategy at Columbia University in the City of New York. After earning her IKNS degree, Kerri served for three years as Adjunct Faculty/Facilitator for two courses in the program, “Building Effective Strategy and Services” and “Management and Leadership in the Knowledge Domain.” In this book and throughout my interactions with the authors and other faculty at Columbia University’s M.S. in Information and Knowledge Strategy program, the concept of collaborative knowledge services is regularly given attention as we think about and implement knowledge services. We give much attention to how individuals and groups benefit through knowledge sharing with each other (especially on an individual basis), and it is an accepted and natural direction for this important management methodology. On the other hand, there’s another point of view that does not seem to be talked about very much. That is the concept of institutional knowledge services and, in my opinion (of course I’m slightly prejudiced), there’s no better example of institutional knowledge services/knowledge sharing than that of the public library, especially with respect to American public libraries. They are one of our society’s great strengths, and, as a firm believer in the knowledge services “approach” to knowledge sharing, I am fortunate to be director of one such library. To me (and to the authors of this book) such institutional or organizational knowledge services – working alongside that built on individual or group collaborative endeavors – provides a rich collection of management principles and guidelines for providing the greatest knowledge sharing success. Let me share with you how we manage institutional knowledge services at the MasticsMoriches-Shirley Community Library (MMSCL). The Library was founded in 1974 to serve the towns of Mastic, Mastic Beach, Shirley and Moriches. It is located centrally (one facility) in Shirley, 65 miles east of New York City on Long Island’s South Shore, on a peninsula within five miles of the Atlantic Ocean. Over the past 36 years the Library has grown from a 3500 sq. ft. storefront serving a total population of 26,629 to a 45,000 sq. ft. facility serving approximately 56,000 residents through the work of over 200 staff members. Located in a shopping center, the Library is a community destination with a

1.2 Management and knowledge services

17

location on two public bus routes and within one-mile walking distance of four district schools and a Head Start center. One of the five largest out of 54 public libraries in the county, the Library’s annual circulation exceeds 800,000 items each year and average building use is 1,000 patrons daily. We serve a diverse population of library patrons who speak over 27 languages at home, and we may be best known for our literacy program LEFA (Learning English is a Family Affair). We offer over 50 literacy classes a week throughout the community. Philosophically, the public library as an institution was founded on the ideal of shared information and access to the world’s knowledge. Library employees are trained to capture, organize, store, and share information and transfer knowledge with and to their customers. Generally speaking, the Library has focused on external customers, leaving the information/knowledge needs of internal customers (that is, the employees of the Library) unaddressed. Employees serve the public utilizing both tacit and explicit knowledge transfer. The culture readily supports knowledge sharing and transfer when and where information/ knowledge is codified, or where there is a traditional process/role. We are making progress at MMSCL improving knowledge services for both external and internal customers through the addition of knowledge sharing portals, ECMs, and improved Intranets. So knowledge sharing is growing to meet the changing needs of external and internal customers. Internally, our employees are in the process of migrating to digital workflows and information management/sharing. With multiple repositories for print and digital information assets it is essential to create efficient access and improved findability for employees to utilize and share. Employees need to work as efficiently as possible in order to meet the increasing information needs of our customers with limited resources. At a time when public institutions need to do more with less, the Library is positioned to make great strides in efficiency, realize labor savings, and remain agile and responsive to changing customer needs through KM. These are our driving management directions at present, and the institution’s knowledge strategy now requires staff to support KD/KS/KU in areas where there has not been a traditional process or role in the past. At the Library, both for staff and in our interactions with library users, knowledge services is defined as a key business strategy, providing efficient access to information assets to improve outcomes in delivering on our mission to serve both internal and external customers. For external customers, knowledge services continues to be a central role of libraries and for us, which means improving knowledge capture, organization, and search, and adding value to the library as a management structure and its outcomes. Library employees and management understand the value of explicit knowledge and information and the efficient transfer of that knowledge, and we all think of that knowledge

18

1 Building the knowledge culture

transfer as the Library’s core management and business strategy, recognizing that knowledge services enables employees to respond quickly to structural issues and rapid changes. The knowledge strategy at MMSCL works with four short-term goals, through our commitment to establish governance and policies outlined by management and the Board of Trustees to ensure uniformity; making information easy to find so as to give employees ready access to internal documents they need as part of their daily work, with process and efficiency improvements for locating institutional information and knowledge; improving worker engagement in the process of creating knowledge with incentives; and sharing knowledge across the institution and with the customers through social platforms where possible. At the other side of our knowledge strategy’s goals and outcomes scale, our long-term goals, too, have been specifically identified and stated, to realize a substantial return on investment in labor costs saved and improved efficiencies. In the development of an enterprise-wide knowledge strategy, one question, of course, is always the determination of who is responsible for knowledge sharing and establishing the framework of responsibilities for that person (or team). At MMSCL, all staff members are responsible for knowledge services, but the process is coordinated and managed by administrators and our Digital Services and IT departments. The technology departments are responsible for the evaluation, acquisition, implementing and training of employees on all ECMs, groupware, digitization tools, etc. Administrators in our technology departments create training materials for both internal and external customers to increase efficiency and adaptation of new products, and to standardize new employee training. Our Library Executive Director and administrative staff are responsible for the daily operations of the institution, as well as for delivering on our strategic plan, with oversight and governance provided by an elected board of community residents. Everyone involved in the high-level oversight of the business activities of our Library must understand, embrace, and champion our organization’s knowledge strategy simply because significant financial resources are allocated for the acquisition and implementation of our knowledge services tools, providing a message from leaders in the organization consistent with knowledge sharing as our core business practice. With that relationship among our staff, users, and board, it becomes easy (and perhaps with some pride) to describe some of our important successes with the knowledge sharing process. For example, prior to the creation of a knowledge services strategy there was inadequate governance and capture of information and knowledge to support a recent knowledge management initiative at the Library. Notably, there was no process for staff to follow in order to convert

1.2 Management and knowledge services

19

unstructured data to structured data, and the Library lacked a document management system or electronic records system for internal purposes. The lack of facilitated access to internal assets resulted in management and administrators spending valuable time sharing knowledge which was lacking, based in part on the absence of these platforms. Employees were searching for information through print files or across network folders and/or in cloud-based repositories and working on the structure and governance for record life cycle regulated by record retention regulations. Much of our internal information was not captured in explicit format and/or was still unstructured in format, thus not readily found by search. We created a knowledge strategy to address these problems, and came up with the following solutions: a. Problem: No Groupware There was a lack of investment in the technological infrastructure to support a knowledge management initiative at the Library. There was a clear lack of worker engagement with regard to knowledge sharing and re-use of existing information. Staffers were storing the products of their work across multiple platforms. Storage of information assets on external sites also limited the employee’s ability to share the assets readily with both internal and external customers. They spent a good deal of time searching for their own work and did not share it with other employees. There was a tendency toward “knowledge hoarding” as employees perceived their value and competitive advantage in what they know. The institution was positioned without access to important documents and files when employees left the organization. Solution: The library implemented Office 365 including Sharepoint, standardizing the platform on which we require employees to store and share information assets within. The purchase of this product improved the technological foundation to support KD/KS/KU with appropriate staff training so “sharing” became “easy” and routine. Employees had previously been utilizing personal cloudbased KM tools, such as Dropbox, Google Docs, commercial email accounts, etc. Employees were issued Community.org email accounts, providing the institution with governance over the use of the email accounts, retention of messages, and the ability to comply with legal issues such as litigation holds when necessary. b. Problem: Ineffective Intranet The Library had a wiki-based Intranet in place for a number of years, yet it was inadequate as a KM Platform as it suffered from “digital sprawl” without structure. While implemented to bring employees together through one interface to

20

1 Building the knowledge culture

resources and information they needed, departments had created multiple subpages that lacked uniformity and splintered resources. There was a lack of governance and no “plan” for the Intranet. Solution: Creation of the new Library Intranet afforded the employees a central location to receive important news, access forms, connect to HR resources, and more. Information could be distributed in a consistent way to all employees simultaneously. The new portal made information/knowledge access more efficient. We are currently working toward a solution to include social networking tools on the platform that include “digital incentives” for staff who contribute knowledge. c. Problem: Business and HR records in paper format only The Library is subject to New York State Municipal records retention regulations and schedules. The institution has an obligation to save and give access to a large amount of financial data related to business operations. Personnel records, invoices, board meeting documents, audits, etc. are currently stored in paper format or slowly being converted to .pdf format. There is no index or search availability to find information. As the institution has been in existence for over 40 years, the files are extensive. Currently record retention is a manual process, with file clerks discarding files based on handwritten dates on boxes. There is no offsite storage or redundant files. This is of concern as the library is located in a flood zone and has no fire protection system in place. Solution: Implementation of an ECM for business/HR documents The library is currently working on a plan to implement Laserfiche for storage, access to, and record retention management of business documents, as well as for an electronic workflow process for HR functions and dynamic forms. The software is being purchased through a shared services grant with Brookhaven Town. Digitization of these information assets will enable the institution to set up automated rules for record retention that will help us comply more efficiently with our municipal record retention schedule. In addition, we will move toward a “paperless office” with HR forms traveling through a digital workflow. This project will also assist us in meeting our Disaster Plan goals of moving physical records to an offsite storage facility such as Iron Mountain. This is particularly important for our institution as our facility is within three miles of the Atlantic Ocean and vulnerable to storm surge/damage/flooding. This project will expand self-service by enabling administrative processes to be reengineered, particularly in the HR area, and migrated online via the Intranet. We are also working on developing an HR FAQ knowledge tool that transfers routine, repeatable questions and answers from HR staff to a technological solution.

1.2 Management and knowledge services

21

The projects all required the institution to assign metadata to internal documents with the use of a controlled vocabulary; employees to save workrelated documents in a central repository; development of a schema for internal documentation or use of one the Library already had access to (MARC, Dublin Core); development of curatorial and governance policies for internal documents; assigning of metadata to internal documents that fit curatorial and governance policies; utilization of LOC authority files for controlled vocabulary subject metadata; development of a faceted taxonomy to achieve relevant search results in the future; creation of internal document content repositories to eliminate employees looking for their own information/knowledge resource; digitization of institutional knowledge and information content that was in an unstructured format or stored across multiple platforms; and linking of explicit information to the Intranet (databases, journals, etc.) With our success in dealing with such serious (what might be called “back office”) issues, there are naturally some considerations, some concerns that impede knowledge sharing at the Library’s “high-end” or high-quality knowledge sharing at MMSCL. First and foremost is the tendency of some employees to use workarounds to our new systems to continue doing thing “the old way.” We are addressing this with ongoing training and reviewing of employees’ knowledge sharing efforts. Certainly, implementing multiple technological solutions in a short period of time created a learning curve for some, and a training challenge for our digital services and IT staff. And, finally (as in almost every organization), knowledge hoarding is often at play in the background and something we address with our staffers. On the other hand, when knowledge services is discussed, how our organizational affiliates recognize knowledge services as a management methodology is something we might call a “mixed bag.” Our affiliates are generally educational institutions, service organizations, civic groups, non-profits, etc. Some are staffed with employees who understand KM and groupware technology and how it can be adopted to achieve knowledge services. Many of the smaller nonprofits and service organizations are staffed with volunteers, typically retired or older people, and many of whom are riding out the low-tech approach to running their organizations. So, it is an ongoing objective for the Library to educate and support these groups by adding to their capacity by embedding our employees or offering their skills and assistance where needed. As for what will be happening in the future, we see great value in developing an expert locator KM tool identifying staff by language spoken, educational background, advanced certifications, and technology skill. We also recommend creating a “lessons learned” tool for sharing experience and knowledge. This will include both explicit and tacit knowledge particularly focused on project

22

1 Building the knowledge culture

management topics. We are considering creating an internal helpdesk for IT requests on the Intranet. These range from supply requests to new hardware/software purchases and repair requests. As technology services are at the core of library services, we hope to utilize the technology to improve the process by which requests are generated and filled. We will work to develop an FAQ for the IT department to shift routine questions and tacit answers into an explicit format, creating a knowledge base for employee use. That last paragraph leads us to thinking about MMSCL’s future and how management and knowledge services come together to work for the organization, whether we’re speaking about our technical and professional improvements or what we now need to do. In fact, we might strengthen our story by taking a quick trip into the past. Probably the best knowledge sharing example we can offer has to do with how the Library and the community came together when Hurricane Sandy came to Long Island in 2012. The hurricane was the deadliest and most destructive hurricane of the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season, and was a Category 2 hurricane when it hit the Northeastern United States. When it came to us, we knew we had to do what we could to be of service to our communities. In the weeks after Sandy we learned how to serve our customers, as well as non-customers, in new and nontraditional ways. We had the capacity to deliver where other organizations in our area did not. Although we never saw ourselves as called to lead after a natural disaster, we stepped into a contingent leadership role to do just that, and now consider our institutional role as more than a library. We are now, in the aftermath of a disaster, a community support center as well as a library, and that role is now part of our strategic plan. The Library’s first leadership response had four necessary – and rewarding, to ourselves and to our customers – components: convening community leaders to organize relief efforts; improving access to recovery information in multiple languages; serving our customers in unexpected ways, including such innovative steps as extending hours of operation, providing needed food and beverages to all comers, providing charging stations; offering a venue for “story-telling,” and collecting photographs and recorded stories as they were happening for our local history archives. And as the Library Director I was able to provide additional strength when I was asked to take on a leadership position in NY Rising Community Reconstruction Zone to help plan for a more resilient community. As it happens, despite the heroic efforts of many library staff members and local citizens, even when they are able to provide pictures, the pictures can’t do justice to the horrific effect Hurricane Sandy had on our community. It was a natural and environmental disaster for our area: hundreds of homes were

1.2 Management and knowledge services

23

flooded, oil tanks were floating in the streets, numerous boats broke free of their moorings and landed on front lawns. The area was without power for weeks as a subsequent nor’easter made its way up the coast bringing snow and frigid temperatures, and no one had heat. The National Guard was deployed to our town to assist in maintaining order and distributing some supplies, but the response effort from the Federal and State agencies was agonizingly slow. Residents needed food, shelter, clothing, and information to navigate after the storm, and we realized that we had an organizational opportunity to rise to the top as contingent leaders. And we did. Living local history Here is some of what we did, an activity we’ve come to refer to as our “living local history.” For example, as noted above we opened our facility extended hours, and provided heat, food, water, coffee, and charging stations for residents and staff members who were impacted. And as part of our living local history, we put forward storytelling opportunities – the very best kind of knowledge management and knowledge sharing – so that our citizens could share what they experienced through capturing oral history. For this effort, library staff played a vital role as listeners, and as impacted residents arrived, stayed, and told stories of how the storm had impacted them, we were a sympathetic ear. And as an added benefit, our librarians working on our local history collection recognized this as an opportunity to document history, so residents with compelling tales were recorded for our collection. Similarly, we encouraged residents to bring us photographs of the storm’s impact on our area and quickly added them to our local history files. In the immediate days after the storm we installed large screen monitors throughout the library, looping the slide show of photos, and – since travel throughout the community was limited – those spending time at the library learned of the breadth and severity of the storm though these photographs. And this led to yet another benefit, as the editor of the local Tri-Hamlet News arrived with an oversized Apple monitor as she had no electricity at her home or business. She set up shop in the Library and, as her work went forward, she shared her pictures with us for our local history collection. Information and referral Continuing with their traditional role during this time of upheaval, library staff immediately recognized that there was a need for consistent and accurate information for residents. In response, library staff identified what was needed and went forward with designing a web page to distribute information on shelters,

24

1 Building the knowledge culture

food banks, FEMA locations, and more. We integrated the webpage into the Library App, Facebook page, and Twitter feed. We tapped into the FEMA feeds on our website and updated our Library Link database to include disaster resources. It worked out – just as we had hoped – that this content repository became the official go-to site for those who needed help and those who wanted to volunteer or donate to help others in the community. Additionally, the library also added capacity to local organizations who were not digitally savvy, contributing, for example, assistance to a local 501(c)3 organization in setting up a PayPal account in order to accept financial donations for assistance to victims. Three additional steps are worth mentioning. In the first, in what we came to think of as our “Our Opportunity to Vulnerable Populations,” we were able to take advantage of the Library’s already vibrant English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) program. With ESOL, we already had strong ties to the ESOL population, so we were able to translate all the information into Spanish for our vulnerable Hispanic population, since many were living in the hardest impacted areas and were not receiving information in their primary language. Additionally, bi-lingual flyers were generated and distributed throughout the community for those who did not have Internet access, and we visited the church’s bilingual mass, local restaurants, and locations where new immigrants congregated in order to “spread the word” about what we could do for them. Another activity in which we became engaged was adding capacity to community relief efforts. Local action was required to bring desperately needed supplies of clothing, food, and basic necessities to residents. A local leaders council – formerly dormant for a while – was quickly remobilized by community leaders, reorganized, and expanded as the Tri-Hamlet Superstorm Relief Committee. For this group, the Library hosted their frequent meetings, and library staff served on an advisory board to assist the Relief Committee in its work. As it happened, prior efforts had earlier been undertaken by library staff in creating a database of community resources, and this practical tool proved invaluable. Additionally, emergency relief organizations and disaster recovery resources were added to our existing Library Link database, to assist residents in finding local assistance. This work gave the Library the opportunity to be the connection to information resources in a time of crisis and we were able, with this effort, to curate and filter through an overwhelming amount of information for our customers in a way that Google and other search engines and browsers could not. The third of these special activities was the Library’s ability to partner with and help local business. For 18 months after the storm, the Mastics-MorichesShirley Community Library (MMSCL) provided space for the Stony Brook Small Business Development Center (SBDC) at Stony Brook to help small business

1.2 Management and knowledge services

25

members in the community recover from Hurricane Sandy through the dispersal of more than $1 million in storm recovery assistance grants, counseling and more. SBDC is one of 23 campus-based regional centers within New York State, bringing together the resources of Stony Brook University, the private sector, and government at all levels to assist entrepreneurs and business and industry professionals in solving problems leading to increased productivity and profitability. SBDC officials reported that through this joint venture, SBDC has helped more than 50 clients at the Mastics-Moriches-Shirley Library, providing regular business counseling and assistance in submitting applications for the New York Business Storm Recovery Grant. The $1 million in storm recovery assistance goes directly to assisting business owners with recovering lost working capital, repairing damaged structures and replenishing lost inventory. The SBDC also held two successful workshops attracting 53 attendees on the topic of starting their own business, business continuity, and storm preparation. MMSCL board, staff, volunteers, and others affiliated with the Library were very happy to provide office space and in-kind services so that the Small Business Development Center was able to help so many small businesses. One more item with reference to the connection between management and institutional knowledge services can be mentioned, one that relates to the oftenmisunderstood talents, skills, and professional expertise of knowledge services professionals, knowledge strategists and others in the library and information sciences field. It is not uncommon, in many of the organizations at which these knowledge workers are employed, for decisions to be made by senior leaders and politicians, and then conveyed to the knowledge professionals after the fact. At the Mastics-Moriches-Shirley Community Library, especially among our Board of Trustees (but among all staff as well), we like to talk about how the hurricane enabled our Library Director to “get a place at the table.” That is exactly what happened. As a result of our work in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy I was honored to be appointed by Governor Andrew M. Cuomo to serve as co-chair of the NYS Rising Community Reconstruction Zone (CRZ) committee for Mastic Beach and Smith Point of Shirley. I continue to work in that role, with co-chair Jim Wisdom, and together with a committee of community leaders, the CRZ team continues to assist in the rebuilding of the area, identifying critical projects that will improve resiliency in the face of a future storm. In conclusion, and as we reflect on the events and the library response, all of us involved in the disaster agree that Hurricane Sandy provided an opportunity for the Library to rise to an effective leadership position in the community. We were well positioned to fill the role. Community organizations

26

1 Building the knowledge culture

and leaders viewed us with a newfound respect, recognizing that our staff was trained and ready to provide both “typical” library services and modern digital services, all of value to area non-profits, businesses, and residents alike. The Library filled a crucial gap in providing institutional knowledge services and knowledge sharing, particularly of vital information, and there was no other organization better prepared for that role. Although as a staff we hope we never have to undertake such a program again, we know we are uniquely qualified to do so if we are needed. Management and knowledge services: checklist of considerations □ □ □ □ □ □

□

□

□ □

□ □ □

Benchmark if there is an awareness of strengthened KD/KS/KU success in similar (or competitive) organizations. Describe the current organizational culture with respect to knowledge services. Identify the drivers for considering major changes in the organizational structure. Define specific steps for raising awareness about knowledge services as a management framework in the organization. Determine the “state” of management in the organization. Do knowledge workers think of what they do as part of a management “structure” or “environment”? Ensure that the knowledge strategist has the responsibility, authority, and accountability for enabling knowledge services success in the organization. Take note if this role different from that of other managers. In developing a management plan for developing a knowledge services strategy, identify who the knowledge strategist must bring in to help determine the central value proposition and objectives for the plan. Designing, planning, and establishing knowledge services policy is an assignment that management and enterprise leadership expect of the knowledge strategist. Discuss with colleagues how to respond successfully to that assignment (i.e. to build the business case for knowledge services). In the planning effort, develop strategic maps that show how to get the organization from where it is today to where it should be tomorrow. “Good management” formerly meant success with “people/process/technology” and now “content management” and “strategic alignment” are added to the management “success” picture. Incorporate all 5 into your knowledge strategy goals through the planning, design, and implementation of information, knowledge, and strategic learning activities. Discuss how a focus on “people engagement” strengthens the management process. Describe why “collaborative” is a critical adjective when speaking about knowledge services. Establish a management “perspective” as the knowledge strategist.

1.3 Leadership and knowledge leadership

27

Management and knowledge services: discussion questions 1. 2.

Why is management – in Peter F. Drucker’s description – a “liberal art”? How does the transition from KM to knowledge services affect the development of a knowledge strategy?

3.

How does your organization define management roles in the organization? How are managers selected in the first place? Do managers in your organization understand the value of a strong, embedded knowledge strategy in the organization’s existing processes? Do managers currently see knowledge services as embedded or “extra work”?

4.

1.3 Leadership and knowledge leadership Just as it is appropriate for the knowledge strategist to recognize the benefits of having some background and understanding of management principles, the same can be said about leadership. The two disciplines are related, as noted in the previous section. When knowledge strategists think about management and leadership principles, they use these disciplines to enable their success, and do so with the understanding that by following particular rules or standards they are also strengthening the organizational knowledge strategy. Knowledge strategists know that having an understanding of leadership principles and methodologies supports – and even drives – one’s workplace efforts. That means the leadership required for maintaining and sustaining the knowledge culture must have a different focus, one which combines leadership and management but also has a specific leadership perspective with respect to knowledge services. It is a type of leadership we characterize as “knowledge leadership,” for its primary purpose is to ensure that knowledge services and the KD/KS/KU process are managed for the benefit of knowledge use in the organization and that knowledge value is conveyed back to all enterprise stakeholders. As happens in this case, the usual distinctions of leadership and management become less about contrast and more about similarities and have considerable influence on how the knowledge strategist exhibits characteristics of both the leader and the manager. The knowledge strategist accepts the responsibility to provide knowledge leadership, having the ability, the knowledge of concepts, and the skills for that rarified role. It’s a place in the organization that many management employees do not have – a subject-specialty leadership position. With

28

1 Building the knowledge culture

knowledge leadership comes additional influence in the organization and it becomes associated with the knowledge strategist and can make or break their professional success. Knowledge leadership is a role the knowledge strategist has to play, for in the workplace the knowledge strategist can see – and act on – the connection between the organization’s intellectual capital and the organization’s successful achievement of its stated mission and goals.

Vision

Mission

Values

What Success Will Look Like

What We Do

How We Behave Along the Way

Almost Never Changes

Can Change But Not Often

Do Not Change

Fig. 1.6: Knowledge Services Leadership Basics: Understanding the Organizational Environment.

Leadership is a subject characterized as “necessary” and “critical” for senior managers in all fields (and particularly for the knowledge strategist in developing and implementing the enterprise-wide knowledge strategy). There is an amazing array of what are usually referred to as “types” of leadership. One list describes 12 different types of leadership, and that list includes only one or two leadership “styles” (as they are also described) that contribute to the knowledge strategist’s success. As we think about leadership criteria for knowledge services, though, we can focus on a few. Influence, for some, seems to be the critical element of leadership, as noted in Kevin Kruse’s definition of leadership: “a process of social influence which maximizes the efforts of others towards the achievement of a goal” (Kruse 2013). It could be a reference to a particular type of leadership for the knowledge strategist.

1.3 Leadership and knowledge leadership

29

Engagement as leadership is identified by Deborah Hunt, Library Director of the Mechanics Institute in San Francisco, a library founded in 1854 and one of the world’s most famous subscription libraries. “Engagement is really a leadership skill,” Hunt says, “and it is through engagement that management and leadership merge.” In her work (Hunt is also a management consultant in the library and information services field), she is prone to advise knowledge workers, “I expect you to step up and become the leader.” At the same time, she is quick to assure any colleague she’s working with that “leadership is about leading by serving, not in the sense of being subservient, but rather by bringing others along, setting the example that it isn’t just about the leader but also about those he or she leads.” Influence and engagement, yes, are two qualities of successful leadership, yet there are two more specific types that the knowledge strategist can consider. Daniel Goleman, famous for his work in emotional intelligence, identifies several leadership categories, and Hunt’s engagement leadership probably falls into one of them, in what Goleman calls “visionary” and/or “coaching” leadership. The former is also a leadership type made famous by Marvin Bower, McKinsey’s founder, so well described in Elizabeth Haas Edersheim’s McKinsey’s Marvin Bower: Vision, Leadership, and the Creation of Management Consulting. The list of characteristics included in “The Bower Reach” – Marvin Bower’s visionary leadership – is impressive, and incorporating these qualities into the knowledge strategist’s approach can bring valuable benefits to the organization’s knowledge services strategic framework and its knowledge strategy: 1. Integrity/trustworthiness 2. Fact-based visioning and a pragmatic “Monday morning” path to turn vision into reality 3. Adherence to principles/values 4. Humility and unassuming respect for others 5. Strong communications/personal persuasiveness 6. Personal involvement/demonstrated commitment. (Edersheim 2004) From a slightly different perspective, both Donald Hislop and Frances Hesselbein suggest what they call “transformational” leadership, with Hislop defining the term in specific terms almost selected for the knowledge strategist: “a mode or style of leadership focused on the development of long-term visions, values, and goals which also involves persuading workers to become attached to them and to work towards achieving them” (Hislop 2009). In her theory of transformational leadership, Hesselbein identifies a series of “milestones” that enable organizations to “meet their destination,” as she describes this activity:

30

– – – – – – – –

1 Building the knowledge culture

Scan the environment Revisit the mission Ban the hierarchy Challenge the gospel Employ the power of language Disperse leadership across the organization Lead from the front; don’t push from the rear Assess performance. (Hesselbein 2015)

With these “types” or “styles” of leadership in mind, it is easy to identify specific leadership principles that affect the knowledge strategist’s work. A wide range of characteristics can be used to describe leadership principles, and they are best understood by connecting knowledge services leadership to specific terms or actions. First of all, the knowledge strategist must undertake some serious thinking about knowledge strategy. It is appropriate for the potential knowledge strategist to ask if there is a strong desire to be the company’s knowledge strategist. Since the role requires leadership, is leading others a role the knowledge strategist particularly wants to have? Or instead of being the organization’s knowledge strategist, would this employee prefer to play a secondary or supportive role, still doing good work but not required to take on the responsibilities, authority, and accountability of leadership as an organizational knowledge strategist. The knowledge strategist must feel comfortable with the idea of being a leader, whatever that specific leadership role might be. With the question answered – yes, this strategist feels comfortable with the idea of leading others – it’s time to think about the more serious side of this career opportunity. In their own way, these leadership characteristics reflect the messages about leadership from many experts in the field, and among those who write about this topic, an essay from Margaret Wheatley connects remarkably well with the goals of the knowledge strategist. Indeed, the essay can be considered a preliminary look at leadership principles. In her essay, subtitled “An Invitation to the Nobility of Leadership,” Wheatley makes a strong case, in this context, a case which can be applied to knowledge workers as the knowledge strategist seeks to open doors to a “saner” configuration for collaborative knowledge sharing. Wheatley’s particular point of view will provide the knowledge strategist with good reasons for accepting her “invitation” to take up a serious and productive leadership role: “We live in a VUCA World, defined by the U.S. military as Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, and Ambiguous . . . As leaders, we have a choice. We can courageously and willingly step forward to serve, or we can withdraw into denial and self-protection.”

1.3 Leadership and knowledge leadership

31

To Wheatley’s way of thinking, leadership requires stepping back and giving attention to two specific ideas, both of which can seriously impact how the knowledge strategist conveys the importance of participation in collaborative knowledge sharing. The first idea has to do with recognizing that no matter how bad a situation is or how uninterested some colleagues seem to be in what the knowledge strategist is seeking to build, as the knowledge strategy is developed, “leaders can use their power and influence, their insight and compassion, to lead people back to an understanding of who we are as human beings, to create the conditions for our basic human qualities of generosity, contribution, community, and love to be evoked no matter what.” Wheatley’s second idea can also be taken up by the knowledge strategist, especially as the strategist seeks to raise awareness about the importance of knowledge sharing. When more active knowledge sharing is required of others in the organization, the knowledge strategist recognizes and figures out how to put Wheatley’s ideas to use for motivating colleagues in the organization. As she puts it: All people want to belong and feel part of a community. And we want our children to be safe and healthy. It is for these reasons that high engagement leadership works so well: it engages people for a cause they care about and relies on their hearts and minds to find ways forward to solving their own problems (Wheatley 2017).

That’s the thinking that must drive the knowledge strategist in bringing colleagues into the realm of collaborative knowledge sharing; if employees can become engaged, they will be more likely to join in as the knowledge strategist builds the organization’s knowledge strategy. The good sense of Wheatley’s advice is that it includes specific “questions guaranteed to engender excellent conversations and critical insights” and the knowledge strategist can apply them to open the knowledge strategy development process to think about ideas and directions that have perhaps been ignored, overlooked, or simply not noticed. As Wheatley writes, “As you and colleagues answer the questions, think in terms of trend lines. How would you have answered these a few years ago in contrast to how you would answer them now?” Wheatley’s questions, for discussion between the knowledge strategist and the knowledge workers who will be affected by the strategy, include: 1. Quality of relationships. From a few years ago to now and looking ahead a few years, how are people relating to each other? Has trust increased or declined? Are people more self-protective or less so? Are we more willing to

32

1 Building the knowledge culture

be there for one another, to go the extra mile, or not? What’s the evidence for any of our answers? 2. Fear versus love. Many believe that there are two ends of the spectrum of human emotions. Consider where you see examples of each. Also look for patterns: which reaction, fear or love, is more likely in specific situations or with specific issues? Are either of these emotions coming to dominate as time goes on? In your leadership, what role does fear play? Are you using fear to motivate people? 3. Quality of thinking. How difficult is it to find time to think, personally and with others? How would you assess the level of learning in the organization? Is long-term thinking still happening (in conversations, decisionmaking, planning)? Do you consider the future? Has it made an impact? 4. Willingness to contribute. What invitations to contribute have you extended and why? How have people responded? Ongoing, what are your expectations for people being willing to step forward? Are those higher or lower than a few years ago? 5. The role of money. How big an influence, as a percentage of other criteria, do financial issues have on decisions? Has money become a motivator for you? For staff? Has selfishness replaced services? What’s your evidence? 6. Crisis management. Any incident is an extraordinary opportunity for learning, not only relevant to the incident, but also to the organization’s culture. What do you do when something goes wrong? Do leaders retreat or gather people together? How well did people communicate during the crisis? Where did trust or distrust factor in? Were your values evident in behaviors and the choices you made? For the knowledge strategist, the following are also critical, connecting to and complementing Wheatley’s strong suggestions. To achieve success in the duties as a knowledge strategist and as a leader, you will: – Understand your own strengths. Recognize your own ambition. Knowledge strategists want to do the best job for their employer and with the other employees with whom they come in contact. While this kind of thinking might appear to be something like ambition or look like a kind of selfserving role, it is not. The knowledge strategist is actually thinking about what they do best and recognizing how they can use that expertise in their work. – Develop personal relationships. You must have the ability to work with people, both individually and with groups. Their expertise enables the understanding of all the different elements that come into play as one leads the

1.3 Leadership and knowledge leadership

33

organization’s KD/KS/KU effort, but they all build on and involve people. You learn about other’s talents and work with them to leverage their strengths. Your focus is not outwardly on systems, structure, and the many other elements that present challenges. They get your attention of course, but that is more “behind the scenes” work. More important is to give attention to the people who are coming to you, working with them as you get to know them, and vice versa. – Rely on trust. Early on, the knowledge strategist learns that with managing the organization’s intellectual capital comes “built-in” authority, formal or otherwise. You do not need to oversee every single activity but must know that you have enabled employees to complete their own tasks. Employees know, and feel comfortable asking you follow-up questions if needed. – Innovate and visualize. On issues connected with the organization’s knowledge domain, employees no longer consider “that’s not how we do it here” or “that’s not our way.” Innovation and creativity play a big part in how they work with knowledge services, and under the knowledge strategist’s leadership, they take the time to carefully understand and envision what the end result will be, picturing in their group what final success will look like. From there, they can work backwards to determine what the road to that definition of success looks like. And more importantly, they are comfortable with the notion that what they decide today is not how they have to do if forever. It becomes an iterative, open feedback loop. – Influence. It is essential to recognize that influence – both directly with individuals and organizationally in influencing the development of the organization as a knowledge culture – is necessary for success. Strategists recognize that they must know the people they work with (closely and periodically), the industry the organization is part of, and where they make contributions (and to what end). As a result, the knowledge strategist, colleagues, and the organization at large are able to determine the total impact that can be realized in the position and as an organization. The knowledge strategist is uniquely positioned for encompassing leadership responsibilities for several reasons. Three stand out. First of all, the knowledge strategist knows the communication and knowledge sharing habits within the organization. Second, the knowledge strategist is particularly skilled in using professional expertise for evaluating how information and knowledge are developed, shared, and used throughout the organization and has a quick eye for determining where the problems or opportunities are. Finally, the knowledge strategist is expert in aligning knowledge value with organizational goals and keeps those goals – supported by the organization’s vision, mission, and values – at the

34

1 Building the knowledge culture

forefront of knowledge strategy development. This expertise is an especially relevant leadership strength and enables the larger organization to understand where to go, what to expect, and how to excel in addressing the knowledge services needs of any employee or group of employees in the organization. Other voices: Kevin Manion on human capital, knowledge services, and real leadership Kevin Manion is a highly trusted human capital executive recognized for his expertise in motivating people, organizational effectiveness, talent development, and supporting senior-leader coaching in financial services, engineering, manufacturing, logistics, media, and publishing. Kevin has been recognized for building trusting partnerships at the highest levels in organizations, enabling culture and leading through change. What more is there to say about leadership? If you are holding this book, you likely have read extensively about leadership before this moment. At least I hope you have! You probably already have an understanding of the fundamentals of what makes a good, maybe even great, leader in today’s world – or, just as valid – you have a good sense of what you personally look for in a leader. For me, that includes transparency, honesty, information sharing, inclusiveness, feedback, collaboration, advocacy, and, above all else, trust. And I bet if you ask yourself the same question, none of the words you would come up with would include “control” or “information hoarding” or “suspicion.” And yet many leaders default to these base behaviors and assume they are actually leading. Leadership thinking continues to evolve, as does our workforce – within the next few years, millennials will account for half that workforce. What does that mean? That millennials will be the ones deciding what makes a great leader, and they will vote with their feet. In a robust economy, as we are in now, leadership plays an important part in talent retention – the old adage that employees leave a leader is truer than ever, and millennials will be showing the way. So perhaps there is more to be said about leadership. And I propose telling three stories about leadership that I have experienced and observed. Real leadership – “It is in their DNA”: Patricia’s story. What I call “real” leadership tends to emerge in a crisis of some sort, where there is a need for someone, whether self-directed or through unavoidable circumstances, to stand up and stand out or to fade into the crowd. And when they stand out, they rarely do it for their own glory (which is exactly what we mean when we equate

1.3 Leadership and knowledge leadership

35

knowledge services with knowledge sharing – no matter what the situation, in knowledge services the knowledge is shared for a purpose). I’d like to tell the story of Patricia, a senior leader at a company we will call “Company One.” When One announced it was being acquired, Patricia was among the first to find out as the information migrated outward from a tight inner circle of decision makers in the C-suite. As more leaders were informed of what was about to be announced, Patricia didn’t miss a beat; she convened her leadership team for an 8am huddle the next morning, minutes after the announcement was to be made public, and then set up additional calls and inperson meetings with managers across her entire team. Within hours of finding out the news, Patricia was also booking flights for each of the three locations where she has teams across the U.S. The announcement, made on a Monday, surprised the industry as well as most of the employees of Company One who were not part of the very small team that negotiated the initial deal. Employees were nervous and worried about their careers and had a lot of questions. And Patricia didn’t have many answers. And yet, when presented with the situation, Patricia acted. She put her team first. While initially worried that she didn’t have all the answers, and concerned about her own career, she instinctively knew that face-to-face time with her leadership and their teams was key to negotiating the rough waters that were ahead. Within three days of the announcement, Patricia had connected with every manager in her organization and led group listening sessions where employees had an opportunity to be heard. Patricia knew no more than other leaders at her level and even many above, but her willingness to be there for her team, even though she didn’t have all the answers, was a leadership moment for her. As a result of her owning (because she owns) her leadership, Patricia’s team has been more cohesive, with little to no attrition in the first months since the acquisition was announced. At the same time, most of her peers chose to wait and see what happens. Many of them did not connect with their teams beyond the most senior managers while others adopted a wait and see approach, leaving their teams feeling adrift. What makes Patricia different? Patricia has understood that leadership is about being present for your team, thinking of them first before she thinks about her own needs. She has also understood that her fears cannot drive how she interacts with teammates and that appearing vulnerable and open is a strength and not something that makes you look weak. She is confident in her approach; as a result, Patricia has the loyalty and dedication of her team. She admits to being imperfect and allows others to be so as well. She turns missteps into learning opportunities and fosters a climate of

36

1 Building the knowledge culture

trust and engagement. She solicits ideas from the team and lets those ideas grow and benefit the business. On Patricia’s team, no one is afraid to put their hand up. This doesn’t mean that she is weak or allows poor performance. Patricia is also one of the hardest performance raters I have met. Her ongoing coaching of her team includes direct and honest feedback and rarely sanctioning. Patricia’s team model means everyone succeeds together and no one is left behind unless they make the choice to do so. She does not accept leaders on her team who are not 100% in, and in for the right reasons and with the right ethics. She leads from the heart but manages from the head. On Patricia’s team you know that your performance matters but – and here’s the key message – you want to succeed because you are heard, valued, and respected, and your leader is your advocate. The best leaders recognize both their roles as business tacticians and strategists but also as leaders of people. As individuals develop and rise to higher levels within organizations, they often become isolated and focused on politics and managing the C-suite. Moreover, they begin to see the “people piece” as separate from their work. This is an unfortunate reality often found in many C-suite leaders. While managing up in corporations is a reality that none of us is immune to, the ability to focus attention on one’s teams – regardless of level – is where real leadership is seen. And real leadership will always win the day. Self-Centered Leadership – “Leadership without a soul”: John’s story. I recently stumbled across a piece about bad bosses in the Harvard Business Review (“What to Do When You have a Bad Boss”, HBR, September 7, 2018), while putting together a working session on building trust for a team in Orlando, Florida. The article – and accompanying whimsical drawing of a giant bloodshot eyeball in a suit – first made me smile, and then made me think of all the leaders I have met who have exhibited soulless leadership. I wasn’t smiling by the end of the article. Soulless leadership comes from a place of fear. Why? Because soulless leaders do not understand the value of knowledge sharing. For whatever reason along their journey, these leaders have learned to be suspicious of the people who work with them rather than to enter into these relationships with an “assume the best of intentions” or an “assume we are all working towards the same goal” mindset. Somewhere along the way, these leaders started acting out of fear and there was no one around to redirect or coach them. John is the perfect example of “a bad boss.” John rose quickly through the ranks (a fate unfortunately that doesn’t always benefit the individual – we often promote subject matter experts rather than great leaders and then we ultimately pay the price if they are not predisposed to being leaders or given the time to build their leadership). As a perceived expert in his field, John was

1.3 Leadership and knowledge leadership

37

exceptionally good at managing up and making sure that the list of “to dos” got done while managing first himself and his team with the hands-on approach he himself had experienced (what we generally call “micromanaging”). He kept bad news away from leadership and rewarded the individuals under him who supported and furthered his particular agenda, which was often focused on promoting his own brand. John hoarded information and knowledge and did not believe in transparency or team empowerment because, from his perspective, these would take the focus away from him. John’s insecurity about his own leadership skills and his own fear about not being really prepared to be a leader turned John into a bad boss. In the past year, with a new inclusive and team-oriented senior leader (think of someone like Patricia above), John has floundered and seen his once stellar performance reviews fall to below average despite his measurable results, the numbers, being strong. Moreover, with the arrival of the senior leader above John, his team has now voiced their concerns through the company’s engagement survey (in the past, their results were artificially high because of fear of retaliation) and during HR-driven focus groups to identify issues (these did not include John in the room for the sessions). While his new leader has repeatedly coached him and is invested in his success, John has been combative and has undermined his new leader behind her back. In a particularly low moment, John bemoaned “no one told me the rules had changed.” John was fundamentally unprepared for leadership. But he is only partly to blame in this scenario. Too often, the “Johns” of the world hire people like themselves and we end up with a whole leadership team that is self-interested and political, not a team in any sense. He unfortunately characterizes the leader who does not trust and is not transparent in sharing information and knowledge that can help his team better understand how to do their jobs. John perceives information and knowledge as power to be kept close because it makes him feel important and safe – the very antithesis of what knowledge services and knowledge sharing are all about. How could we help John? John’s story is not unusual, and we have all likely met more “Johns” than “Patricias” in our professional journeys. It is not a surprise to me that in a tenyear study of the best qualities of a leader published in 2018, Google found that coaching was the most important attribute. Leadership is primarily about coaching – teams and individuals – and coaching is about guiding and supporting teams and individuals to grow and become the best that they can be. Coaching is never about telling; it is always about guiding. Great coaching requires a personal disposition that is focused on others. Active listening, as the cornerstone of effective coaching, requires one to

38

1 Building the knowledge culture

put aside self-interest and our tendency to be thinking about what we will say next. Great coaching is being in the moment with the individual receiving the coaching. The International Coach Federation (ICF) includes “Active Listening” in its core competencies. To become a certified coach, candidates must demonstrate this ability repeatedly during recorded coaching sessions. In my ICF training, we referred to active listening as “Dancing in the Moment” with the coachee. How great is that? My story. Leadership has always fascinated me and continues to do so. A constant throughout my entire professional life has been to observe and “collect” the qualities that best define “real leadership.” Not just for my own use, but to help other leaders and coach them to their best selves. Through this, I have found my own personal mantra and it is rather simple: “I measure my success by the success of those I partner with and support. If they are successful, then I am successful.” I have found that mantra to be true even in the worst of circumstances, even when, for example, as an HR professional I was battling a unionization attempt, because I truly believed that our teammates would be better off without the union and with their leadership advocating for them. And I proved this to them when, moments after the unionization vote count was announced, when they were at their lowest, I took the employees who had led the unionization effort and the leadership team into a room and did two things. The first was to thank them for their courage in trying to make their workplace better for their team and to tell them, that now, we needed them to help us rebuild. The second was to look each one of them in the eyes and say: “it is illegal for any manager standing here today to retaliate against you for your union activity. If that happens you need to come to me, and I will defend you.” Trust was cemented in that moment. It was a wonderful day for me when I came to the realization that position, level, and compensation (yes, I may be crazy) have taken second place for me. What matters to me, what drives me to get up in the morning, is helping people I believe in to be successful. That is in my DNA. And I don’t do it for my own glory or advancement, for if that were the case I would not spend as much time with interns as I do with CEOs. But I do. And I live for the moment when I see that amazing spark of leadership in someone. When I see them “get it.” That makes it all worth it, and it is how I personally express my own “real” leadership.

1.3 Leadership and knowledge leadership

39

Other voices: Frances Hesselbein: knowledge sharing at its best For most knowledge workers – and certainly for the knowledge strategist – leadership excellence can be traced to an understanding of leadership that comes literally from one of the most famous leadership professionals in the world. Frances Hesselbein is the CEO and President of the Frances Hesselbein Leadership Institute (originally the Peter F. Drucker Foundation for Non-Profit Management). The Institute is now affiliated with the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, and Mrs. Hesselbein is well known for her many lectures and consulting projects at institutions throughout the world. In fact, many business leaders, professional managers, scholars, and academics, out of respect for her many years of success in the field, have come to think of Mrs. Hesselbein as the “dean” of leadership development. Yet there is another side to the story when her leadership success is referred to, a story that matches up with the very goals that drive knowledge strategists in the organizations where they are employed. It is in Mrs. Hesselbein’s outstanding talent for sharing knowledge that we realize just how important it is to link leadership and knowledge services. In 2016, in her opening keynote address for the Global Women’s Leadership Summit, Mrs. Hesselbein’s theme was clear: leaders today – and those who aspire to be leaders – understand that modern society requires a new commitment to leadership. It is a commitment that must be incorporated into a framework for leadership that refutes the low level of trust and the high level of cynicism being experienced in much of society. Not surprising to her audience, Mrs. Hesselbein in her presentation recommended a solution. This pioneer in leadership (and in knowledge sharing as well, as she is easily and correctly characterized) described for conference attendees a plan, a list she referred to as her “imperatives of leadership” (St. Clair 2016): 1. Challenge the gospel of the status quo. It is her own “imperative,” but Mrs. Hesselbein was generous to recognize the strong connection and friendship she had with Peter Drucker and here she shared a singularly appropriate line of thought. In any organization, those in leadership positions must keep the organization’s vision, mission, and values at the very center of the organization, enabling the leaders to build – as they move the organization forward – the organization as an organ of the future. 2. Build collaborations, alliances, and partnerships. Mrs. Hesselbein has worked in 68 countries and how does she do it all? She uses technology to keep innovative dialogue alive and strong, and she makes no secret of the importance and value of education and learning. In her address, she shared an inspirational quote (often misattributed to William Butler Yeats but

40

1 Building the knowledge culture

nevertheless in this context important for its message): “Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire”. Following this thought, she admonished all with leadership responsibility to look “beyond the walls of the organization” by simply asking: “And who does that?” Her response was clear and to the point, taking us back to strategic learning and knowledge sharing: “Learning leaders,” she said, and left no doubt in her listeners’ minds about who she expected to take charge when it is time to light the fire. 3. Build a richly diverse enterprise. If there is a single goal of the Frances Hesselbein Leadership Institute, it would be to provide equal access. It is a task that cannot be delegated, simply because – as she stated – “civility and good manners come directly ‘from the front’ and leaders are responsible for equal access and diversity in the organizations they lead.” Or, perhaps more to the point for the modern audience: “Are we building today the richly diverse community for the future?” 4. Manage and understand the power of the vision, mission, and values of the organization. That’s what innovates the organization’s leaders, Mrs. Hesselbein said, reminding her listeners of Drucker’s critical dictum: we manage not only for the success of our immediate organizations but for the greater good. As leaders we are not in the role of describing for the organization’s workers “how to do.” The goal is to demonstrate for them “how to be,” a thought that led to another phrase from Drucker, that innovation is the change that creates a new dimension of performance. In our current society, we look around and we see that now is the time to lead, to develop our checklist for the leaders of the future so that we enable them to establish and adhere to valuesbased and demographic-driven leadership principles for leading the organization and its people. 5. Communication. It is the critical foundation for just about everything we do in the organizations for which we are responsible. Mrs. Hesselbein gave considerable attention to the idea that communication is “being heard” and she stated unapologetically that “we need leaders who practice listening.” Successful leaders, she said, are those who are listeners and unifiers, and through them “we find common ground.” Of course, leaders share success but true leaders, she made clear, also accept responsibility for shortcomings and failures when they share success. As she ended her address, Mrs. Hesselbein turned to the subject of mentoring, to how leaders take it upon themselves to inspire all who are interested in moving their organizations forward. It was advice that relates noticeably with knowledge strategists as they think about how they are seeking to position knowledge services and knowledge sharing in the lives of their constituent

1.3 Leadership and knowledge leadership

41

knowledge users, and to make her point, Mrs. Hesselbein used the words of George Bernard Shaw, from an article published in 1907, focusing on mentoring. This is what Shaw wrote: I am of the opinion that my life belongs to the community, and as long as I live, it is my privilege to do for it whatever I can. I want to be thoroughly used up when I die, for the harder I work, the more I live. Life is no “brief candle” to me. It is a sort of splendid torch which I have got hold of for a moment, and I want to make it burn as brightly as possible before handing it on to the future generations. George Bernard Shaw, Brighton, 1907

The destiny for her listeners, Frances Hesselbein made clear in her address, is to hold that splendid torch high. To these leaders, who of course include knowledge strategists, and especially younger knowledge strategists, she said, “You will make it burn brightly.” Leadership and knowledge leadership: checklist of considerations □ □ □

□

□ □

□ □

□

Identify the people in the organization who show the greatest interest in improved knowledge services and the development of an enterprise-wide knowledge strategy. Identify the potential for synergies and combining resources with other functional units, especially business units with parallel or similar responsibilities. Who are the key players in determining organizational success? Is there an organizational development functional unit or an organizational effectiveness department in place? Are these people (managers and employees) aware of the role of knowledge services in the organization and how knowledge services contributes to enterprise success? Describe the collaborative environment in the larger organization. Is collaboration basic to the organizational culture or are collaborative situations considered “too much trouble” and thought of as interrupting the “real work” of the organization’s employees? Identify advocates and champions who would respond to opportunities to work with the knowledge strategist as knowledge strategy development moves forward. Take note of how the value of intellectual capital is understood and conveyed in the larger organization. Is the “match” between intellectual capital and the successful achievement of the organizational mission clear to employees? Learn to weave “knowledge leadership” into fundamental leadership skill development. Establish the duties and responsibilities of knowledge thought leaders, knowledge services professionals, and other affiliated persons who could introduce the knowledge strategist to potential sponsors for the development of a knowledge strategy for the organization. “We need leaders who practice listening… Successful leaders are those who are listeners and unifiers, and through them we find common ground.” Describe how Frances Hesselbein’s reference to “being heard” is done well or needed in your organization.

42

1 Building the knowledge culture

Leadership and knowledge leadership: discussion questions 1.

2.

3. 4.

Some professional workplace leader/managers tend to think of influence as their primary contribution to successful performance in the organization. When does influence cease to be a personal characteristic and become an enterprise-success driver? In the modern organization, the functional unit with responsibility for managing and delivering knowledge services is assumed to provide value-added products, services, and consultation. Is this the case in your current organization? If yes, how does management recognize the functional unit adding value? What does Kevin Manion mean when he refers to “real leadership”? Would leaders in your organization benefit from this definition? Would it change the way they lead? The success of strategic learning – one of the three elements of knowledge services – in the larger enterprise can be a powerful driver in establishing a knowledge culture. What is the ideal state-of-the-art of strategic learning look like at your company?

1.4 The knowledge strategist This entire book is made to be the handbook – a field guide, if you will – for a knowledge strategist, and yet, until this point, we’ve only loosely defined what a knowledge strategist is in terms of the work they accomplish. We’ll take some time to dive deeper into what it means to hold this position, and what benefits it has for the organization at large. As the management professional with leadership responsibility for knowledge strategy, it is the knowledge strategist who leads the way in the organizational knowledge domain. As we continue thinking about knowledge services – the management methodology on which knowledge strategy is founded – we discover that all our conversations relate back sooner or later to the effectiveness of the knowledge strategist, to the success with their management skills and the leadership role they must play within the organization. Strategy is defined as a plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal. It is a well-known and much-used management term, and in relating strategy to working with the organization’s knowledge domain, the specifics of the strategy are straightforward: we use management to control how what we want to get done gets done, and we use strategy as the overarching methodology to achieve our goals. Leadership – as part of our broader management picture – provides guidance, direction, and tone to those with whom we interact, to ensure that we are building strong relationships with our staff and peers. Knowledge strategists understand – better than anyone else – the role knowledge services has as the foundation for the organizational knowledge

1.4 The knowledge strategist

43

Knowledge Value

Knowledge Expertise

Knowledge Awareness

Knowledge Effectiveness

Fig. 1.7: The Knowledge Strategist Drives the Knowledge Value Effort.

strategy. Their job is to create and implement strategies for developing, sharing, and using information, knowledge, and strategic learning in and for the organization. Simply put, the knowledge strategist is responsible for enterprise-wide success with knowledge development, knowledge sharing, and knowledge utilization (KD/KS/KU). They work with people (then process, then technology as well as – as noted earlier – with strategic alignment and content management) across the organization at all levels to achieve the most success. There are plenty of organizations that have, in fact, identified and incorporated into their workplace structure a place for someone to perform the tasks and undertake the leadership responsibilities of the knowledge strategist. Or we’ve equally seen folks “step up to the plate,” going beyond their daily work to incorporate knowledge strategy development into their responsibilities because they recognize the importance and benefit of doing so. Whether explicitly or inexplicitly, the work at its core is still the same, and fundamental to an organization’s success. Bringing together several job descriptions, we developed the following which could be the opening paragraph for a “typical” job description for an organization’s knowledge strategist: The knowledge strategist is a trusted advisor to the organization’s management with responsibility for leading and overseeing the development of collaboration and implementation solutions for information and knowledge sharing within various corporate groups. As knowledge strategist, this manager/leader will have the opportunity to combine technical skills, creativity, and customer focus to define and improve internal

44

1 Building the knowledge culture

processes and deliver great solutions, to ensure that colleagues within the immediate department and customers have access to and get the best from the company’s collected knowledge.

And this is, remember, just the opening statement. With all organizations challenged to provide the best KD/KS/KU possible for the company’s employees and affiliates, it is important that the learning of a knowledge strategist does not end with this book. We have to practice what we preach and make sure we carve out time for our own professional development. Being a knowledge strategist requires you stay on top of industry trends and skills in the knowledge domain. Support other knowledge strategists – join or develop a community of practice or professional organization that is in line with your work and industry. Check out what new Knowledge Strategist/Manager job postings include as their requisite skillset. Do you have those new skills? Here is an example below of a current role: Knowledge Manager, Airbnb: – Support and assist in strategies to integrate knowledge into team’s operational and project processes and increase knowledge adoption and usage. Build buy-in at all levels and influence teams on how to be more collaborative and effective – Generate reports to provide progress on knowledge initiatives and practices – Assist in execution of all phases of knowledge life cycle: authoring, defining roles, publishing workflows, editing, processing, permissions, knowledge audits, content expiration, and search result optimizations – Suggest and participate in improvements of the knowledge program – Work with support teams to develop a strategy for creating and maintaining knowledge – Identify and champion projects supporting continuous improvement of knowledge management processes and positively impacting associated key performance indicators (KPIs) – Work collaboratively to build strategy for team hubs knowledge work and project spaces for teams – Build scalable website and page templates against common company use cases (April 2019 listing) But as mentioned just before, the work of the knowledge strategist doesn’t rely on having a knowledge-specific job title. You do not explicitly need to be titled as a knowledge strategist to leverage the skillset. It’s an ability that gets built into the career portfolio of those managers and leaders whose expertise with knowledge services enables them to develop and work with an organizational

1.4 The knowledge strategist

45

knowledge strategy. Knowledge services – even after a few decades – continues to be an emerging field, and we’re still learning: learning about KM, learning about knowledge services, and learning about knowledge strategy, all with the goal of figuring out how to bring together all the many influences and “moving parts” that make up the knowledge-related domain. It’s our job to provide the people in our organization who work with knowledge with the proficiency they need for succeeding in its development, sharing, and use. And each job, each industry, and each organizational function can be described from many different perspectives coming from different points of view. What’s the budding knowledge strategist to do? For one thing, think about the types of work the knowledge strategist does. A first step is to give some consideration to jobs knowledge workers are called upon to perform, and one way to do that is to look at the organization’s knowledge domain. It is in that arena that planning, policy and procedure development, and productivity all come together and succeed, based on how well information, knowledge, and strategic learning are leveraged.

What

Management

Projects Facilitate KD/KS/KU

How

Strategy

Knowledge Services Strategy

Why

Leadership

The Knowledge Culture

Fig. 1.8: The Knowledge Strategist Leads the Way.

We’ve determined there are three roles for the knowledge strategist to have in organizations: 1. The knowledge services manager/leader. Work with the people in the organization’s knowledge domain who are generally characterized as knowledge specialists, knowledge managers, knowledge catalysts, or technologists, all of whom are involved in dealing with the organization’s processes, and often including employees involved in social, intranet, or technological entities as well. 2. The knowledge services consultant. Work with employees as an adviser, producer, coach, or analyst. In this work, the knowledge strategist provides expertise in such areas as knowledge-focused project management, business analytics and strategic intelligence, information policy and regulatory

46

3.

1 Building the knowledge culture

development, and the general organization of and access to information and knowledge. The knowledge services entrepreneur. Work with organizational employees – professionals or specialists, often working in teams – together to develop knowledge-based products such as new collaborative applications, metadata-based feature sets for an application, or repeatable knowledge-based processes.

Clearly evidenced, as a knowledge strategist, there’s a good chance you’ll be required to “wear multiple hats.” The knowledge strategist is expected to design and plan knowledge-related activities and, most important, to establish policy and work with enterprise leaders in designing and framing knowledge policy for the organization. Understanding that each job description will be nuanced for the specific organization, a more in-depth list of duties is found below. As would be expected, it is more specific and contains a long list of individual requirements for the knowledge strategist, who will: – Identify, capture, categorize, and share tacit and explicit information and knowledge for all stakeholders (internal and – as required – external), including highly visible company-wide efforts to introduce new strategies, processes, and tools to ensure the successful flow of information, knowledge, and strategic learning content to all affected stakeholders. – Work across the specific operational unit or the organization as a whole to drive and evangelize management consulting and solutions capabilities by communicating the value of reusable knowledge-related solutions to departmental professionals across multiple divisions from senior executives and down. – Work with identified managers and technical strategists to champion a culture of adopting information, knowledge, and strategic learning content and services. – Evaluate, assess, measure, and restructure the organization’s solutions portfolio to diagnose strengths and weaknesses and identify ways to maximize operational value creation for sections, communities of practice, and specificfocus working groups. – Investigate and attempt to discover ways to better leverage departmental, organizational, and industry best practices or lessons learned for greater enterprise-wide synergy and competitive impact. – Identify, assess, and develop operational process-improvement opportunities and technology solutions for mitigating and managing potential legal risks in the development of legal services that could impact internal staff

1.4 The knowledge strategist

47

and, where appropriate, affiliated colleagues and clients. This can relate to data security, privacy, and the need to keep institutional know-how secure. – Collaborate with the organizational solutions team to identify and drive opportunities for the use of new technologies to improve operational processes in key practice groups. – Lead an ongoing knowledge services audit and opportunity assessment, including gap analysis for knowledge services delivery, and identify direct strategic learning activities required for ensuring staff understanding and participation. – Through interviews, research, benchmarking, and forecasting, assess current departmental solutions and offer recommendations for functional process and technology automation improvements. With the component parts of the job description in mind, the knowledge strategist recognizes that developing the knowledge services strategic framework is the main foundational element that creates the “guardrails” for the other processes and tasks to be carried out within the organization. That’s what this effort is all about, and it begins with a few simple core actions. For these steps, inspiration could be what Simon Sinek refers to as addressing the “why?” of his Golden Circle, before getting to the “what?” and the “how?” By making use of Sinek’s system, the knowledge strategist ensures that they have an explanation – a reason – for what they propose. The knowledge strategist continues with a focus on the organizational vision, mission, and values statements, to ensure that they are included and referred to, and in particular thinks about how the organization’s different management, business units,

WHAT HOW

WHY

Adapted from Sinek, 2009

Fig. 1.9: The Golden Circle (after Sinek).

48

1 Building the knowledge culture

departments, and the like respond to organizational change and how the knowledge strategist can apply the SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, threats, and opportunities) and PEST (political, economic, social, and technological) analyses to look at what changes will be required as the organization moves forward with developing the knowledge strategy and how the knowledge strategist will be able to lead the organization in whatever change is required. Part of the knowledge strategist’s effort – especially early on – will focus on all the different ways people think about knowledge and, in particular, how they think about knowledge in the organizational environment. With experiences, values, contextual ideas and information, and the expertise of specialists, the knowledge strategists begin to build their knowledge toolkit. And, of course, organizational knowledge is incorporated in codified material but it will also begin to tap into previously untapped territory – tacit knowledge – to ensure that institutional knowledge that is solely stuck in people’s heads is captured.

Knowledge Facilitator / Consultant / In-House Expert

Knowledge Strategy Authority

Knowledge Coach

Knowledge Thought Leader

Fig. 1.10: The Knowledge Strategist’s Role.

With this background in mind, the knowledge strategist then begins to focus on the “how” of the knowledge strategy effort, asking employees in the organization: 1. Who will they target for their first attempts at bringing up the subject of knowledge services and the current state of knowledge sharing in the organization? 2. How will they go about identifying the KD/KS/KU needs? 3. Who is interested in “doing better” with KD/KS/KU? 4. How will they leverage the knowledge they come up with – their study, their findings, and their offerings – for success of the present organizational knowledge strategy, and, of critical importance, in the future? As the strategy moves forward from development to product, the elements of strategy come up for review and determination. The key is not in following a sequential process, but rather in achieving a robust, reinforced consistency among the

1.4 The knowledge strategist

49

elements of the strategy itself. For the knowledge strategist, an effective knowledge strategy has five elements, providing answers to five questions: 1. Arenas. Where will strategy be active? Enterprise-wide? Or, perhaps as a pilot, in a selected business unit or department which can then be manipulated to demonstrate the success of the strategy? 2. Tools and Techniques. How will the knowledge strategy development team get to the point of delivering and implementing the strategy? 3. Differentiators. How will the strategy be accepted in the identified group? What benefit will it provide the knowledge workers? 4. Staging. What will be the speed and sequence of moving forward with the initiative, with developing the strategy, with trial and experimentation for selected parts, and with roll-out of a working product and its use? 5. Economic logic. How will the knowledge strategy be evaluated? How will the strategy development team obtain return on investment (ROI) information? What will the key performance indicators (KPIs) be? Finally, as the knowledge strategist moves forward, they are careful to emphasize, for themselves and for anyone else who expresses interest in the idea or concept of a knowledge strategy and its value to the larger organization, a return to a basic element of the exercise: unlike material assets, real estate, financial assets, and other holdings referred to and talked about throughout the organization (and usually beyond the organization) – assets which decrease as they are used – knowledge assets increase with use. It‘s all about how information, knowledge, and strategic learning breed more – and often, better – knowledge assets, and when shared, the knowledge asset stays with the person or group that receives the asset and, at the same time, enriches the sharer immediately and in the future.

Other voices: James Brogan on the knowledge strategist James Brogan, AIA RIBA NCARB, is Principal/CIO at Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates, Architects in New York, New York. Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates (KPF) is a global architectural practice with a 43year history of designing significant large and highly visible buildings and mixeduse developments around the world. With a professional staff distributed among nine global offices, identifying, collecting and disseminating the institutional knowledge developed over many years is vital to our continued success as a growing practice. Along with addressing the breadth of general knowledge categories

50

1 Building the knowledge culture

within the practice, effectively assembling and managing the many classifications of architectural project data – and true project knowledge – is paramount to our learning from past projects and is instrumental in supporting our current projects and future research and development efforts. Our awareness of the importance of information sharing began in the early 2000’s with the development of the KPF intranet. As a global resource for essential, immediately accessible information, our intranet rapidly became a foundational platform for the operational aspects within our practice. HR and resources, working standards and best practices, daily office tasks, an asset management platform, and a basic project database made up much of the early iterations. An important note, the KPF intranet and associated databases were built and managed by our in-house web developer and database specialist, not by a knowledge-focused professional. Our intranet became central to our daily processes; however, it gradually became apparent a strategic emphasis on curation was needed. As our business continued to expand with an even wider global reach, and with expectations from our clients growing exponentially (especially with shortening schedules and increasing deliverables), an understanding of the need for a more focused and strategic knowledge initiative – beyond only the technology platform – became apparent. A purposeful plan to collect and disseminate our wide-ranging institutional knowledge was needed and that need had become evident. To address this knowledge-curation need, in 2008 we introduced an inhouse volunteer model – identifying experienced individuals and discipline specialists to oversee their areas of expertise and become accountable for the management of this data and knowledge. While met with great enthusiasm, the volunteers simply could not successfully balance project pressures with their knowledge management responsibilities. Thus, in late 2009 at a senior leadership level we discussed the notion of bringing on a knowledge professional – someone imbued with organization strategies around knowledge identification and propagation, with a strong focus on people, their needs, and their requirements for successful project delivery. After a significant search we brought on Barrie Schessler Levy to be our Knowledge Strategist, finally closing this knowledge- dissemination loop – beginning with a platform solution (the KPF internet), evolving to a volunteer-led, part time knowledge collection effort, to now having a professional leading our knowledge planning and approach. While Barrie has begun to holistically transform a broad range of knowledge initiatives, below are a few examples of knowledge wins we’ve been able to accomplish with having Barrie on board.

1.4 The knowledge strategist

51

Employee profiles Barrie takes a people-first approach to knowledge services. She quickly understood that if employees were not engaged with the knowledge strategy she was trying to develop, it would not succeed. When having her initial conversations with people across all levels, one of the main gaps she identified was that people simply didn’t know who they could go to for expertise, or even as a new hire, to learn about their team members or projects. Together with our in-house development team, along with input from various stakeholders, she started to put together an employee profile that everyone across offices would have to complete. It allows staff to check-off what professional expertise they have or what they want to learn more about (the latter feeding our learning and development program). Additionally, it pulls in the projects individuals have worked on and links to the respective project pages. This becomes now searchable information. Previously, we were having to play games of “telephone” to figure out who knows what; this has cut back on that need. The profiles have been successful in developing transparency into our growing KPF network, while connecting the dots between areas in which we work – projects, communities of practice, learning, etc., all now “talking” to each other through connected intranet pages and stakeholder groups. Intranet calendar KPF likes to balance project work demands with other opportunities to collaborate and learn from each other. We have successfully developed various communities of practice and groups within KPF to provide forums for discussion, inspiration, and ideation. As one can imagine, scheduling these events in New York, London and across our Asia offices is a complicated feat! The groups, although great at collaborating within each group, needed a framework for collaborating between groups. This was another gap Barrie identified. She, again along with our developers and the group leaders, updated the intranet calendar to better fit the needs of its users. Now our events have a “type” tag and can be filtered as such. This way groups can use a centralized firm calendar and yet still have insight into just their group calendar. It is also filterable by office location so each office can see only the events that pertain to them, but yet can still have a view into what’s going on across the firm. Without Barrie taking a step back and realizing the misalignment between how the groups were operating versus how the firm needed to operate, the silos and confusion would have continued. Now using the intranet calendar is just an embedded KPF practice.

52

1 Building the knowledge culture

Project intranet pages To expand upon the idea of making KPF a more connected network, a sticking point for a lot of people which Barrie quickly found out, was that people couldn’t find the project information we readily need to pull for presentations or simple benchmarking exercises. As she dug more into the problem, she realized that it was two-fold. First, the database needed to be updated, not only with new information but new types of information. This required her to interact with the project managers and determine how and when information capture tasks could fit into existing workflows, which has, and continues to be, a work in progress. As people interact with the system more and see why this data collection is important, there has been a steady increase in engagement. Additionally, as Barrie has continued to dig deeper and understand the larger data set, the organization thereof continues to be refined. At a minimum, people now know how and where to input the data, and therefore the types of information that can be searched upon and reused. Which brings me to my second point – findability. Before, there was very little search functionality on all the data points. Barrie worked and continues to work with the project teams to determine the types on information readily needing to be recalled. She then works with the development team to make it happen. The intranet search functionality has grown tremendously with regards to our project information. But Barrie will be the first one to tell you that this is still a work in progress and always evolving as new needs arise. The progress continues! Learning & development At KPF, Barrie often wears multiple hats, another one added when she realized the need to build a learning & development program. This initiative took a little longer than the others to get off the ground. Having employees either carve out additional time to create a learning presentation or even just sit through one is challenging. Through company surveys, employee profile requests, and even informal “café conversations,” they clearly indicated the need for this sort of knowledge sharing. We wanted to make this program attractive for all to partake in – a range of topics, levels, and presenters – all while (again) not being very time consuming. Barrie along with some subject matter experts (SMEs pronounced SMEES as she loves to refer to them) have created a learning calendar with various types of learning outlets. In addition to acquiring an E-learning platform, in-house outlets include sessions like our Learning Monday lunchtime sessions, our evening hands-on Workshops, or our KPF|lab sessions for more future focused research findings. The engagement for these sessions

1.4 The knowledge strategist

53

(I should emphasize across offices) has really been fantastic. What has started as an organic, grassroots effort, is becoming an important company differentiator and an effort really appreciated by staff at all levels. Barrie has been at the center of it all – coordinating and working with the SMEs on the types of things that should be covered, but really allowing the SMEs to run with their own content. Her strategic placement within the larger program allows her to keep all the dots connected, but not have to micromanage the process. There is still work to be done to make it a more mature program, but in the less than the year it’s been rolled out, employees note their satisfaction and excitement.

Lessons learned & next steps As noted earlier, before hiring a knowledge strategist, we tried a volunteer model, where internal specialists would be responsible for ensuring their specialty was represented on our knowledge platform. That simply did not work for us long term. Voluntary was not the answer. Something more pressing for the immediate need took priority, and the volunteer role quickly got pushed to a day 2, month 2, or year 2 task. When hiring for this role we knew we needed someone dedicated to the work of a knowledge strategist. But what that work was exactly for KPF, we didn’t quite know. I remember someone asking Barrie in her interview, “Why should we hire you and not an architect to do this work?” She smiled, and replied something like, “Just like you wouldn’t get a knowledge strategist to design your buildings; it’s a different skillset with different problems to solve.” Barrie is a convener and facilitator who is able to work with the most-new member of team right up to the senior Managing Principal. Her toolbox of skills ranges from being able to talk through issues and opportunities to scale successes, from helping with code and UX of a system implementation. She learned to ‘get KPF,’ learning its rich culture and diversity of staff and using that to our advantage. No organization is perfect – and a knowledge strategist has to be able to interact with its ecosystem and employees of varying tenure, experience, background, skill sets, priorities, you name it. And like we iterate on the designs of our buildings, she iterates on the design and construct of her knowledge strategy. It’s still very much a work in progress. Being an embedded knowledge strategist in a company allows her to continue to grow and shape the position as she sees best fit to align back to her leaders and stakeholders’ priorities. And even once a process or tool has been implemented, like the ones

54

1 Building the knowledge culture

described above, she is always looking at ways to improve and build upon them for even better use and engagement. We now know data and knowledge management is always going to remain a priority for us. It’s Barrie’s job to continue to figure out what that means for KPF. The knowledge strategist: checklist of considerations □ □

□

□ □

□

□

□ □ □ □

Determine the component elements of the knowledge strategist’s plan of action for the knowledge strategy development project. Determine if the knowledge strategist is developing a knowledge culture for the entire organization, for a single individual functional unit (such as the unit or department with current knowledge services management and delivery responsibility), or for a group of parallel business units that focus on information management, knowledge management, and/or strategic learning. Identify who are (or would be) key players in the effort to plan and develop strategy. Is the interest in such an effort enterprise-wide and cross-functional? If so, also identify who has the authority to enable its success. Are there identified advocates and champions who would respond to opportunities to work with the strategy development group as it moves forward? Think about the purpose of Simon Sinek’s addressing the “why?” of his Golden Circle, before getting to the “what?” and the “how?” Ensure that the “why?” takes priority in planning. Explain the connection between knowledge services (as the “foundation” or “basis” of the organization’s knowledge strategy) with the broader organizational management or operational strategy. Determine which of the three roles - mentor/leader, knowledge services consultant, knowledge product entrepreneur - the knowledge strategist should take on in your organization, realizing that they are not mutually exclusive. Reflect on the role of the knowledge strategist as a trusted advisor. These responsibilities should be part of completing the function of your organization’s knowledge strategist. Outline the tasks of the knowledge strategist as planning for future knowledge-related roles and activities that will affect organizational success. Communicate the value of reusable knowledge-related solutions. In discussions with colleagues (especially in other business units of the organization), how will they leverage the knowledge they come up with – their study, their findings, and their offerings - for success of the present organizational knowledge strategy, and, of critical importance, in the future?

The knowledge strategist: discussion questions 1.

2.

The knowledge strategist must focus on excellence: what is the knowledge strategist's specific knowledge about how information, knowledge, and learning are shared? Are these three elements of knowledge services addressed separately or as a single operational function? What is the intended, agreed upon scope of the proposed knowledge strategy?

1.5 The organization as a knowledge culture

3.

4.

55

What is the current KD/KS/KU culture in the larger organization? What does the knowledge strategist learn from current knowledge sharing activities, incentives or disincentives for KD/KS/KU, or even from some history of KD/KS/KU in the enterprise? Does the knowledge strategist have the ”green light” from management to implement knowledge strategy, re-conceptualize, transform, and support new ways of managing intellectual capital as a corporate asset, and lead enterprise-wide KD/KS/KU, in order to enable and sustain the organizational knowledge culture?

1.5 The organization as a knowledge culture It is a perceptive knowledge strategist who gives attention to the connection between the already-in-place corporate culture (in the classic sense of “corporate” as in pertaining to or related to any group) and the organization’s functioning as a “knowledge culture.” That distinction between “corporate” culture and “organizational” culture is important. From the knowledge strategist’s point of view, it doesn’t matter how the organization defines its culture. The type of organization doesn’t matter. How large (or small) the organization is doesn’t matter. Its location doesn’t matter. You get the idea. When we speak about knowledge services, and building and implementing a knowledge strategy, our thinking has to do with any type of organization, regardless of its specifics. Knowledge services is industry agnostic – it pertains to all organizations and can be tailored or customized as needed. Developing a strong knowledge culture is an important knowledge component within an organization’s overarching knowledge strategy. One of the most useful definitions of corporate culture comes from the magazine Entrepreneur and the magazine’s “Small Business Encyclopedia,” a reference that calls the corporate culture “a blend of the values, beliefs, taboos, symbols, rituals and myths all companies develop over time.” The definition continues: Whether written as a mission statement, spoken, or merely understood, corporate culture describes and governs the ways a company’s owners and employees think, feel, and act. . . It could consist in part of a corporate symbol. . . Whatever shape it takes, your corporate culture plays a big role in determining how well your business will do. (https://www.entrepreneur.com/encyclopedia)

For the knowledge strategist starting their knowledge strategy development, one of the most-asked questions is immediately “How can we change the culture here?” or, more directly, “Our problems with knowledge sharing are cultural. What can we do to make knowledge sharing better in our organization?”

56

1 Building the knowledge culture

Many people, ordinary knowledge workers and executives alike, are frequently on the lookout for advice about how to build (or if already existing, how to strengthen) their organization’s knowledge culture. Or at the opposite end of the spectrum, employees recognize the need to establish or change their culture, and executives bury their heads in the sand when it comes to putting pen to paper. Once the knowledge strategist understands the larger corporate culture within which they are working, the realistic knowledge strategist begins to define, in knowledge services terms, what a supportive knowledge culture can be. In much work with knowledge strategy development, a number of attributes seem to stand out in any organization that functions as a knowledge culture, and three top the list. In a knowledge culture, the people who make up the larger body of stakeholders are committed to transparency, collaboration, and collegiality. As the organization builds a knowledge culture, it comes to display respect and support for the integrity of the knowledge process, incorporating the highest moral and professional standards of service delivery, and that integrity connects with a workplace that expects and supports transparency (except in clearly defined situations requiring high levels of proprietary discretion or security), honesty, and trust in all interactions between individuals and groups. In their dealings with others, those who contribute to and participate in the knowledge culture understand that as KD/ KS/KU evolves and is implemented for the greater good, their own role is enhanced and strengthened. They are committed to working with one another, recognizing that in being open and transparent, collaborating with one another, and interacting in a collegial environment, not only will their own success come more easily, their contribution to the larger organizational success will be effectively realized with less friction and in a more mutually supportive way. Indeed, individually, there has always been a place for the first two of these attributes, transparency and collaboration, in the successful knowledge workplace. But isn’t it unusual to see them grouped with “collegiality” in this particular beneficial arrangement? Yet when we stop to consider what contributes most to the success of any knowledge sharing activity, how better could we make the point than to talk about the situation as one in which the parties are collegial and use their mutual collegiality to achieve a shared result? We are working here with collaborative knowledge services, and that idea connects with storytelling, an oft-cited foundational element of successful knowledge services. How could storytelling be more rewarding than with colleagues, co-workers, and other knowledge workers in a collegial setting?

1.5 The organization as a knowledge culture

57

– Transparency

– Collaboration

– Collegiality

Fig. 1.11: Critical Knowledge Sharing Attributes.

More specifically, there is a collection of effects that can be experienced when a knowledge culture is built on transparency, collaboration, and collegiality. Once there is an expressed willingness to collaborate, the value of collaboration is established and understood by all people affiliated with the enterprise. Resistance to collaboration is minimal, often to the point that there is little to no resistance. In the knowledge culture, collaboration is a given, and all managers, staff, and even external stakeholders and customers recognize that without collaboration, success will be elusive. In addition to transparency, collaboration, and collegiality, another attribute of the knowledge culture is that in the knowledge workplace, the seeking, capture, and utilization of information, knowledge, and strategic learning are carried out with a focus on the larger organizational role and the benefits for the larger organization, not solely on the individuals (or departments) involved in the transaction, and it is recognized that the particular knowledge transfer affects the successful achievement of enterprise-wide success. As a result, the knowledge worker’s professional allegiance with the organization is strengthened. Allegiance to an external influence, such as a profession or a school of thought or a political, religious, or social philosophy, is separate, but important as well. These other influences naturally have some bearing on the knowledge worker’s thinking. Generally speaking, though, when the organization is supported by a knowledge culture, these other influences do not overrun and/or interfere with the workings or the successful achievement of the larger enterprise mission, but instead compliment and help support it. Integral to the success of the knowledge culture is an acknowledgement of and an enthusiasm for the role information technology and communication have in knowledge culture development. Technology is constantly creating new communication channels for organizations to leverage internally and externally with stakeholders and customers alike. Using real-time communication channels not only speeds up workflows but makes for a more collaborative process – looping in teammates and subject matter experts with a click of a mouse or tap

58

1 Building the knowledge culture

on a screen. In the knowledge culture, IT and communication are not taken for granted. They are recognized for their value, and much effort is put forward in seeking to enhance people’s interactions. It’s an important element for sustaining a knowledge culture. The communication channels selected are a main touchpoint for the typical knowledge worker; it’s a main avenue for interaction and relationship building and can make or break an employee’s feel of inclusion, therefore affecting their propensity to help develop and share intellectual capital. In further thinking about the organization as a knowledge culture, knowledge services and the development and implementation of a knowledge strategy are recognized as essential and critical. When information management, KM, and strategic learning converge in knowledge services, these three component parts provide the very foundation for the development and sharing of knowledge for organizational success. Remember that knowledge services, as invoked in putting knowledge management to work and identified as the practical side of knowledge management, is not in and of itself an end result. The convergence of and excellence in the management of information, knowledge, and strategic learning are required, but not because organizational endeavors will fail if they are ignored. They will not necessarily fail, but they will not be realized as well as they could be realized, or as quickly or efficiently. Knowledge services is required as a methodology – a framework for service delivery – and it is through knowledge services that the knowledge strategy enables and certifies the elements that support and lead to the development of a strong knowledge culture. For the knowledge strategist and the people in the organization who work with this role in developing the knowledge strategy, the idea of a knowledge culture refers to an environment in which those affiliated with the organization seek to build upon their intellectual and service-focused capabilities. It all leads to a different way of thinking, a slightly more advanced level, as the knowledge strategist seeks to ensure that enterprise leaders recognize the importance of the three main attributes in addition to others such as respect and cooperation, that they are natural elements in the knowledge-centric organization, and contribute to the role of knowledge services as a critical operational function. And, from the knowledge strategist’s point of view, all the qualities linked to the success of knowledge services and the organization’s knowledge strategy are supported by one overarching commitment to the elements that comprise a successful knowledge culture: the ownership of the KD/KS/KU function is clearly established, a carefully planned out governance structure is chartered, and a senior-level executive is tasked to work with all organizational

1.5 The organization as a knowledge culture

59

knowledge-related functions, all coming together to make up the enterprisewide “knowledge domain.” It is still not enough, though, simply to identify and list the attributes of the knowledge culture. For those who work in the organization’s knowledge domain, under the leadership and management authority of the knowledge strategist, it is imperative that all participants also understand – and recognize – that everyone in the company doesn’t have the knowledge strategy team’s close at hand experience with knowledge. That situation leaves the strategist and their team with another job, to raise awareness about the value of knowledge and how knowledge is used for the benefit of the organization. That’s when the knowledge strategist brings in their expertise for – to put it in more managerial terms – building the business case for shifting the organization to a more knowledgecentric framework. And since it is a given that many senior management and C-suite executives have been introduced to knowledge management by now, there might already be a sense that the organization could be “doing something” with knowledge services. The only problem with that situation is that, with their larger leadership and organizational management responsibilities, these executives are not – nor should they be expected to be – particularly expert at getting the knowledge sharing framework moving. That’s when the knowledge strategist – as the organization’s knowledge thought leader – takes over. They, along with the organization’s knowledge specialists who work with the organization’s knowledge strategist, do it. They can lead the awareness-raising effort. And they begin by figuring out how to get the ear of an executive or company leader, in order to establish the value of knowledge and how knowledge is used in the organization and – not to be dismissed lightly – how knowledge sharing affects organizational behavior and organizational effectiveness. Then, having linked the benefits of the company’s intellectual capital to the company’s success, the knowledge strategist moves forward, in effect building the business case for knowledge services. The business case is not complicated, but it does have a structure of its own that carefully requires steps that follow in a particular order, to ensure that conflicts do not arise as actions are taken. At this point in the knowledge strategist’s rather sophisticated involvement in the development of the knowledge culture, special attention must be given to three questions. They are often thought of as the foundation for the knowledge strategy development process, simply because if they are not asked the strategist will not have a clear picture of what is possible for the effort. The questions are:

60

1.

2.

3.

1 Building the knowledge culture

In the organization, is there an enterprise leadership desire for a knowledge culture? What is the level of support and enthusiasm for such an activity, especially at the senior level? In the larger organization, since KD/KS/KU is considered a service activity undertaken for the benefit of all affiliated with the organization, what is the approach to service delivery? What is the level of service delivery within the organization? How is service delivery managed in various departments and functional units (especially units not necessarily connected with “research” or “knowledge”)? Is there a leadership team (ideally made up of thought leaders in the larger enterprise) for undertaking major changes a move to knowledge services might cause throughout the organization?

Once these questions are answered to the knowledge strategist’s satisfaction, preliminary knowledge culture planning can begin for the organization. As the process starts, the knowledge strategist will focus on four particular steps: 1. Find a sponsor. The knowledge strategist figures out a way to establish a relationship with a reliable knowledge services champion or advocate. Hopefully someone in or near the C-suite, the knowledge services sponsor should be a person who understands the risks of approaching KD/KS/KU too casually or not at all. Once the knowledge strategist has that person’s confidence and commitment, the sponsor makes it clear that they can help move a strong knowledge services framework forward. 2. Talk about the company’s KD/KS/KU vision. The knowledge strategist will make special efforts to speak about knowledge sharing – and if there isn’t a vision already in place, establish one. 3. Identify the company’s information and knowledge gatekeepers. It’s the knowledge strategist’s job to identify who “owns” knowledge services or, in the case of the organization’s knowledge services focal points (if these employees are part of the organization’s overall knowledge sharing framework), to identify knowledge workers who work with knowledge services but are not necessarily part of the knowledge strategist’s team. Regardless of what type of organization it is, someone or some group of people have responsibility for knowledge sharing (either generally or due to a broken process, or because the person/group is a knowledge hoarder – someone who believes that “knowledge is power” instead of for the use of the greater organization – explicitly). 4. Ask what future planning is being done with respect to such hot-button topics as information governance, privacy and security, big data,

1.5 The organization as a knowledge culture

61

compliance and risk management, and the like. All of these issues – and many more – have to do with the company’s approach to KD/KS/KU, and it is the knowledge strategist who has the expertise the organization’s leaders need for ensuring that they are properly addressed. Finally, an additional step can be taken, a step that – if the knowledge strategist has succeeded – will strengthen the knowledge strategist/sponsor relationship and lead to a wider understanding of knowledge value in organizational behavior. Enterprise leaders, we hope, are constantly barraged with opportunities for discussing new strategies for competition and cooperation across all sectors. The knowledge strategist recognizes – and seeks to establish – that shared beliefs and values about knowledge and the role of knowledge in the company or organization and, as appropriate, in the larger society, are given serious consideration as fundamental elements in the organization’s approach to knowledge sharing. These beliefs and values are supported in the organization and managed through the organization’s knowledge strategy and indeed contribute to the better uses of and – as needed – the implementation of the strategy. They are the underpinnings of knowledge culture that draw on the knowledge strategy to do what the knowledge strategist does best in their profession.

Other voices: John Callahan and Molly Forester on the organization as a knowledge culture John Callahan is Chief Knowledge Officer and Global Managing Director and Molly Forester is Managing Director, CoRe Knowledge Services at Deloitte Global for Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Ltd. Molly Forester and John Callahan were interviewed by the authors in March 2019. First impressions first: John Callahan and Molly Forester are employed in a huge organization doing a lot of different things. Deloitte employs over 275,000 people in 120 countries throughout the world and provides “audit and assurance, consulting, financial advisory, risk advisory, tax and legal services to selected clients.” There are more than 70,000 new hires each year, and within that large geographical landscape, the on-going knowledge-sharing focus is clearly stated: “Our aspiration is a knowledge-driven enterprise where all Deloitte professionals drive enhanced client relationships and top-line growth by easily leveraging the collective global experiences, expertise, and insights of Deloitte.”

62

1 Building the knowledge culture

And hearing about knowledge services from leaders in an organization of Deloitte’s size makes a lot of sense to knowledge strategists, no matter where they are employed. Those working in the field have come to realize that despite scale and what’s going on in different sizes and types of companies the same fundamental issues, opportunities, and topics persist. Deloitte’s Knowledge Services team delivers on a strategy to make sure their mission stated above is realized – an enormous goal recognized and substantiated by the fact that Deloitte is a six-time winner of the MAKE award, an annual research effort to identify the Most Admired Knowledge Enterprises around the world. One description of the MAKE award criteria refers to award winners as having “visible drivers of competitive advantage and intellectual capital growth,” namely: – Creating an enterprise knowledge-driven culture – Developing knowledge workers through senior management leadership – Innovation – Maximizing enterprise intellectual capital – Creating an enterprise collaborative knowledge sharing environment – Creating a learning organization – Delivering value based on customer/stakeholder knowledge – Transforming enterprise knowledge into shareholder/stakeholder value. Certainly upon hearing about the evolution of Deloitte, it’s easy to understand why these “visible drivers” define Deloitte’s reputation as a knowledge culture. The award is an honor for Deloitte, of course, but it’s more than that. Achieving the MAKE Award (no less than six times!) also tells us something about how knowledge management, knowledge services, and knowledge sharing are successfully embodied into the company culture. Both John and Molly began their careers working in consultancy services at Deloitte & Touche (an earlier corporate name) in the late 1990s. The company was structured as different offices that in reality were acting more like separate entities than a single operating company with multiple offices. This operational structure began to change in the mid- to late-1990s, as many of the areas of practice – while national in some of their structure – became more global. With the move into the new century, the company began to put more focus on bridging geographic silos, and leadership began to put into place an effort to streamline these silos and start to act as and leverage a more centralized KM function. So there began to be some effort following the consultancy’s practice lead and being able to leverage their unified KM approach more readily across other operational divisions. A shift, yes, but the corporate mission didn’t really change. It just went from being focused on solely information management to what we

1.5 The organization as a knowledge culture

63

now consider a more holistic knowledge services approach, to bring the best to Deloitte clients regardless of where they are located – a shift that led to having more global levels of participation and striving to evolve some levels of maturity for their “KM” practice. New metrics were put in place regarding participation targets, like asking how often to use a particular tool, or how does using that tool become an activity valuable to different users? This was a shift in what defined success at Deloitte – going from number inputs to really quantifying their use. Molly responded that it now has more to do with awareness and usage – quality over quantity – “but of course we need to have both,” she adds. The move from KM to knowledge services was more of a response to leadership’s reinvigorated effort to standardize approaches and achieve even greater levels of consistency globally. The KS strategy reflects the global business strategy to deliver consistently to clients globally, and that’s a big emphasis, delivering the same, great quality services consistently to multinational/global clients regardless of where the work is taking place. And there wasn’t a lot of concern about whether what was happening had more to do with “knowledge management” or “knowledge services.” From an operational point of view, no one was (or is) particularly concerned about the semantic distinction. As John said: “it’s kind of ‘a rose is a rose’ sort of thing.” As knowledge strategists we know what the difference is. Our job is to put it to use for the organization, not get caught up in jargon. As for how well it all holds together, Molly makes it clear that metrics “tell the story and describe the value” of knowledge services, but also notes that the company uses “the benchmarks of participation, content, location, industry, and geography,” to determine where knowledge is being used. Targets are set by business and by level, with a knowledge services mantra of its own: “Deloitte values effective use, not minimum use.” Meaning, it’s not just about getting everyone using the systems Deloitte has put in place – to check a box so to speak. It’s about ensuring that the knowledge captured is of benefit to other knowledge workers in the organization and is really being used. And as Deloitte matures, Global Knowledge Services is becoming more granular with its metrics: “Is it connecting the globe?” “How many cross-border efforts?” “Are we bringing people together?” Deloitte’s knowledge program has strong and widespread support across Deloitte’s many leaders. enabling the entire Global Knowledge Services team and businesses management “to work as a close partnership,” according to John. Yes, there are some situations where some folks just “get it,” and others need to be convinced with an ROI metric, and as with any initiative as momentous as this culture transformation, there have been pockets of resistance over the years.

64

1 Building the knowledge culture

Generally speaking, though, it’s understood that knowledge services increases both speed to market and speed to proficiency, and two additional defining attributes in addition to leadership support contribute to the continuing success of Global Knowledge Services at Deloitte: – The company overall is deeply collegiate at heart (“if I can find you, you’ll help/share”) – An underlying corporate goal shift, to people being (and willing to be) more proactive (“if you’re sitting on knowledge, share it!”) And a particular element of that success needs to be emphasized, the proactive goal shift, that the Deloitte culture emphasizes a “pay it forward” for its employees. It’s all part of changes that have taken place within the industry represented by the typical needs of employees needing to do their jobs smarter, faster, more efficiently, etc., but ensuring that folks are equally engaged and satisfied with their work products and the organization they work for. One thing going for Deloitte, though, is a list of what can be described as “follow-on” attributes growing from those listed above. At Deloitte, the following are some more of the important components that will continue to influence the success of Global Knowledge Services: – Stronger corporate governance and more centralization (meaning fewer silos) – Cultural change coming from the top (and not, as in so many organizations, building on middle- and senior-management initiatives with executives not interested) – A recognition that the job for Global Knowledge Services is to make sure things shared are discoverable and at the same time, recognizing a need to define, communicate, and hold people accountable – A stronger implementation plan with rewards and incentives that motivate individuals, ensuring that motivated individuals are seen as thought leaders and subject matter experts – A working 2-to-4 year plan cycle. The efforts of Deloitte Global Knowledge Services team seek to balance both “inspire and require.” They want to ensure that the tools and resources developed are seen as trusted sources that employees will go to and contribute knowledge and that they ideally (and already are) using them without much force or resistance. This is due to the “require” component – knowledge services isn’t a separate, additive task, but it is an embedded part of workflows that is supported by compliance and governance reinforcement. This has led to a good balance

1.5 The organization as a knowledge culture

65

between accountability/responsibility and employees being proactive and wanting to use knowledge service tools because they benefit from its framework. Deloitte’s Knowledge Services leaders are the first to say their job is never done; there is always more work and opportunity to be better when it comes to knowledge services. Looking to the future they recognize that technology will play even a bigger role in how information is managed, as John says “bots just raise the bar.” As much as they will make sure that they are leveraging new tools as they see fit for Deloitte, they still recognize the need to put their people first – to extract insights from people and share this information across teams so they remain best in class. “Our focus is on improving mindset and behavior to make sure things are shared and discoverable.”

The organization as a knowledge culture: checklist of considerations □ □

□

□

□

□ □ □

□

Determine the key players who have a stake in organizational success. Make sure they are aware of the role of knowledge services in enterprise success. List the shared beliefs and values about knowledge and the role that knowledge has in the organization. Use these to configure the organizational structure as a knowledge culture. Describe the organizational culture with respect to knowledge services. Note the current KD/KS/KU culture in the larger organization and if there are already some current knowledge sharing activities or incentives/disincentives in place. Respond to leadership’s expressed desire for improved KD/KS/KU. Develop strong political ownership for a knowledge culture (or at least for planning strategy for a knowledge culture). Identify the knowledge strategist as the person who “owns” the organization’s knowledge domain. This person has primary responsibility, authority, and accountability for its success. Identify a business problem or opportunity that can be articulated and addressed by your proposed idea for shaping the organization as a knowledge culture. Describe the company or organization’s KD/KS/KU vision. Ideally it is universally applied throughout the company, but it can also be departmental or team specific. Find or devise a plan for monitoring, controlling, and ultimately closing your strategy development project, so that you are giving attention to the life cycle of strategy development. Share this plan and attract the attention of a potential sponsor for the organization’s knowledge domain and to bring this person on board. Might it be more successful to employ a more grassroots, “conversational” knowledge culture? Can you informally roll out certain components of your knowledge culture to see if they “stick” or are accepted?

66

1 Building the knowledge culture

The organization as a knowledge culture: discussion questions 1. 2.

3. 4. 5.

Discuss the fine points that distinguish the corporate culture, the organizational culture, and the knowledge culture. Where are they similar and where are they dissimilar? Why do we speak about there being a need for - an acknowledgement of and an enthusiasm for - the role of information and technology and communication in the knowledge culture? Is technology critical to the success of a knowledge culture? If knowledge services is a “vehicle” and not an end in itself, what is the organizational purpose of knowledge services? What are the proper measurements and metrics for developing the knowledge strategy that is supported by a knowledge culture? What language does the knowledge strategist use to give attention to knowledge workers who do not have the knowledge strategist’s close at hand experience with KD/KS/KU? Are there suggestions for encouraging their participation as the knowledge strategy is developed and the company moves toward a new structure as a knowledge culture?

2 Applied knowledge services 2.1 Collaboration in the knowledge services workplace We now come to what is perhaps the most significant distinction between other methods and techniques for sharing information, knowledge, and learning, and that offered through knowledge services: its unique structure as a collaborative process. It could be successfully argued that knowledge services, as defined so far in this book, is built on the collaborative experience. Indeed, there are those who contend that when speaking of “knowledge services,” they could just as easily describe the activity “knowledge sharing.” For them, knowledge development and knowledge utilization are but tangential and only at the “edges” of the larger knowledge services picture. Perhaps they are overstating their enthusiasm a bit, but there are nonetheless practitioners who choose to put their attention on the “sharing” part of knowledge. But they must, at the very least, acknowledge that for knowledge services to succeed, the larger picture – the total framework – must be embraced. The knowledge strategist has no reticence in these matters. As the strategist successfully masters the management of knowledge services and uses its three elements (information management, knowledge management, and strategic learning) as the foundation for the development of the organizational knowledge strategy, the results of the successful knowledge services process begin to take shape. These results can be identified: strengthened research, contextual decision-making, accelerated innovation, and, of special note, the successful management of knowledge assets. And they are fruitful results because of the unique way in which other characteristics of knowledge services contribute to the “bigger picture.” In the early days of knowledge services, work was primarily reactive, responding to requests from others in the organizations where they were employed. As knowledge services became more established, those reactive responses became proactive, with knowledge services practitioners identifying business units in the organization for which their skills as knowledge services professionals could be put to particular use, sometimes even before those who could benefit from their services were aware that such services could positively support the work they were doing. It wasn’t long before those knowledge services functions became interactive and integrated, with knowledge services practitioners often working with specific departments or projects. In some situations, the knowledge specialist became the unit’s “go-to” person in terms of deploying knowledge sharing requirements and becoming the knowledge services leader. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110635577-002

68

2 Applied knowledge services

Collaboration = the operational driver for success that provides managers with a straightforward framework to ensure that knowledge services supports the results the larger enterprise is seeking.

Fig. 2.1: Collaboration Defined.

This trend continued, and by the end of the first decade of the current century, the four fundamental elements that characterized the successful knowledge services process had been identified. It was soon understood and accepted by all that (1) interactive planning, (2) network-based partnerships, (3) cross-functional communications, and (4) shared learning and training were (and would remain) basic for knowledge services success. These characteristics of knowledge services should be used in conjunction with the three critical features already identified (as in the transition of the organization into a knowledge culture described in the previous section), with all involved agreeing with the knowledge strategist that transparency, collaboration, and collegiality are required if the knowledge strategist is to succeed with the implementation of a knowledge strategy. There are basic definitions that support the value of collaboration in the knowledge services workplace, starting with the clear statements from AIIM (the Association for Image and Information Management). At AIIM, collaboration is defined as “a working practice” that enables individuals to work together to achieve a defined and common business purpose, notably existing in two forms: – Synchronous, where everyone interacts in real time, as in online meetings, through instant messaging, or via Skype, Zoom, or another communication medium – Asynchronous, where the interaction can be time-shifted, as when uploading documents or annotations to shared workspaces, or making contributions to a wiki. For AIIM’s members, collaboration at the conceptual level involves: – Awareness – We become part of a working entity with a shared purpose

2.1 Collaboration in the knowledge services workplace

69

– Motivation – We drive to gain consensus in problem solving or development – Self-synchronization – We decide as individuals when things need to happen – Participation – We participate in collaboration and we expect others to participate – Mediation – We negotiate and we collaborate together and find a middle point – Reciprocity – We share and we expect sharing in return – Reflection – We think and we consider alternatives – Engagement – We proactively seek out others rather than wait and see (AIIM Glossary). And the point is made that collaboration, “relies on openness and knowledge sharing but also some level of focus and accountability on the part of the business organizations.” Once we recognize that the collaboration linked with knowledge services pulls from three different but interlocking approaches to human interaction in the KD/KS/KU workplace, we come to a good understanding about the value of collaboration. It is: – Horizontal, involving interactions among employees at the same management level within the organization, – Vertical, involving employees at different levels, and/or – Random, involving collaborative efforts both within and between employees at varying levels So clearly collaboration is too important to neglect. Whether managers work in an environment where collaboration “just happens,” or if strategic efforts have to be made to ensure that people collaborate, it’s now clear that the successful organization is one that collaborates. Some years ago, Edward M. Marshall – who might have been considered the father of the collaborative workplace if Peter Drucker hadn’t gotten there first – strongly advocated the collaborative environment. Marshall even went so far as to predict that collaboration would replace hierarchy as the preferred management methodology of the twenty-first century. Marshall referred to collaboration as a “principle-based process of working together,” a process he characterized as “the way people naturally want to work.” Just by observing what other knowledge specialists in different organizations and environments are doing, the knowledge strategist hears about different approaches to collaboration, such as:

70

2 Applied knowledge services

respect for people

recognition and growth

full responsibility and accountability

honor and integrity

Core Values for Successful Collaboration ownership and alignment

trust-based relationships

consensus

Adapted from Marshall, 1995

Fig. 2.2: Core Values for Successful Collaboration (after Marshall) .

Commit to collaboration. Make sure you have the organizational management and enterprise leadership buy-in. If it’s something your organization does as a matter of course, then the commitment is inherent. If it’s something you need to build, work on this both from the ground up and from the top down as this can be seen as a cultural shift, more than simply “Communication 2.0”. Your role as a knowledge strategist is to provide employees with various channels for collaboration – ones that fit within the organization’s structure and culture – in order to foster new and build collaborative networks. Integrate. The knowledge strategist must get out into the organization, learn about what people are working on and join them (where appropriate) in their conversations. Identify where they need to share knowledge and help them figure out how to do it. Demonstrate to teams, working groups, communities of practice (CoPs), and anyone else who needs to know how strategic knowledge transfer works in their particular situation.

2.1 Collaboration in the knowledge services workplace

71

Use what the users use. The knowledge strategist makes it their business to learn what tools, techniques, and dedicated resources support their work. Then, the knowledge strategist transfers their own skills to managing and enabling the knowledge customers. Live where your colleagues live. Collaboration cannot be seen as a separate workflow. Channels must be embedded in existing workflows and fit operational needs. If collaboration tools live outside the current ecosystem, it’s not going to be well adopted. Leverage organizational tools for knowledge creation. At the same time, each member of the knowledge strategist’s team should acquire high levels of facility in identifying and working with organizational activities that advance their role in the company. If a committee needs another member and the subject is one the strategist or one of the team knows something about, they step up. The knowledge strategist is able to share knowledge and expertise at a very actionable level. Additionally, the strategist is able to “connect the dots” among groups, teams, and communities, strengthening the internal network. Form partnerships. As part of the knowledge strategist’s organizational networking they must identify people from other departments who can use the expertise of strategic knowledge professionals. Then they team up on projects – formal or informal. This is where strategic learning becomes the star as newly formed partnerships share similar experiences, breaking down silos and establishing best practices. When these collaboration-strengthening elements come together, they enable the knowledge strategist to build a point of view. Organizational leaders become more willing to try to define a more formal place for collaboration. As they do so, they are providing the knowledge strategist with strong focus and support to use collaboration to position the organization as a knowledge culture. For Peter Drucker, the value of collaboration was an important theme, surprising none of us in today’s knowledge services world. In Elizabeth Haas Edersheim’s 2007 book, The Definitive Drucker, in her chapter on “Collaboration and Orchestration,” Edersheim advises today’s knowledge strategist that: Peter’s vision of collaboration remains immensely relevant today. He believed that to give your customers what they need, you must follow two rules: first, you must do only what you do best, that is, play to your [organizational] strengths; and second, to meet the full range of customer needs beyond your strongest capabilities, you must collaborate with other players, sometimes those you consider competitors, who can complement your strengths with what they do best. A tall order indeed (Edersheim 2007).

72

2 Applied knowledge services

It all makes a great deal of sense for the knowledge strategist moving forward in managing the knowledge services process and developing the organization’s knowledge strategy. As we think about collaboration and seek to apply it to the work of the knowledge strategist, certain overarching ideas help us strengthen collaboration: 1. Collaboration is the name of the game. It’s all part of the now recognized functional structure for companies and organizations: nobody works alone anymore. We work with others. We need them – or the information or knowledge they have – and they need us. We collaborate to enable success. Organizational success is in part based on how efficiently people find what they need. If employees spend too much time (and therefore money) looking for information and knowledge, they are wasting the organization’s resources and inhibiting greater success all while making themselves frustrated. Success comes when people collaborate, when they share what they know, whether it’s knowledge about a current project or day-to-day information used for established routines. In all cases, workers must have access to what they need, and if they don’t, they must ask someone. And they need to know who that “someone” is – the knowledge strategist. 2. Management asks for collaboration, and the knowledge strategist ties it back to managing intellectual capital. Generally speaking, managers and enterprise leaders are making it clear they want a practical approach to working with intellectual capital across the organization. They’ve learned that using the company’s knowledge resources doesn’t happen solely through the outputs of discrete functional entities. If too much attention is given to these individual information-focused units, the process is too cumbersome. Management wants it pulled together, enterprise-wide. It’s the job of the knowledge strategists to lead this effort, to ensure that the organization’s information, knowledge, and strategic learning content are available when they are needed. 3. Knowledge services enables and validates value-add collaboration. Knowledge services being the “practical side of KM” provides the organization with a framework to strengthen its KD/KS/KU functions. A component of knowledge services (discussed in more depth in Section 2.3) requires that functions be grounded in the proper measures and metrics – the key performance indicators for the organization. This way the knowledge strategist has defined parameters to work toward and can adjust the strategy as needed to better meet these metrics of success. If the contention put forward at the beginning of this section is true, that knowledge services is built on the collaborative experience, can a single practice bring

2.1 Collaboration in the knowledge services workplace

73

knowledge workers into a workplace ecosystem that includes – or in some cases is based on – collaboration, cooperation, and the willingness of all participants to incorporate sharing concepts into the management and delivery of knowledge services? It’s a difficult question to answer, since there are so many “moving parts” to the collaborative experience. But at its core, you’re either connecting people to people or people to information/knowledge. One collaborative method – communities of practice (CoP) – stands out and is often called upon by knowledge strategists as a useful and valuable form for knowledge transfer. Communities of practice, originally founded as a learning tool, have developed far beyond that now. They are collections of individuals in person or (more often than not) virtually connected to pursue a common goal/interest in the pursuit of learning, information exchange, and innovation. Etienne Wenger-Trayner, one of best-known specialists in the subject, makes the connection: CoPs are formed by people who engage in a process of collective learning in a shared domain of human endeavor: a tribe learning to survive, a band of artists seeking new forms of expression, a group of engineers working on similar problems, a clique of pupils defining their identity in the school, a network of surgeons exploring novel techniques, a gathering of first-time managers helping each other cope (Wenger-Trayner 2015).

In his work with CoPs, Wenger-Trayner has a slight caveat about CoPs, noting that “Not everything called a community is a community of practice. A neighborhood for instance, is often called a community, but not a community of practice.” He then goes on to identify the three characteristics crucial in a CoP, distinguishing a community of practice from any other “community”: The domain: A community of practice is not merely a club of friends or a network of connections between people. It has an identity defined by a shared domain of interest. Membership therefore implies a commitment to the domain, and a shared competence that distinguishes members from other people (you could belong to the same network as someone and never know it). The domain is not necessarily something recognized as “expertise” outside the community. The community: In pursuing their interest in their domain, members engage in joint activities and discussions, help each other, and share information. They build relationships that enable them to learn from each other; they care about their standing with each other. A website in itself is not a community of practice. Having the same job or the same title does not make for a community of practice unless members dedicate time to interact and learn together. But members of a community of practice do not necessarily work together on a daily basis.

74

2 Applied knowledge services

The practice: A community of practice is not merely a community of interest – people who like certain kinds of movies, for instance. Members of a community of practice are practitioners. They develop a shared repertoire of resources: experiences, stories, tools, ways of addressing recurring problems – in short, a shared, continuous practice. This takes time and sustained interaction (Wenger-Trayner 2015). When it comes time to think about (and speak about) the organization as a knowledge culture, two qualities stated in the knowledge strategist’s job description are particularly noteworthy. It was earlier noted that this leader/ manager is recognized as a trusted advisor to senior management in the organization’s enterprise-wide transition to a knowledge culture. With that responsibility and the authority for establishing (or strengthening, if it already exists) the organization as a culture that truly supports all information, knowledge, and strategic learning exchanges and interactions among all organizational affiliates, the knowledge strategist is the employee in whom the organization has confidence that this will happen. That trust is a defining attribute for the knowledge strategist. At the same time this trust enables the collaboration and development of welcome solutions for information and knowledge sharing within various groups throughout the organization, and leads to the very positive outcome of knowledge services skillfully established in the organization as collaborative knowledge services, an end result that is good for the organization, its internal and external affiliates, and – in particular – for the knowledge strategist.

Other voices: Stan Garfield on collaboration and the knowledge sharing culture Stan Garfield is a knowledge management author and speaker based in Northville, Michigan. One of the most recognized and influential authorities in the field, Stan is a seasoned KM/knowledge services professional and expert who for eight years was the Community Evangelist in Global Knowledge Services for Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. He is the author of Proven Practices for Promoting a Knowledge Management Program (2017). Stan is well known for his willingness to advise and mentor fellow KM/knowledge services colleagues who turn to him as this fastmoving field moves forward, an attribute best demonstrated by his leadership of the SIKM Leaders Community, which he founded and has led since 2005. Stan Garfield was interviewed by the authors in March 2019.

2.1 Collaboration in the knowledge services workplace

75

Knowledge sharing: the capture and reuse processes Knowledge sharing and collaboration are key in Stan Garfield’s description of the work that knowledge professionals do in today’s businesses and organizations. When addressing that vast topic, Stan is quick to move into talking about knowledge sharing processes, the mechanisms that enable knowledge workers to lead their organizations into a productive knowledge sharing network. “The idea,” he says, “is to define specific knowledge sharing processes that include opportunities for collaborating, then capture and reuse the requisite knowledge that supports the deliverables you are committing to provide.” Stan uses an example that looks at team projects, where the processes of knowledge capture and reuse are built into the project effort – they “go hand in hand.” Knowledge capture takes what people know and codifies it – making tacit knowledge explicit, documented knowledge. Knowledge reuse takes this now captured knowledge and ensures that it is easily findable and able to be put to use by others in the organization. When the knowledge strategist is thinking about opportunities for knowledge sharing, it becomes important to think about – in the capture process – not attempting to capture all content. It becomes a laborious task with diminishing (if any) return. Instead, the knowledge strategist should evaluate the desired information based on its ability to be effectively reused. That way, when establishing an internal process for what should be captured, those collecting are doing so through the lens of what they or their peers will need to retrieve in the future. The capture process could result in collections such as project repositories, lessons learned, templates, or thought leadership documents. Now that knowledge is captured, Stan talks about how the main step in the reuse process is to identify where reuse should take place in the organization’s existing workflows – where the demand for retrieving the captured information takes place. This reuse (demand) should be balanced with what is being captured (supplied). If in balance, you have a simple metric “check” that what is being collected is actually what is being reused. If not balanced, that’s a red flag to a knowledge strategist – either you have not codified enough to meet the needs of your organization, or your staff is capturing too much and is filling up repositories with unimportant information. Reuse processes, simply put, are the quintessential manifestations of knowledge sharing. Your knowledge workers are using their known people, processes, and technology channels to do their job better. They are leveraging in-house education series, proven practice guidelines, or document repositories, just to name a few examples. Reuse adds immediate value to the organization (e.g. minimizes rework, prevents problems, saves time, and accelerates progress), making the initial time spent capturing “worth it,” with Stan’s salient idea being the less “reinventing the wheel” the better.

76

2 Applied knowledge services

The knowledge strategist can implement policies for capture and reuse. For example, as part of the project review and approval process, project teams can be asked what percentage of their proposed solution is based on content reused from previous projects. If the answer is zero, bid approval can be withheld until reuse is incorporate. Similarly, a project can only be closed after submittal of reusable project materials. Collaboration: through communities of practice Stan realizes that for most modern organizations, collaboration often happens ad hoc; it just comes up as a knowledge sharing effort when collaboration is not necessarily an established way of “doing things” in the organization, which isn’t the best way to achieve knowledge sharing. Why? Because if collaboration is too casual in the organization, the organization can be permitting institutional knowledge to “slip through the cracks” or “walk out the door” which speaks to a larger issue – that the organization is lacking standard ways for completing tasks. If that’s the case, the knowledge strategist has a good KM/knowledge services opportunity to establish strong capture and reuse practices and put them into place. For most knowledge strategists – and their colleagues in the organization with whom they are working to build knowledge strategy – it’s the skilled use of communities of practice (CoPs) that supports knowledge sharing. The CoP is high on Stan Garfield’s list of effective knowledge sharing mechanisms, and by following a fairly simple set of guidelines for building and utilizing CoPs, knowledge sharing can be relatively straightforward and lead to successful results. The first rule of thumb is to put a limit of just one CoP for each topic. In doing so, all community members will be able to take advantage of the indexed content, posts, conversations, etc. that can address the specific topic at hand. This chosen topic delineates one CoP from another, so folks wanting to join know what they’re signing up for. The second rule of thumb is to designate a leader for the CoP, establishing oversight and governance of the community while also keeping up momentum for an ongoing dialogue. The last main rule of thumb, like any management practice in the knowledge domain, is that each CoP should come up with a simple mission statement for the community to ensure that there is clarity about what the community is trying to accomplish. As for the success of the CoP, Stan is very clear – and cautionary – in pointing out that for the knowledge strategist the move toward developing knowledge-focused communities of practice won’t get very far if there isn’t senior sponsorship, with formal goals in place, and a commitment to measure the performance (and the contribution) of all communities.

2.1 Collaboration in the knowledge services workplace

77

For getting CoPs going, Stan has some tips, beginning with the recommendation that the senior executive sponsor put skin in the game. In his case, Stan provided a story from his own career by talking about his work leading the Worldwide Consulting & Integration Knowledge Management Program for HP, when he figured out that a rewards and recognition program would produce good results. He designated “KM Stars” for recognizing exceptional knowledge leaders, and it turned out to be an important initiative (and the fears of some who were reluctant to support the program did not materialize). Employees recognized that the shift to a more heavily promoted knowledge sharing culture was clearly supported from the top. And, not to be too rigid about it, efforts should also be made to ensure that most knowledge workers in the organization belong to at least one community of practice. CoP members should pay attention to what’s going on in the CoP and keep up to date with CoP discussions and events. Additionally, CoPs provide a space for the sharing of new ideas, lessons learned, proven practices, and practical suggestions. In some cases, it can even evolve into more forwardthinking progress, developing new insights that can foster deeper brainstorming and innovation. Stan likes to point out that the good news about communities of practice is that they are thriving – especially as CoPs have developed such great success with their digital footprint. By being part of a CoP, knowledge workers are able to connect with others beyond their known immediate network who have similar interests and concerns. This more expansive reach enables CoP members to tap into additional skills, resources, and expertise that might not have been available otherwise. Stan thinks of CoP knowledge sharing in two main ways: “You either have information you want to share – because you think others will benefit from having the information – or you need information, in which case you simply post a question with the hope that others might have a response.” You can see how this ability to scale and reach more people with similar interests and specialities can quickly and easily advance a conversation more than simply emailing a specific group of people or asking the person in the cubicle next to you! An important feature of membership in a CoP (or, more likely, in several CoPs throughout the organization), is that a sole individual is not expected to have the collective expertise of all individuals in the community, an important feature of CoPs that Stan notes: “In a community of practice, the sum is larger than its parts. All the CoP members are invested parties, and it’s important – for one’s professional growth if for no other reason – to choose to be part of a community of practice. Each of us should want to help others faced with similar challenges.”

78

2 Applied knowledge services

And while CoPs conduct most of their operations digitally, “members should try to meet in person, and, if possible, on some type of recurring basis,” Stan says, noting that if needed “creating local chapters is a good step forward with CoPs.” Participating in in-person meetings strengthens relationships and builds trust. Putting faces to names, creating shared memories, and establishing deeper connections are more readily accomplished in person. A digital footprint will get you far but can be strengthened by face-to-face connections. It’s an effort Stan has had considerable success with through his leadership of the SIKM Leaders Community since 2005. There are now three local chapters (Boston, New York, and Washington, DC) that meet periodically, and many members get together with each other at a dinner meeting at the annual KMWorld Conference in Washington, DC. To wrap up his discussion of knowledge sharing, collaboration, and the critical role of CoPs in KM/knowledge services, Stan noted that he is very comfortable – and practical – in talking about the “place” these valuable practices have in organizational management. The focus for the knowledge strategist should be on the five activities that he has identified for the field, to keep it working for the organizations that employ knowledge managers, knowledge strategists, and knowledge workers: “to continue to share, to innovate, to reuse, to collaborate, and to learn.” All key, and all must-haves for knowledge leaders. Collaboration in the knowledge services workplace: checklist of considerations □ □ □ □ □ □

□ □

Ensure that transparency, collaboration, and collegiality are woven into your knowledge services framework. They will help with culture development down the road! Identify current examples of horizontal, vertical, and random collaboration. Describe how each developed in the particular situation with which it is affiliated. Do you envision the knowledge strategist as a mentor, teacher, or facilitator, or a combination of these roles? Identify someone in the organization in a leadership position who is committed to collaboration and encourage them to be your sponsor or champion. In your working group, identify partners for knowledge sharing – expand your network! Take note of what would be considered your organization’s “front room” (Peter Drucker’s term). Additionally, note why they are your strengths and what makes them most important. Only provide knowledge service activities that enable and validate value-add collaboration. Identify a plan for achieving this important goal. Identify groups or pockets of information in your organization that would benefit from a more structured CoP. Make it happen!

2.2 Critical success factors: the knowledge services audit

79

Collaboration in the knowledge services workplace: discussion questions 1.

2. 3. 4.

5. 6.

What specific steps do you take to ensure that transparency, collaboration, and collegiality are linked in the knowledge culture? Is their connection structured and stated or subtle and “built in” to the culture at large? How does thinking about collaboration have an impact in the development of the knowledge services strategy? How does the knowledge strategist connect change management and education in your organization? Why are they connected? Why should collaboration rely on openness and knowledge sharing but also some level of focus and accountability? Does the organization understand their role in both of these circumstances? Where do you see CoPs fitting into or enhancing your organization? Can CoPs be used as levers to help justify your larger knowledge services business case? Discuss the challenge to “harness” the “power of collaboration.” What is the meaning associated with each of these terms in the knowledge services workplace?

2.2 Critical success factors: the knowledge services audit There is rich advice for knowledge strategists as they move forward with the development of the organization’s knowledge strategy. They will keep in mind two pieces of advice from Peter Drucker, invoked so often as we move toward the development of an exceptionally well-performing knowledge strategy. The first notes that the manager has two specific tasks: first, the creation of a true whole that is greater than the sum of its parts, a productive entity that turns out more than the sum of the resources put into it, and second, the harmonization of every decision and action with the requirements of immediate and longrange future: “The manager cannot sacrifice either without endangering the enterprise” (Drucker 1993) . Slightly later, Drucker repeated the point: “One of the tasks of leaders is constantly to make sure that we put scarce resources of people and money where they do the most good. We have to be results-focused and opportunityfocused. Good intentions are no longer enough.” (Drucker 1998) As knowledge strategists work with fellow staff and get to know people in the organization who want to learn more about knowledge services, these are points to keep in mind. As knowledge strategists move forward, they begin to realize that they speak often about the components of a knowledge strategy. For all of them, as they seek to formalize how KD/KS/KU functions in the organization, there is great interest in giving attention to how strategy development moves along.

80

2 Applied knowledge services

A first step is to think about what they are attempting to do as they begin the process of knowledge strategy development, and they all know that – as with any project – it starts with doing your “due diligence,” that is, giving attention to understanding the background for the project. To find all the information to build that background, the knowledge strategist conducts the knowledge services audit, an activity that is fundamental to knowledge strategy development. Knowledge strategists are often heard to say that “knowledge strategy begins with the knowledge services audit.” And do not get caught up with how you internally refer to the knowledge audit as much as with the actions you take to complete it. The term has a broad meaning, for “audit” can be used to suggest any sort of analysis (not solely that which is most typical, as a financial services account audit). For example, an investigation or serious examination can be referred to as an “audit.” These are the types of activities knowledge strategists undertake when they conduct a knowledge services audit. Like all other management and process descriptions, the term used reflects how such a process is spoken about in the organization using the organization’s jargon; it is the job of the knowledge strategist to “speak the language” that will make the most sense and therefore resonate the most with teams. In some organizations, the knowledge services audit as a process is referred to as an “assessment” or – in some cases – as an “opportunity assessment,” and there’s nothing wrong with that. You will know best! Using Simon Sinek’s Golden Circle as your guide (remember, why→ how → what), the knowledge strategist will start with the “why.” Before moving on to what they do or how they do it, they ask the basic question: Why are we doing this? Your goal here is to inspire those around you to buy into the knowledge audit and the strategy that will be developed from its findings. You want to connect with people emotionally, as Sinek underscores: “people don’t buy what you do, people buy why you do it” (Sinek Ted Talk 2009). Why is the knowledge audit important for the organization? Determining the why for the organization opens the door to a new way of looking at how knowledge and knowledge sharing can be strengthened in the organization. Once determined, it is then time to create an “elevator pitch” for the knowledge services audit, describing first why the audit is important and then noting that it is a systematic examination and evaluation of the organization’s explicit and tacit knowledge assets (“knowledge resources”). The main objectives of the knowledge services audit are to: 1. Determine what knowledge is required by staff 2. Identify how information and knowledge are used

2.2 Critical success factors: the knowledge services audit

3.

81

Establish the extent to which this knowledge use contributes to the successful achievement of the organization’s mission, meeting its objectives.

In practical terms, the knowledge services audit produces a collection of statements as currently experienced in the organization (the “as is”) state with a brief description or associated metadata. The study combines the methodologies of the standard needs analysis (asking what resources and services people require to do their work), an information audit, which determines how resources and services are actually used, and the knowledge audit, which looks at knowledge assets themselves, that is, asking how knowledge assets are produced, by whom, and how they are acquired for the client population. That way, when determining the desired (“to be”) state everyone is grounded on what currently needs to change in order for that to happen. As the knowledge services audit moves forward, a specific plan (often referred to as a “Statement of Work”) is needed. The plan will begin with a project objective, noting that the purpose is to be a study of knowledge services to determine if current procedures for managing and implementing knowledge services are operating efficiently and effectively. The plan will define knowledge services as the term is used in the organization, usually emphasizing the four benefits of a well-managed knowledge services function: strengthened research, contextual decision-making, accelerated innovation, and exceptional knowledge asset management. The statement of work defines the scope of the project, describing it as an overview of procedures currently in place related to knowledge development, knowledge sharing, and knowledge utilization (KD/KS/KU) in the organization. As noted, the knowledge services audit identifies, analyzes, and assesses current KD/KS/KU policies and procedures. It will include a survey of company management, selected staff, and other stakeholders (and, if appropriate, additional data-gathering through focus groups, departmental and/or sectional meetings, and individual interviews) to: 1. identify who uses information in their work, what they value, what they use, and what they do not use 2. identify and review current KD/KS/KU practices in different departments and sections of the company 3. identify personnel responsible for KD/KS/KU management 4. identify employees who use information in support of their work (contextual decision-making, knowledge asset management etc.) 5. identify best practices in knowledge services delivery and describe how these practices can be related to the organization’s KD/KS/KU framework

82

2 Applied knowledge services

6. review current work patterns and responsibilities to determine KD/KS/KU needs and expectations 7. determine where a formal approach is required so staff can acquire information, knowledge, and learning to strengthen the quality of their work 8. review personal knowledge management (PKM) procedures and applications, informal and interpersonal KD/KS/KU communications, and interactive relationship practices 9. review formal and informal strategic learning and training activities. As the knowledge strategist begins to document the scope of the project, an overview of procedures currently in place related to KD/KS/KU falls into place. And as noted in the Statement of Work, the knowledge services audit will permit the knowledge strategist to review and assess knowledge products and services. At the same time, it will enable the auditors (if the team chooses to use that term) to identify knowledge assets and enablers (both people – who are often unrecognized as “assets” – and things, like tools, databases, physical records, and such). Then, when identified, the team is able to detect gaps and constraints that must be addressed. In doing so, the knowledge services audit provides an inventory/catalog of the organization’s vision, mission, and values infrastructure, following a standard procedure in matching what is examined with the organization’s three critical statements about its goals and objectives: – The organizational vision – generally thought of as an image in words of what success will look like. The vision statement – because it is visionary – is aspirational and future focused. This statement grounds people in the hopes of what the mission statement more immediately intends to achieve. This statement will rarely, if ever, change for an organization. – The organizational mission – a statement of what the current organization hopes to achieve. It usually encompasses the high-level goal/objective of the organization and the target audience (who this statement is trying to affect). While the organization’s vision is more inflexible, the mission statement can change in order to stay flexible and current. – Organizational values represent the principles or beliefs that guide all organization staff and affiliates as they pursue the organization’s vision and mission. These values allude to how everyone connected with the organization behaves along the way as the organization moves through time. Under normal circumstances, organizational values do not change. Another way to focus the knowledge strategist on overarching ideas that need to be reviewed through the audit is through Peter Drucker’s “Five Most Important Questions,” which are:

2.2 Critical success factors: the knowledge services audit

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

83

What is our mission? Who is our customer? What does the customer value? What are our results? What is our plan?

Drucker’s questions (elaborated in his 1993 book The Five Most Important Questions You Will Ever Ask About Your Nonprofit Organization, updated in 2015 by Frances Hesselbein and Joan Snyder Kuhl) offers a useful outline for the knowledge strategist’s move into the knowledge services audit. And regardless of the type of organization, the book’s use of business (for-profit) terms can be easily transferred to whatever environment your organization is part of. By answering these questions, the knowledge strategist is grounded for moving forward with knowledge strategy development. These questions help identify what the organization does (its mission), who they do it for (its customers), what makes the target customer “tick” (customer value), the metrics the organization uses to define success (results), and the strategy implemented for achieving the organization’s mission/goals (plan). In conducting the knowledge services audit, a number of steps will be taken to achieve success with the task. To begin, there will be meetings with management leaders in order to create awareness, to identify survey participants (if applicable), and, of critical importance, to identify advocates, champions, and sponsors. Throughout the process, these will all provide support for the knowledge strategist as they outline their objectives for the audit, describing what you can then expect to achieve and, at the same time, use to apply transparent and probing questioning so you can come to know the organization in depth. From the people questioned, the knowledge strategist will also learn about the availability of resources (people, financial, technical, physical, and whatever else is required) to provide the tangible support for ensuring success for the audit. Finally, these leaders will work with the knowledge strategist to discuss and come to a decision about whether the project should be carried out in-house, using internal expertise and personnel to conduct the audit, or, with its own set of benefits, to turn the task over to a consulting team (likewise experienced and with particular expertise in working with the knowledge services audit), to be assured of a more balanced and objective product. That said, the knowledge strategist might next put forward a quick outline for a proposal, although a critical consideration requires understanding that there is probably no single proposal format that works for all companies and organizations alike. Indeed, it might even be said that since no two organizations are exactly alike and since there is no way to prepare a single framework

84

2 Applied knowledge services

that works in all situations, the strategy development team must take into consideration the individual and unique attributes of each environment, just as noted above with the mention that the knowledge services audit might be referred to differently with the standard jargon or language used in different companies and organizations. With that caveat in mind, the knowledge strategist and the knowledge strategy development team nevertheless go ahead and put forward their framework for a knowledge services audit proposal, spelled out with the following general sections: – Planning – Data Collection – Statement of Findings – Analysis and Evaluations – Recommendations (preliminary) – Informal (for discussion) – Formal (for incorporation into the knowledge strategy) – Deliverables (a knowledge services audit document, with final recommendations) From the findings of the audit, the team is able to define and establish objectives relating to high-quality and high-performance KD/KS/KU, resulting in improved enterprise-wide collaboration, communication, and innovation, and, as a specific goal, enable successful KD/KS/KU, with the emphasis on knowledge sharing. At the conclusion of the knowledge services audit, the knowledge strategist delivers to stakeholders the results of the audit, namely: – a report of the audit/assessment findings – actionable recommendations for a best knowledge services solution – an outline for the development of a knowledge strategy, including an implementation plan for enabling the company to transition from its present role to one in which organization-wide KD/KS/KU is incorporated into the organizational management structure – a recommended timeline with reasonable and achievable milestones. Following these guidelines, the knowledge strategist is providing the knowledge strategy the organization requires and, at the same time, positioning themselves for leadership as the organization moves to a knowledge culture. As the knowledge strategist moves in this direction, further support comes in recognizing that a strategy forces all stakeholders to focus on the organization’s purpose, business, and values. In doing so, the strategy provides three

2.2 Critical success factors: the knowledge services audit

85

results, all essential for ensuring the success of an enterprise-wide knowledge strategy: – a blueprint for action – stated milestones for monitoring achievements and assessing results – information for raising awareness and marketing the knowledge strategy throughout the organization. The completion of the knowledge audit is an important foundation for the development of the organization’s knowledge strategy. With the audit findings, the team is now able to identify knowledge sharing obstacles or opportunities, identify viable and “working” knowledge sharing activities, and prepare preliminary recommendations, all activities leading to the development of the organizational knowledge strategy. That document – usually referred to as a knowledge strategy or knowledge strategy statement – will include an implementation plan describing knowledge services within the larger organization. In the statement, reference is made to sponsorship and to organizational ownership of the so-called knowledge domain (that is, the knowledge sharing structure within the organization). Likewise, recommended knowledge services activities will be listed (generally including such topics as operational responsibility and authority, a timeline, required resources – financial, human capital, change management, training and learning etc. – and important considerations such as management metrics, return on investment, and effectiveness measures). The end product, the result of this effort, has come to be known in some management and leadership circles as the “desired outcome,” that is, what the enterprise seeks to achieve with the development and implementation of (in this case) a knowledge strategy, supported by knowledge services and enabling the transition of the enterprise to a knowledge culture, a company, organization, or institution characterized by: – Leadership in information management, knowledge management, and strategic learning – Collaboration at all functional levels – Breadth of scope (that is, which business units are affected by the findings of the audit or, alternatively, how much of the larger enterprise should be affected – Technology and communications maturity – Management enthusiasm and support for knowledge sharing – Knowledge value creation With these results, the purpose of the strategy – whether intentional or not – becomes prescriptive, setting up an arrangement so that the organization (and in

86

2 Applied knowledge services

particular its leaders) can move to a new management structure that is both strategic and systematic and, even more desirable, raising the awareness of the organization’s overall operation and purpose as the expression of a knowledge culture.

Other voices: Susan Henczel on the knowledge services audit Susan Henczel provides training and consulting services to libraries, information organizations, and professional associations. Her professional specialties are strategic and project planning, information and knowledge audit, impact assessment, statistical frameworks, performance measurement, service review, and social research. Henczel’s PhD (2016) is from RMIT University in Melbourne, and her research topic was on the impact of national library associations on their members, employing organizations, and the profession. She is the author of The Information Audit (De Gruyter 2001) and The Knowledge serves as Audit for the Effective Management of Enterprise Knowledge Assets (De Gruyter 2020). Henczel is a member of the Series Editorial Board for Knowledge Services. The knowledge services audit (KSA) is a fundamental process that is crucial to identifying how well an enterprise is managing its knowledge. Performing the audit provides a holistic snapshot of the knowledge environment, describing its assets, knowledge development, knowledge sharing/transfer, and knowledge utilization. At the same time, the knowledge services audit enables the knowledge strategist to develop an understanding not only of the capacity, capabilities, opportunities, and risks in terms of knowledge, but also how best to manage them. In other words, it is a comprehensive assessment of the well-being of the knowledge environment, the outcomes of which underpin the development and continuous improvement of the knowledge services strategy. Since the 1980s the information audit (IA) has been used to understand and support the management of the information environment within an organization. With the emergence of the knowledge-focussed organization over subsequent years, a different audit process was necessary, to focus on information and knowledge management, strategic learning, and the services that underpin those elements. While the evolution of the information audit model has provided a firm foundation for the KSA in terms of objectives, process, and outcomes, both audit processes examine assets, capacity, capability, and processes, and each provides evidential data that becomes the basis for measurement, continuous improvement, and accountability. The KSA is pivotal to understanding and consequently managing and measuring a knowledge environment, as is the information audit to an information environment. There are many overlaps

2.2 Critical success factors: the knowledge services audit

87

and commonalities between the IA and the KSA but each has its own purpose and flexibility in the way it can be used. The KSA examines knowledge assets, processes, infrastructure, behaviors, and risk. Like all enterprise audit processes, the KSA process is a systematic one that is both diagnostic and evaluative, but also flexible in that it can be adapted to the needs of the organization. It is also both qualitative and quantitative in nature and is comprised of multiple stages – planning, data collection, data analysis, evaluation and assessment of findings, and reporting – in such a way that the findings can be understood, accepted, and implemented. The criticality of the KSA audit in the establishment of knowledge services is due to the fact that it is often the very first “conversation” that employees have had about the knowledge environment and their own role in contributing to the higherlevel knowledge services strategies. This means that in initial discussions, the employees may not fully understand what they are being asked before they can provide useable data, and it is helpful for them to be given time to process the terminology and concepts, to give thought to what their role could be. For example, individuals often feel a sese of ownership over things they create in the workplace and so they are protective and defensive in their attitudes and behaviours. Their defensiveness of their technical knowledge also influences how they respond to audit questions unless the situation is mitigated prior to the audit. Therefore, the preliminary work of the knowledge strategist and the audit team is critical in ensuring that terminology is demystified, that audit objectives and processes are transparent and non-threatening, and that cooperation is regarded as necessary and positive for the both the individual and organization. KSAs are performed within many different types of organizations, with the process being adapted to suit the requirements of the organization and the expertise of those performing the audit. Despite these variations, there are significant similarities in the findings that cannot be ignored, particularly when an initial audit is performed. The following categories define and describe the key areas of data generated by a KSA and raise some of the more common issues to be considered before and during an audit. Knowledge assets: The KSA identifies what an enterprise has in terms of knowledge assets, including structured and unstructured content and (often not recognized as knowledge “assets”) the people employed by the organization. The audit identifies the location of the assets and who “owns” them. It also examines the perceived value of the knowledge assets to the organization in terms of their business criticality. If an organization lacks maturity in terms of knowledge services, the employees often do not understand what a knowledge asset is and what ownership of one means. This is a challenge for the

88

2 Applied knowledge services

knowledge strategist and audit team and something that must be addressed prior to the audit. The key outcome is a knowledge asset register, with definitions, descriptions and notations of other characteristics of each knowledge asset regardless of its format or structure. Subsidiary outcomes include a broader understanding within the organization of what constitutes a knowledge asset, how those knowledge assets relate to high-level strategies and of the responsibility of the individual in managing the assets. Processes: The KSA examines the formal and informal processes that relate to knowledge development, capture, sharing and utilization. It identifies where the processes occur, who they involve, and which technical systems they encompass. As well as identifying where process gaps or inefficiencies exist, the KSA also identifies processes that work well so that they can be utilized elsewhere in the organization. Common audit responses relate to a lack of policies and procedures around access and storage, duplicated processes and therefore duplicated effort and costs, and the replication of knowledge assets rather than re-use of those they have. An examination of processes after downsizing, amalgamation, or restructure can highlight redundant processes and the need to establish new or redesigned processes. A common element identified in KSAs is the need for collaborative processes to overcome fragmentation and isolation caused by knowledge speciality silos. Infrastructure: The KSA provides an understanding of how the physical and technical infrastructures help or hinder knowledge development, capture, sharing, and utilization practices. It identifies barriers to access and sharing such as legacy technical systems that are fragmented, outdated, or cumbersome, and will identify technical systems that work well. It examines the interaction between employees and the technical systems with regard to ease of discovery, access, utilization, transfer, and storage, and KSA findings often reflect that technical systems are regarded negatively in terms of knowledge services. Nevertheless, KSA findings also demonstrate that although the systems may not be perfect, there is often a lack of guidance, training, and authorization that could be easily overcome. Behaviors: The KSA examines individual and group behaviors, and the implications for knowledge development, capture, sharing, and utilization. It identifies levels of cooperation and collaboration, negative or harmful attitudes and behaviors, and cultural maturity in terms of knowledge services. An understanding of behaviors and broader cultural issues, including maturity, enables knowledge strategists and other managers to develop appropriate management and improvement strategies. Personal information and knowledge management practices are often shown to be barriers to establishing and improving knowledge services. Once identified, these need to be unlearned through good management,

2.2 Critical success factors: the knowledge services audit

89

guidance, training and fully documented and promulgated procedures. Cultural maturity in terms of knowledge services is based on how well the employees of an organization understand and acknowledge the value of knowledge services, their ability to contribute to it, and their willingness to work towards improving it by embedding it into work practices. The findings of a first KSA often reflect a chaotic or uncontrolled situation with a general lack of understanding of, and commitment to, knowledge services and an unwillingness to change. An immature culture is frequently found to display defensiveness, protectiveness, insecurity, and a lack of cooperation and collaboration. Maturity can be improved over time by using the data from the first and each subsequent KSA to improve awareness where necessary, to align the work that employees do with strategic goals, improve management practices and consistency, and to gradually change behaviours and attitudes. Risk: The KSA identifies where knowledge exists but is not used or shared, indicating process gaps. It also identifies where there is a risk of loss of experience-based knowledge through attrition resulting from retirement, downsizing, restructure, amalgamation, or acquisition. Once the knowledge assets are identified and responsibility is aligned with the strategic focus of the organization, risks can be identified and examined for their importance. Strategies can be put in place to minimise the risks and to address those that are inevitable. These categories are very much interdependent, with each one influencing the others. In each of these categories there is an examination of capability and capacity in terms of knowledge services: capability in terms of everyone having the ability to do what needs to be done, and capacity in terms of having sufficient resources to do what needs to be done. In general terms, the outcomes of the KSA provide the data necessary to identify, evaluate, and assess what you have, what you need to have, and what the skills and capabilities are for the effective creation, access, and utilization of what you have. Analysis of the data provides insight into opportunities such as potential improvements in access, quality, responsibility, awareness, and capability. Of course, it also shows up any deficiencies in these areas. Notably, one of the key outcomes of a KSA is the provision of data to support the development of a measurement framework that highlights what should be measured to reflect the “health” of knowledge services in the organization, including improvements in performance. Another key outcome is an understanding of skills gaps that can feed into personal or group professional development plans, strengthening links between the knowledge services teams and other teams (such as human resource management which in many organizations manages professional development). In addition to the tangible benefits of performing a KSA through the analysis of the date gathered, the process itself results in numerous subsidiary

90

2 Applied knowledge services

benefits for the knowledge strategist, the audit team and others involved in the process. Additionally, the audit process provides an opportunity for the knowledge strategist and audit team members to improve relationships with both their corporate clients and with high-level management. Communication during the audit process brings the auditors into direct contact with a diverse range of employees and with corporate management, making them known within the organization and providing greater visibility of their skills and expertise, reducing barriers to the implementation of the recommendations arising from the analysis of the audit data. While the initial KSA is the most complex it is also the most important in many ways, as it influences how employees and management feel about knowledge services. Similarly, the knowledge services audit can impact on levels of support for future developments. As knowledge services reaches maturity in an organization, the KSA transitions from an examination to a confirmation that provides data on which to base improvement strategies. In those organizations the KSA transitions from a stand-alone process to one that is intentionally embedded into existing auditing, asset management, and performance measurement processes. This situates the knowledge services audit at the enterprise level along with the financial, legal and compliance auditing, broader asset management ideologies and practices, and performance measurement and management – a critical success factor indeed.

The knowledge services audit: checklist of considerations □

□

□

□ □

Determine the jargon that is right for your organization. Remember, the work you’re doing is the same as others in the organization speak about, and your goal is to have it resonate as well as possible with your organization's employees and affiliates. Keep in mind that completing the knowledge audit isn’t only to find problems, it is equally to find the good knowledge sharing or business processes already in place and to scale/share with other teams and departments in the organization. Take Simon’s Sinek’s Golden Circle into consideration – start with the WHY and work your way out to the how and what. For better discussion, combine Sinek’s formula with Taiichi Ohno's famous “5 WHYs,” the popular discussion tool from Toyota's production system in the 1950s (e.g. to ask why five times in order to get to the real root of problem at hand.) As the knowledge services audit process begins, connect the organizational mission to your goals for the audit. Be clear about your audit objectives. Confirm with management and/or leadership the types of details they hope to get out of completing the audit. This step helps ensure everyone is on the same page.

2.3 Measures and metrics for knowledge services

□

□

□

□

□

91

Conduct both an information audit (which determines how resources and services are actually used) and a knowledge audit (which looks at organizational assets and determines how they are produced, by whom, and who uses them). You know why you conduct the knowledge services audit (to focus attention on what's important in the organization, to determine what contributes to success, and to incorporate Critical Success Factors – CSF – into planning). Convey this to employees participating in the audit. Determine the deliverables you will need to share with your stakeholders and/or the organization at large. A report of audit findings? A presentation? A statement of next steps? Make sure to develop key relationships that will be affected by your knowledge strategy implementation. This will help establish feedback loops and, when it's time, your change management communication plan. Hold yourself accountable to tying your audit findings and recommendations to project timelines. Start with “low hanging fruit” and then build yourself up to solutioning more complex problems.

The knowledge services audit: discussion questions 1. 2.

3.

In terms of knowledge services and knowledge strategy, what does your organization do superbly well? Does the organization recognize these as successes? Why is the knowledge services audit an appropriate vehicle for connecting with the organizational mission? Is this connection of value to all stakeholders and affiliates, or only to knowledge workers? Do employees feel like they are constantly “reinventing the wheel”? Completing repetitive tasks?

2.3 Measures and metrics for knowledge services When speaking about good management principles and how they are applied in knowledge services, the knowledge strategist recognizes that for many years much attention was given to the famous people-process-technology management triad which hypothesized that when these categories succeed, “good” management outcomes are realized. At the same time, as noted earlier, the knowledge strategist in the last few years enlarged that hypothesis, now asserting that with knowledge services there is a better-performing and close to “ideal” management outline, a five-part focus. With knowledge services, attention is not only directed to people (first), process, and technology but incorporates strategic alignment and content management into the mix. With strategic alignment, the knowledge strategist gives attention to looking at the different elements and objectives of successful

92

2 Applied knowledge services

KD/KS/KU and seeks to ensure that the organization’s knowledge strategy meets with and contributes to the success of that alignment. Similarly, content management, bringing together business strategies that include both technology and strategic learning solutions, becomes incorporated into the knowledge strategist’s work since the management of all structured and unstructured content (usually but not always digital content) across all constituent organizational elements of the enterprise impacts the organizational knowledge strategy. In his work on project management (an area of study that frequently influences knowledge services), W.R. Duncan wrote about the process of project management. In a paper in The Project Management Journal, Duncan noted that most management models establish three processes that support the ongoing management activities of the organization: planning, executing, and controlling. And it’s the third process – controlling – that drives them toward success and leads to a useful definition for “controlling” that comes from Duncan’s paper. “Controlling,” he writes, “is measuring progress and taking corrective action when necessary.” Similar actions can be made by the knowledge strategist in the initial stages of implementing the knowledge strategy. Before one can begin “measuring progress,” there is an earlier step that must be taken before the knowledge strategist can measure knowledge sharing progress; the determination of the agreed upon goal that has been established and verified by the enterprise that determines whether knowledge sharing efforts are going to be successful or not. That earlier step is the knowledge services audit (or “evaluation,” or “opportunity assessment,” or “appreciation inquiry,” or whatever term is used in the particular organization to describe this important data-gathering exercise). This established procedure (part of Duncan’s executing process) has come to be recognized as a critical element in knowledge services. And it is a process different than controlling, which, to almost any knowledge strategist’s way of thinking, is where measurement occurs. It is through the analysis of the findings of the knowledge services audit that the measuring begins, with those findings and the measurement results (or lack thereof) used to determine further steps to be taken as the organization moves toward having a stronger knowledge culture. Duncan’s “controlling” brings us to another long-standing management idea (almost a cliché, we hear it so much). How often does someone – management staff or otherwise – say that “you can’t manage what you don’t measure”? And, yes, this old management adage is as reliable and true today as it has always been. Or, as one commentary recently put it – unwittingly connecting managing and measuring to Duncan’s attention to progress – “unless you measure something you don’t know if it is getting better or worse.”

2.3 Measures and metrics for knowledge services

93

Of course. From the knowledge strategist’s point of view, nothing is going to improve unless there is some knowledge of where things stand. It’s only then that the knowledge strategist and the knowledge strategist development team can start looking at how to make improvements (or, inversely, how to build on and replicate the success of activities that audit findings establish as effective). When this important group agrees on the need to measure, what are they looking for? Are there key performance indicators (KPIs) for knowledge services? And how does the knowledge strategist put those KPIs to work when the team is dealing with intellectual capital in the organizations where knowledge workers are employed? Not surprisingly, if KPIs are easily located, it’s not hard to find one(s) that works with the knowledge-focused departments of a business or even enterprisewide across the organization itself. One that looks like it would work for knowledge strategy development comes from the Florida Institute of Technology (Florida Tech). The title for the list is found in a blog post titled What makes a good KPI for project management? (yes, taking the knowledge strategist back again to the always-valuable project management framework) and this list works well for the knowledge strategist as the development team moves toward the development of the measurement framework. Effective KPIs should include the following group of indicators, and the strategy development team doesn’t lose anything by connecting these to how they undertake the knowledge services process. In this case, the knowledge services effort and the knowledge services measurement strategy is: 1. Agreed upon by all parties before the project begins 2. Meaningful to the intended audience 3. Regularly measured and includes quantifiable measurements that can be shared and analyzed across organizational divisions 4. Directed toward the benefits the project seeks to deliver 5. A basis for critical decision-making throughout the project 6. Aligned with organizational objectives and unified with the organization’s efforts 7. Realistic, cost-effective, and tailored to the organization’s culture, constraints and time frame 8. Reflective of the organization’s success factors and specific to the organization and the particular project. (Florida Institute of Technology 2018) And while the faculty at Florida Tech notes that KPIs may differ from project to project, certain data can be helpful in any organizational process, including knowledge services. So, when the knowledge strategist gives attention to return on investment (ROI), productivity, cost performance, cycle time, customer

94

2 Applied knowledge services

satisfaction, schedule performance, employee satisfaction, and alignment with strategic business goals, the knowledge strategist can use such indicators as: – Project schedule – Stated estimate to project completion – Any current development backlogs – Labor costs spent per custom business cycle (monthly, quarterly etc.) – The current resource allocation for undertaking the project or effort and bringing it to fruition. To ensure the success of the knowledge strategy development effort, the entire controlling process for knowledge services is required. And this includes measures. But component elements of the process, like so much else having to do with knowledge services, knowledge sharing, and the implementation of a knowledge strategy, require an enormous level of subjectivity on the part of the knowledge strategist, despite the fact that the strategist is using the most objective standards and KPIs. They all come together to make up what could possibly be described as the knowledge strategist’s most serious management challenge – implementation of the knowledge strategy. It soon becomes clear that one of the most important background efforts has just been completed. The knowledge services audit has provided findings and enabled the organization to work with “critical success factors.” The knowledge strategist and the strategy development team now know what they want to address as their work toward the enterprise knowledge strategy progresses. They are well on the way to a first version of the knowledge services strategic framework and they now turn to developing another component of it, measurements and metrics. Their objective now is to ensure that the value of knowledge in the organization’s operational and functional structure is quantified and, as a result, recognized and valued. The knowledge services audit provided findings and recommendations for the knowledge strategy, and based on this background information, the knowledge services strategist will devise a measures and metrics plan in order to address clearly the concept of the value of organizational knowledge. This knowledge – the organization’s intellectual capital – is critical for the achievement of the organization’s mission at large. For many experts in the knowledge services field, the measures and metrics plan is thought of (and discussed) as value creation. Developing such a plan is not open to question for employees working in or otherwise affiliated with the organization’s knowledge domain, since knowledge is an essential and critical organizational asset and the knowledge development, knowledge sharing, and the knowledge utilization process is a legitimate functional operation in the organization. Yet because

2.3 Measures and metrics for knowledge services

95

KD/KS/KU is ubiquitous in the pursuit of organizational success (whether acknowledged or not), the value of knowledge in the organization must be given specific attention as enterprise leadership begins to embrace the concept of the knowledge culture. Providing the means for that attention would seem to be a fairly straightforward process, but there often seems to be a somewhat negative attitude about how knowledge services – as an operational function – is valued, often demonstrated when senior management in the organization is concerned about operational expenses (as they must be) and look for cost savings. When that situation comes up, functions and departments in the organization’s knowledge domain sometimes find themselves at the top of the list. To rebut any such encounter, the knowledge strategist has in place and utilizes as often as required a knowledge services measurement strategy. The first step in establishing the value of knowledge services is to state the objective and purpose of the measurement effort, and that is not a difficult activity to undertake as it is built in to the development of the knowledge services management strategy. The knowledge strategist’s goal is direct: to develop a measurement plan that will identify and codify the central value proposition for knowledge services within the larger enterprise in alignment with the vision, mission, and values of the organization. This strategy will link to the findings and recommendations of the knowledge services audit and the implementation and planning directions of the organization’s knowledge services, its knowledge services strategic framework. As it happens, if the management strategy is to be successful, two questions must always be asked about each metrics development activity, and simply and logically positioning the plan for effective results. The first question asks who will be receiving the information (and therefore making decisions based on the metrics). The success of the measurement effort depends on understanding the audience for whom the metrics are developed and to whom they will be delivered. While most of these people are not necessarily focused on the role of knowledge in the organization (except as a support mechanism), it is not patronizing them to note that metrics must be presented in language that makes sense to them as non-specialists, that is, in their own professional jargon, and not in the language of knowledge strategy and knowledge services. Know what will resonate with your audience. For most situations, a well-used technique presents measurement results in terminology that is understandable and relevant to others in the organization, recognizing that information management, knowledge management, and strategic learning are but part of their daily work life, not their workplace focus. Some information and knowledge professionals get around this impediment by applying the “so what?” question

96

2 Applied knowledge services

to each metric presented (either literally or rhetorically), thus giving those who see the metrics a description that resonates with his or her own experience and expertise. The second question asks what these people want or need to know. This will be ascertained through the knowledge services audit, but it is important to note that those who receive the results of the audit – leadership and employees alike – must be well grounded in what success “looks like.” This point relates to helping ensure that organizational goals are realized. The knowledge strategist and others whose work focuses on their efforts in the knowledge domain clearly understand that any knowledge services measures must relate to business outcomes and to how the business will be favorably impacted or affected by the elements measured. Another key issue, particularly when developing metrics for knowledge services, is to think about how the metrics will be used. The knowledge strategist is required to take care in not only deciding what to measure, but what measures to use. This can be a cumbersome and sometimes off-putting prospect, but the solution is relatively simple, and it has two parts. First, the knowledge strategist identifies other functional units that are required to measure service delivery. Metrics development (and certainly the development of a metrics framework) does not take place in a vacuum, and since in managing and delivering knowledge services the knowledge strategist expects to take an enterprise-wide perspective anyway, it is a wise choice to look to others in the organization for conversation and advice, to learn about their previous experience, and to seek direction in planning a measurement activity. In addition to looking at how other departments and functional units measure performance, a second important step is to address the topic with senior management. Whenever possible, selected enterprise leaders should be engaged, certainly in discussion, and occasionally (when there is an expression of interest), even in participation in the planning. Such participation is usually at a strategic and not tactical level, but imperative nonetheless to attain corporate buy-in. As is often desired with any organizational functional unit, the attention of senior management to the workings of the unit can lead to a better understanding of the role of the unit in the larger organizational picture and in many cases bring about the development of a sponsorship relationship. The classic sponsorship role is to say or speak about, model, and reward whatever effort is being undertaken, and if a member or group of members of the senior management team signs on to champion the development of metrics for knowledge services and becomes involved in the effort, the entire process moves forward more smoothly and the larger enterprise realizes even higherlevel benefits.

2.3 Measures and metrics for knowledge services

97

As for the specifics of the effort, as described above it makes sense to look beyond the immediate discipline and identify tools and techniques from other service delivery functions related to the work done with knowledge services. An obvious relationship already exists with the organization’s technology unit, and a recent list of “essential” metrics for technology management can be transcribed for use with the knowledge services unit. In a white paper from Forrester Research, Craig Symons and his colleagues note that “the key to success is choosing a small number of metrics that are relevant to the business and have the most impact on business outcomes” (Symons et al. 2008). In the development of the knowledge strategy and the concomitant incorporation of the measurement plan that affects the shaping of the knowledge strategy, two important concepts relating to knowledge services become critical. These are the types of measures that the knowledge strategist will be working with, and they represent the concepts behind the thinking that brings us the Knowledge Value Chain, from Timothy W. Powell at The Knowledge Agency in New York City. When the knowledge strategist looks at types of measures, they are going to identify two primary types, operational and value measures, and each of them has a specific role to play in the development of the measurements for the organization’s knowledge services function. The former – operational measures – are more tactical, for they measure efficiency, while the latter – value measures – are thought of by most managers as more strategic, for they measure effectiveness. And a slight caveat, for as we think about these measures, we also must suggest that it is important to remember that the distinctions are not always as “cut and dried” as they look on a chart, for their elements often overlap. The knowledge strategist must give thought to these different types of measures. It was Joseph Matthews who in 2003 gave those working with KD/ KS/KU a solid and workable description of measurement types. He identified four variables used by organizations and described the influence of resources, capability, utilization, and impact (effect) on organizational success. They are variables equally applicable to the organization’s knowledge services unit, and Matthews describes the four different classic assessment tools generally used in these environments: – Input measures: resources or inputs allocated to the unit (budget figures, resources, staff count etc.), notably easy to quantify and gather. – Process measures: “focused on activities that transform resources into services” – time to perform a task, for example (such as materials processing etc.); “process measures are ultimately about efficiency.”

98

2 Applied knowledge services

Quantitative

Transactional counts Time/Money saved using content provided or knowledge transferred

Use of resources Time/Money saved Benchmarking ratios Input/output process measures

ROI

Operational

Value Service Level Agreements

Impact

Service provision leading to partnership development

Anecdotal (Narrative) Outcome Measures

Qualitative Fig. 2.3: Measuring Knowledge Services.

– Output measures: used to establish the degree to which the functional unit and its services are being accessed and/or utilized, usually limited to volume counts (how many e-mail queries received etc.). – Outcome measures: generally characterized as “effectiveness measures,” these measures indicate the impact or effect of the functional unit and its services on the people who utilize them. In most cases, these measures have an “outward” focus or thrust and do not emphasize process management or product counts. (Matthews 2003) It is in these last (the effectiveness measures) that we have the single most popular type of measure, return on investment (ROI), described and alluded to in so many statements from business managers, organizational executives, and enterprise leaders. And an actionable and clear description of ROI comes from Timothy Powell, mentioned earlier. He generally speaks of ROI as the ratio of net income to total assets which include, in the knowledge domain, knowledge assets and the value knowledge leaders and the larger organization give to the organization’s intellectual capital. “Simply put,” Powell says, “ROI can be described as the financial benefit to the organization after the cost of the

2.3 Measures and metrics for knowledge services

99

investment has been subtracted from that financial benefit.” For anyone confronted with describing the ROI for a knowledge services measurement result, Powell has a quick description which works even in those situations in the knowledge domain in which the knowledge workers do not give much attention to the role of knowledge and knowledge sharing in the workplace: – The math of ROI is easy. Return on investment literally means net return divided by net investment. Another way of saying it: benefit divided by cost. It’s usually written benefit/cost. – Cash flow is often used alongside as a measure of ROI, when the metrics are cash flow in and cash flow out. In the vernacular, ROI is spoken of as value – what you get for a given outlay. The American slang is “bang for the buck.” (Powell 2014) And Powell’s influence for the knowledge strategist goes beyond the measurement and ROI guidance noted above. As they move toward the early stages of the knowledge strategy initiative, knowledge strategists find themselves in an almost ideal position to apply business principles and concepts to the development of the knowledge services strategic framework for the organization. In fact, and using the word “ideal” intentionally, our strong recommendation to these organizational knowledge leaders is to recommend that they become familiar with the Knowledge Value Chain® (KVC), created by Powell, as noted above. In 2012, Powell referred to the Knowledge Value Chain as “a structured methodology for understanding and accelerating the transformation of your data into knowledge and intelligence and finally into outcomes and operating results.” With this direction for thinking about knowledge, Powell noted: Within your organization, this transformation typically happens in the form of knowledge-based processes – for example, business strategy, market research, corporate intelligence, knowledge management, special libraries, and even R&D and legal research. Those processes occur within a value context – that is, they produce both costs and benefits. While the costs are usually pretty clear, the benefits often are not – and consequently the opportunities for producing even greater value are often overlooked (Powell 2012).

Two years later, Powell provided more specific guidance for the knowledge strategist and knowledge services professionals: The KVC framework is easy to understand and apply because it builds on a simple insight: in a complex organization the people who produce information are fundamentally different from the people who use it to create results and value. This creates a knowledgevalue gap between producers and users that is often vast – a “gulf” – and includes many professional and cultural barriers.

100

2 Applied knowledge services

In short, information people don’t typically understand the language of business, and business people don’t typically understand the language of information. The connection between the two halves is broken. The net result is that information resources and the people who manage them fail to have the impact they could have and fail to optimize their ROI. Instead of being part of the organizational solution, information becomes part of the problem as people scurry to absorb and make sense of it. Understanding the knowledge value chain from both producer and use perspectives is a first step toward bridging this fundamental barrier. (Powell 2014)

As the development of the measurement plan moves forward, it is not difficult to understand – since the knowledge services audit has been completed (or at least a first version of it, for it will be repeated to remain viable and up to date) there will now be further supporting documentation for value creation. For one thing, the findings, recommendations, and deliverables of the audit have focused attention throughout the organization on KD/KS/KU, which is a good thing because doing so has four immediate results, with the audit: – Identifying and recommending actionable emphasis on what’s important in the larger enterprise – Helping the knowledge strategist determine what contributes to success (and what does not) – Incorporating the designated critical success factors into planning strategy (and specifically with planning and development for the organizational knowledge strategy) – Positioning the knowledge strategist for determining the cost-effectiveness of selected tools and services which have been evaluated and (when required) retiring or re-purposing inactive or less useful knowledge assets. As with any management function, expectations play a key role in the measurement of knowledge services. Not only must metrics be developed and used in order to keep organizational management informed about the financial performance of knowledge services, all workers affiliated with the organization’s knowledge domain – knowledge workers, strategic knowledge professionals, and (particularly) the knowledge strategist – must develop and use measurement tools for very basic management tasks: to continually examine and analyze operations, to demonstrate the importance of the knowledge services function in its larger organizational service sphere, and to reduce costs and improve productivity. Metrics tell us, with respect to our work, where we’ve been, where we are now, and provide us with the information we require to determine the direction we’re going. Given the critical role of measures in the management of the knowledge domain and especially as the emphasis turns to both the knowledge services audit and how the findings of the audit are to be used

2.3 Measures and metrics for knowledge services

101

in support of the business case for knowledge services, attention to measures is not an option. It is part of what the knowledge strategist and the knowledge services team do.

Other voices: Lee Igel and Elizabeth Edersheim on sports management: how knowledge services measures and metrics are changing the game Elizabeth Haas Edersheim is with the New York Consulting Partnership. A recognized author, she is known for The Definitive Drucker (2007) and McKinsey’s Marvin Bower (2004). She is on the faculty of the consulting strategies program at New York University. Lee H. Igel is Clinical Associate Professor at the NYU Tisch Institute for Global Sport and a contributor to Forbes. His teaching, writing, and consulting bring insights from organizational behavior to work on business challenges in sport and society. FC Barcelona launched the Barça Innovation Hub in 2017. It was a step that took one of the most recognizable, high revenue-generating enterprises on the planet toward a greater understanding of its credo: “Mes que un club” – “More than a club.” It also brought international football and the sports industry a step further into the discipline of managing knowledge services. In the few years before Barcelona eclipsed $1-billion in annual revenue, executives anticipated the need for an improved sense of the business of the club. By then, it had operations and interests in corners and reaches of the world far beyond its nearly 100,000 seat home pitch at Camp Nou and 140,000 club members. Nearly 663 million viewers were watching the club’s matches on television and more than 300 million people were following the club through social media platforms. The entertainment, emotional, and competitive experience that the Barça brand of football and the sport overall were bringing to the world, combined with modern media content and communication mechanisms, demanded new thinking and approaches. And, so, Barça executives came forth with the Innovation Hub. The design of the Innovation Hub links the internal plans and performance of units within the club to its global network of supporters, fans, and business and community partners that exist on the outside. It aims to provide structure and direction for analyzing and describing the information and knowledge that Barça continues accruing from a myriad of endeavors and outlets around the world. In effect, it makes something of the measurements and metrics that are a result of Barça’s popularity.

102

2 Applied knowledge services

FC Barcelona is not alone in bringing new modes of measurements and metrics to the international football scene. City Football Group, based in the United Kingdom but majority-owned by a private investment firm of Abu Dhabi’s Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed, holds principal stakes in a global network of clubs that includes Manchester City FC in the English Premier League, New York City FC in Major League Soccer, Girona in Spain’s La Liga, Yokohama F. Marinos in Japan, Melbourne City in Australia, Sichuan Jiuniu FC in China, and plans to expand into India and Africa. Liverpool FC, another English Premier League side, is sharing knowledge with siblings of its parent Fenway Sports Group, including the Boston Red Sox of Major League Baseball. And Chelsea FC, also in the English Premier League, is using measurements and metrics focusing on social responsibility and social impacts that further align its commercial and charitable operations. These are a few vessels in one vein of a developing system aimed at enhancing collective knowledge throughout sport. Perhaps the most celebrated example of measurements and metrics impacting sport, however, is in the form of “Moneyball.” In the bestselling book of the same title, which was followed by a Hollywood film adaptation, author Michael Lewis relates the story of how the Oakland Athletics developed a pioneering position in the evaluation of roster decisions by applying statistical analysis to baseball records. This form of going beyond traditional metrics – batting average, home runs, and runs batted in for hitters; strikeouts, walks, and earned run average for hitters – was not the first time that the decision makers of a Major League Baseball club concerned themselves with such metrics for measuring player performance. But “Moneyball” – or, more formally, “sabermetrics” – was unique in that they came to use those measurements to identify undervalued players in the construction of a winning roster on a relatively low budget. And that this change in thinking arrived at the outset of the “Big Data” age in the early 2000s helped encourage a rush of attention to new, more discrete measures of performance across sports. These types of developments are far beyond those most basic of sports measurements and metrics: the score of a game. Yet they are quite reliant on it. The score determines the winning and losing that provides the context around which the industry is based. It has also driven a nearby industry: sports betting and wagering. Yet the recent emphasis on “analytics” has changed what spectators see when they are watching sports. A traditional example could be found in a team shifting its defensive position when an opposing player takes a specific offensive position. An emerging example may be in e-sports and gaming, where the focus is

2.3 Measures and metrics for knowledge services

103

increasingly on the ways that consumers engage with a game beyond that which is on the screen in front of them. Available data is also being converted into information and, then, knowledge about all aspects of sport, on and off the fields of play, in the stands and outside the venues. These data are mostly of a quantitative variety. But we know there is at least equal need for qualitative measurements and metrics. And as we think about the realities of measurements and metrics that shape people’s attention and attraction to sport, we typically ask – and encourage others to ask – five questions: 1. Is there a bound that would change if a metric proved it was movable? 2. Would a new understanding of available data fundamentally influence the types of decisions and certainty of plays – like baseball statistics changed the game? 3. Would knowledge or access to knowledge across the ecosystem shift the role of players? 4. How does access to knowledge through new technologies change consumer attitudes and behaviors? Or e.g. watching their favorite team on one screen, while listening to the highlights and statistics of other games on other screens while connected with other fans and exchanging information? 5. How is knowledge feeding and facilitating the development of communities? During the past century, Peter Drucker wrote, in 1989, “Management is what tradition used to call a liberal art: ‘Liberal’ because it deals with the fundamentals of knowledge, self-knowledge, wisdom, and leadership; ‘art’ because it deals with practice and application.” In that way, it is a practice. As measurements and metrics are changing the practice of sports, we will continue to see changes in the games that we learn to play, and how we play and watch them. Measures and metrics: checklist of considerations □

□ □

□

Meet with managers and leaders to determine what knowledge sharing and general operational success looks like and define metrics that help achieve those goals. Use the language – often specific to the organization under discussion – instead of terms and descriptions relating to knowledge services. Link knowledge strategy goals to these defined metrics – key performance indicators (KPIs). Benchmark where you are at the beginning of your knowledge strategy development planning, describing what the metric levels you want to achieve are, and the check-in points to gauge current levels (to ensure you're on the right path). Establish specific, agreed upon presentation deliverables and a schedule for when you need to provide a check-in with management to describe progress.

104

□ □

□

□ □

2 Applied knowledge services

Ensure there is a mix of departmental and organizational measures (departmental ones being in-line with organizational ones, of course). If important for your organization, determine the value of knowledge sharing, and ensure that knowledge sharing measures are – as they should be – both qualitative and quantitative. Develop a measurement plan that will identify and codify the central value proposition for knowledge services within the larger enterprise, in alignment with the vision, mission, and values of the organization. Provide metrics that strengthen your “case” for knowledge services (using the Knowledge Value Chain as a reference). Understand how these metrics will be used to inform future decision making, and be sure to adjust metrics when new needs arise.

Measures and metrics: discussion questions 1. 2.

3.

With respect to your organization, what are the “critical success factors” that give the organization its competitive advantage? How can the implementation of strong knowledge services actually positively affect your bottom line, saving the organization money or even better generate profits? More efficient workflows/processes? Stronger retention? Faster knowledge asset reuse? Spending awareness? Does management understand the connection of knowledge services to these outcomes? Discuss your confidence in bringing the attention of management to the ROI of knowledge services. What’s the benefit? On the other hand, are there impediments to the knowledge strategist’s success in delving into ROI?

2.4 The knowledge services strategic framework: a recommended strategy As the knowledge strategist and the strategy development team move toward the knowledge strategy, the proposed “product” of their efforts, one might want to consider how knowledge strategy fits into the overall management structure of the larger organization. In fact, it might be wise to focus on strategy in general, about what strategy is, and how strategy is developed by leaders and managers in an organization. After the knowledge strategist and team members feel comfortable about understanding strategy in these more general terms, they can focus on how knowledge strategy connects with strategy itself. The knowledge strategist should already have some fundamental understanding about strategy. If there is a methodology in place for ensuring best

2.4 The knowledge services strategic framework: a recommended strategy

105

performance from all stakeholders and for ensuring success in achieving the organizational mission, the knowledge strategist already knows something about how the organization is managed, that there is a methodology in place for achieving success. And, in all likelihood, the knowledge strategist understands that there is some level of strategy in place for guiding all of the organization’s stakeholders in the direction of that success. On the other hand, there are plenty of people who come into knowledge services without any particular education about management and/or leadership, or about any other topics relating to organizational management, and they find themselves moving into the role of knowledge strategist, with all that this new role entails. These knowledge specialists, knowledge professionals, whatever background they are coming from, now find themselves with responsibility, authority, and accountability for how well information, knowledge, and strategic learning content are developed and shared in the organization. It’s an enormous challenge, one that is sometimes even self-directed for those for knowledge workers who clearly understand that, with respect to knowledge sharing, “things could be better” and they want to “do something about it.” And in any case, as the nascent knowledge strategist (or even, for more experienced knowledge professionals) moves toward having the knowledge strategist’s tasks incorporated into their job description, several specific undertakings before them can be identified. More than likely the strategist will be charged to lead the discussion, to bring all the players in the organization onto the same “playing field,” so to speak, so that everyone is in agreement about which of the organization’s knowledge-related needs must be met. The best place to start is to think about strategy itself, the important management term or concept we deal with all the time, going all the way back in management history and characterized by a wide variety of different or “specialized” approaches to management. Of course, we have our favorites and for those who have read this far, it’s clear that we continue to be drawn to the work of Peter Drucker, whose description usually narrows down to “strategic planning,” with the emphasis on the second word. Having written about strategic planning as early as 1973 and then having brought it up again in the re-write of his famous Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices 20 years later, Drucker referred to strategic planning as: . . . the continuous process of making entrepreneurial decisions systematically and with the greatest knowledge of their futurity, organizing systematically the efforts needed to

106

2 Applied knowledge services

carry out these decisions, and measuring the results of these decisions against the expectations through organized systematic feedback. . . The question that faces the strategic decision-maker is not what his organization should do tomorrow. It is “what do we have to do today to be ready for an uncertain tomorrow?” (Drucker 1993)

Here, too, Drucker wrote in 1990 that he was once opposed to the term “strategy”: I thought it smacked too much of the military. But I have slowly become a convert. [I originally disliked the term] because in many businesses and non-profit organizations, strategy is an intellectual exercise. But until it becomes actual work you have done nothing. . . Strategies are action-focused. So I have reluctantly accepted the word because it’s clear that strategies are not something you hope for; strategies are something you work for. (Drucker 1993)

So, in today’s terms, perhaps we might think of strategy as a plan the knowledge strategist can use to identify and implement what the work is going to be. And then the knowledge strategist does the work and/or coordinates with the internal or external parties that need to help. And certainly there are other descriptions of strategy, ideas about how we lay out our plans for what we want to do and then use them to guide us as we seek to implement them into our work, as we seek to move toward success (with the knowledge strategist understanding that “success” refers to whatever is defined as success in the organizations in which knowledge services is practiced). And all knowledge strategists have their own ways of giving meaning to how one deals with strategy in the workplace. For some there’s a tendency to go a little informal, thinking of strategy as something like a set of actions or activities that will produce an established and/or agreed-upon goal. And this seems to work well at first when the knowledge strategist is speaking about high-level strategy and as the knowledge strategy development team moves into talking about transitioning strategy as a general concept to the more specific context of knowledge strategy. A good example is the work of Shawn Callahan in Melbourne, Australia. Callahan defines strategy as “a plan to be executed in the future to achieve specific objectives,” providing a description that is particularly viable for the knowledge strategist. He states that strategy should be viewed as a combination of two elements: 1) the actions that are intended to result in anticipated business outcomes; and 2) the actions that emerge as a result of the many complex activities that are undertaken within an organization (Callahan 2016). It’s these actions (particularly the latter type of action) that take us back to Drucker and his advocacy, as we pay particular attention to the role of strategy in helping us deal with that “uncertain tomorrow” he articulates as he described – in the earlier quotation – the purpose and value of strategic planning.

2.4 The knowledge services strategic framework: a recommended strategy

107

With this good understanding of strategy in general, and how strategy is applied in knowledge services, the knowledge strategist is now ready to move forward in building the knowledge services strategic framework, or simply, the knowledge strategy. One of the first challenges needing to be addressed, and hopefully not defensively but simply to convey information, will be to provide an answer to the question: why is the knowledge strategy necessary? The knowledge strategist can reply with five reasons: 1. Organizational success requires an established supportive environment for managing intellectual capital 2. The knowledge domain is the environment in which intellectual capital is managed; the knowledge strategy provides the blueprint/guidelines for its management 3. Understanding the data/information/knowledge/learning background enables collaboration and the application of knowledge for organizational success (“organizational effectiveness”) 4. The knowledge services operational function exists as one critical element of the larger, enterprise-wide organizational structure 5. Highest-level professional support in the knowledge domain creates an environment for innovation, contextual decision-making, strengthened research, and knowledge asset management. Taken all together, these five reasons for describing the essential need for knowledge strategy lead to useful discussion between the knowledge strategist and others in the organization, giving the knowledge strategist the opportunity to lead the conversation back to an elemental rationale: the knowledge services strategic framework – the organization’s knowledge strategy – is all about knowledge and about managing the organization’s knowledge, its intellectual capital. Moving forward with the knowledge strategy initiative, and in doing so in order to attain the highest success in that effort, the knowledge strategist and his team describe the strategy’s twofold purpose: to develop guidelines and to propose or establish a way forward for the knowledge strategist, to enable that senior employee to succeed in managing the organization’s knowledge, and to devise a background and planning document for enterprise leaders hiring knowledge workers (especially knowledge services professionals and other higher-level talent) for addressing the organization’s knowledge sharing challenges. As knowledge workers, the knowledge strategist and his team are working with skills and frameworks that were learned as they were educated (or, in some cases, in on the job strategic learning they were lucky enough to have as part of their work). And they put that education to work for the organizations

108

2 Applied knowledge services

that employ them. In doing so, they bring in the creative element to help them figure out how to deal with, to handle, all the information, knowledge, and strategic learning content that make up the critical essence of the knowledge worker’s workflow. That’s what knowledge services does, and in the development of a knowledge strategy it’s no surprise that in the knowledge strategist’s work it’s in the creativity, planning, processing, and enhancing of organizational knowledge that the knowledge strategist and the knowledge strategy development team move into the realm of organizational behavior. In this discipline, the knowledge strategy development team figures out how collaborative knowledge services applications and practices connect with the relationships that human beings – their colleagues – have with the organizations where they are stakeholders. In doing so, the team can meet the demand for better knowledge sharing in those organizations, in their communities, and in all the other environments where they are responsible for the success of the knowledge sharing. As it turns out, they can get very specific, for the knowledge strategist and the strategy team can look to the science of organizational behavior for guidance as they connect what they are doing with knowledge strategy for the larger organization or enterprise (and in doing so, give a particular focus to their work in collaborative knowledge services) . For them, there are a couple of very specific angles that bring it all together. For one thing, knowledge strategists recognize organizational behavior for what it is. It’s the study of human behavior in the organizational setting, where they study – or attempt to study – the human/organization interface. And that’s exactly what they are trying to do with knowledge services and knowledge strategy, to use their education, their management and leadership skills, and their knowledge services expertise to make knowledge sharing work in the organizational environment. In their job, the knowledge strategist and the strategy development team have no problem connecting organizational behavior and the study of the organization itself. It’s an engaging way of thinking about their work and it brings them back to an ongoing argument many of us deal with, both in our professional lives and, just as frequently, in our personal lives. When we think about management – about “getting something done,” as David Lilienthal defined management many years ago – we’re working with both sides of the coin, with both scientific thinking, logic, order, and process, and with the “softer,” more humanistic side of our lives, pulling ourselves in both directions to come to a meaningful and useful framework for accomplishing what we want to “get done” (Lilienthal 1967).

2.4 The knowledge services strategic framework: a recommended strategy

109

And these kinds of considerations enable knowledge strategists to begin to think more explicitly (and perhaps a little more simply) about their work as a management professional. Knowledge strategists – and their teams, to give the strategist’s associates the credit due to them – are strategic knowledge professionals with three tasks: 1. To implement knowledge strategy, 2. To re-conceptualize, transform, and support new ways of thinking about managing intellectual capital as a corporate or organizational asset, and 3. To lead enterprise-wide knowledge development, knowledge sharing, and knowledge development (KD/KS/KU of course) in order to enable and sustain the organizational knowledge culture. As employees, the work of the knowledge strategist and the knowledge strategy development team is pretty clear-cut. They are expected to design and plan knowledge-related activities and, even more important, to establish policy and to work with enterprise-wide leadership in designing and framing knowledge policy for the organization. In particular, knowledge strategists are expected to give attention to future knowledge-related roles and activities that will affect the success of the organization in the future, down the road a bit, to build the knowledge culture that, as they learn as they go along, is required in all organizations. And if that’s where they are headed – the “strategy-focused” knowledge culture some call it – there are very specific underlying themes to think about as they develop the organization’s knowledge services strategic framework. There are eight of these themes: 1. Identify necessary operational objectives and prepare a statement describing how these objectives are reached in an organization that is built and functions as a knowledge culture. Then match these to the specifics of the present organization and the findings and recommendations of the knowledge services audit and the knowledge strategy being developed. 2. Identify specific projects/initiatives, in priority order, and provide justification for same. 3. Plan for technology implementations for supporting these initiatives. 4. Describe the roles of the knowledge strategist and other strategic knowledge professionals, and the roles of sponsors, advocates, and champions committed to supporting knowledge services. 5. Prepare and review monitoring metrics and design a plan for monitoring not only ongoing performance but a flexible structure that permits “midstream” corrections or even total re-structuring if (when) required.

110

2 Applied knowledge services

6. Prepare a change management plan (or, as it is now referred to, a “change leadership plan” because what we are dealing with has more to do with leadership than management; if we get the leadership perspective right, managing change is not going to be a big deal). 7. Prepare a strategic learning/training plan, because everyone – all of us – needs to be prepared to do things “differently,” and we need to learn what we need to know in order to do things differently. 8. Prepare a communications plan for both internal and external targets, with a commitment to transparency and knowledge sharing. These themes basically serve as a “roadmap” for what the knowledge strategist and the knowledge strategy development team do as they put together a knowledge services strategic framework for the organization, community, or other workplace (or even personal) group they are charged to help. Undertaking this effort, the knowledge strategist becomes recognized as the organization’s manager and leader with respect to knowledge services, a job often referred to as the organization’s “go-to” person with respect to knowledge services, knowledge sharing, and knowledge strategy. And just as often – formally or informally – the strategist becomes the corporate or organizational “knowledge thought leader” because as the management leader in all things relating to the knowledge domain, the knowledge strategist has the authority, responsibility, and, yes, the accountability for knowledge sharing. The knowledge strategist understands the big picture, in terms of knowledge services, and plays an influential role in the management and success of KD/KS/KU for the organization or group of people with a commonly agreed-upon goal or activity.

The knowledge strategy – presenting the report It is the knowledge strategist’s job to develop the organization’s knowledge strategy and then work with colleagues – fellow knowledge workers in the knowledge-focused business unit or research department under the knowledge strategist’s supervision – in implementing that strategy. At the same time, these immediate co-workers (or some of them), and interested or appointed colleagues from different parts of the larger organization, will join together to work with the knowledge strategist as the organization’s knowledge strategy development team (or “working group,” “planning group,” or whatever phraseology is used in the organization for groups performing such activities), as described above. It is now appropriate to address the results of the many management and leadership (and service-delivery) activities that have come

2.4 The knowledge services strategic framework: a recommended strategy

111

before and to give attention to how the knowledge strategist and the knowledge strategy development team present their recommendations, their results, and their “product” to the organization. To keep it simple, this “road map” or “blueprint” will be structured in this example as the preparation of a written document describing the knowledge strategy, but the form for the delivery of the content will match that which is most effective and generally preferred within the organization. As such, this text – as the primary awareness-raising content for describing the knowledge strategy – will be adjusted to match the desired medium of choice for describing the knowledge strategy, whether that medium is a presentation, an open discussion (formal or informal), or an announcement from senior management with the knowledge strategist at hand to respond to listeners as the plan is presented to them. Taking this action is what the knowledge strategist has been working toward, for it is now the knowledge strategist’s purpose to put recommendations before the organization’s leaders, colleagues, other employees, and anyone else affiliated with the knowledge sharing function at the organization. To begin, this activity is made up of three important steps that might be considered the “basics” of knowledge strategy development: 1. The knowledge strategist describes, understands, and analyzes the company or organization’s knowledge environment (most often through the performance of the knowledge services audit or a similarly structured tool), 2. The knowledge strategist develops a knowledge strategy based on the findings of the knowledge services audit (many knowledge leaders consider this the key task for the knowledge strategist), and 3. The knowledge strategist leads the execution of the strategic recommendations that have been developed and recommended for implementation. Having thought about those three steps and reviewed the kind of documentation undertaken in similar situations, at this point the knowledge strategist’s immediate task is pretty simple, just to give thought and attention to what will be captured in the document (or presentation), in order to convey what he and the knowledge strategy development team are trying to do as they build the strategic framework for knowledge sharing for the larger enterprise. Of course the strategy document will go through a few drafts as the knowledge strategist and the team prepare it, but if they are careful, and have been listening and are aware of what the organization’s management and executive leadership are expecting from the strategy development team as they have been working on the assignment to develop a knowledge strategy, they will know what content to provide. For a knowledge strategy, documentation is likely to incorporate the following “usual” elements: an executive summary, an

112

2 Applied knowledge services

introduction, a description of the knowledge services audit’s findings and preliminary recommendations, and an action plan (even, if appropriate, including such specifics as resource requirements, a timeline, and the assignment of certain authority and responsibility descriptions). There might be other sections or topics included, depending on the requirements of the organization in question. And all of these – whether it is what is described here or other elements that have come forward in the study – will be drafted and finally end up with unique component parts (they might be called) that reflect the specific context of the enterprise at large. Executive Summary. Of course, the document begins with an Introduction or Executive Summary, now established as a necessary part of any document provided to others in the workplace (especially others with responsibility, authority, and accountability for the parts of the organization for which they provide oversight). And for many knowledge strategists, it’s in the Executive Summary that the document starts with and incorporates Simon Sinek’s often-referred to and now famous “golden circle,” giving brief attention to his reference to any work or action in which we establish why this knowledge strategy is being put forward. Thus, the main thrust of what is offered in the Executive Summary has to do with identifying the purpose of the knowledge strategy – it’s where the presentation presents the “why.” For example, is there a specific (or even a general) knowledge sharing need or issue that must be looked at, or a move toward an innovation or new process or way of “doing things” that requires a higher level of attention to knowledge sharing? This is the kind of information that will be included in the strategy deliverable. At the same time, as the knowledge strategist and the colleagues on the team “fill in” the contents of the Executive Summary, they make reference to the background for the strategy, and provide a very brief summary of the findings, preliminary conclusions, and preliminary recommendations that were established as they conducted the knowledge services audit. The Executive Summary continues with a brief statement of the goals and objectives being put forward in the strategy and concludes with a succinct précis of the plan that will be more fully spelled out in the main part of the strategy document. At this point in the Executive Summary, this section of the plan is presented as an immediate overview, with the knowledge strategy and the strategy development team careful to include here an overview specific to (but not in great detail) stated objectives and recommended actions, implementation responsibility (who owns the process?), a timeline, and some reference – probably simple estimates at this point – to resource requirements.

2.4 The knowledge services strategic framework: a recommended strategy

113

Introduction. This opening to the formal body of the knowledge strategy document has two parts, to describe the project objective for seeking to establish an enterprise-wide strategy and the knowledge strategist and the knowledge strategy development team’s description of knowledge services and its connection with knowledge strategy. It’s in this section that their expertise comes into play (and their advice, if they are not directly employed in the organization’s knowledge domain or knowledge management or other knowledge sharing-related business unit). Knowledge services is defined here, and the connection that management, leadership, and knowledge services principles share is explained and illustrated for those reading the document. And in preparing the document, the team remembers – without being condescending or patronizing – that the people who will be reading the strategy are not knowledge services specialists, knowledge sharing experts, or knowledge strategists. The expertise of the team must be conveyed in language that works for (and fits) the language of those who will be reading the strategy document and use it in the workplace. The Knowledge Services Audit. Whether referred to by this commonly accepted term, or with other descriptions (such as the information services audit, a needs assessment, a service-delivery evaluation, an opportunity assessment, an appreciative inquiry, or with some other descriptor appropriate to the particular organization and used by its stakeholders), the knowledge services audit is the critical element of the knowledge strategy that establishes the background for the study. Its findings represent a statement that most likely builds on the Sinek structure described earlier (“why?” before “what?” and “how?”) and it’s a statement that matches those findings to the organization’s vision, mission, and values descriptions in order to connect the overall value of knowledge sharing excellence with the “bigger” enterprise effort. For most of us, the expert we turn to for guidance with the knowledge services audit is Susan Henczel, in her valuable books and journal articles on the audit process and how it is applied to information management, knowledge management, and strategic learning. With Henczel’s work, it all comes together to make clear to anyone reading the knowledge strategy document the critical importance and value of high-end knowledge services and knowledge sharing to the overall success of the organization in achieving its stated goals. The results of the knowledge services audit provide, in more than one way, the context that supports the move to the development of an enterprise-wide knowledge strategy. A first finding from the audit is a very specific description of the role of knowledge and the “place” that knowledge sharing holds in the organization: how knowledge is valued, where there are gaps and limitations in knowledge sharing, where there are costs and damage as the result of

114

2 Applied knowledge services

uncontrolled knowledge loss, or (putting a positive spin on the audit’s findings) the benefits realized in one or another business unit of the organization in which knowledge services and knowledge sharing contribute successfully to that department’s success. And, being more specific, how the components of those knowledge sharing successes can be replicated in other business units or, ideally, enterprise-wide. Action Plan. The purpose of the knowledge strategy document’s conclusion is to provide specific, step by step direction for moving forward with knowledge strategy in the organization. Most knowledge strategists agree that enterprise success with knowledge strategy development results when four actions are identified and implemented: 1. Build the leadership team. At the risk of being obvious, the successful transformation of the enterprise into the desired and proposed knowledge culture will depend entirely on the commitment and enthusiasm of enterprise-wide leadership, and some members of which will work with (or closely relate to) the organization’s knowledge strategy development team. The latter group will include both some members from senior management and from the organization’s knowledge professionals (under the authority of the knowledge strategist). Together, all will share responsibility, ownership, and accountability for the success of knowledge sharing across the organization. 2. Establish an organizational knowledge culture. The successful modern organization is, by definition, knowledge-centric, and research management must be of the highest quality, to ensure that outcomes of any research are as good as they can be. The key to success in research management in any enterprise is a strong organizational foundation in knowledge services, providing the theoretical, intellectual, and philosophical foundation for the organization’s enterprise-wide research efforts. To serve the organization best requires a corporate culture that encourages and, indeed, requires what might be referred to as a “knowledge culture,” an ambiance or environment in which knowledge development and knowledge sharing provide the standard, operational framework. For ease in description, we can think of the knowledge culture as a culture in which the environment for the management of research in the organization – and, indeed, all knowledge sharing – embodies the highest objectives of knowledge management, organizational learning and organizational teaching. It is a sharing culture, one that builds on the assumption that all organizational stakeholders accept their responsibility to develop and to share tacit, explicit, and cultural knowledge within the enterprise, for the benefit of the larger organizational enterprise.

2.4 The knowledge services strategic framework: a recommended strategy

115

3.

Emphasize change management and change leadership. To move forward with the recommendations of the knowledge services audit, sponsors, champions and change agents, departmental or business unit staff working as knowledge services focal points, and other interested and involved organizational stakeholders will all be participating in the effort. They will all be required to recognize and understand the critical importance of dealing with change as the enterprise moves forward toward its new purpose as a knowledge culture, and organizational change will be part of the move in that direction. 4. Build a knowledge-centric strategic learning framework. Providing opportunities for employees to perform at their best is a fundamental rule of successful operational management. In addition to providing staff with the skills, competencies, knowledge, behaviors, and other outcomes for performance excellence, strategic, performance-centered learning recognizes the staff contribution to the successful achievement of the organizational mission. It is through learning (and, concurrently, through teaching in which knowledge workers share what they learn with other workers) that performance in the collaborative, team-based organizational structure is achieved at its highest levels. Performance-centered, strategic learning not only provides concrete information that enterprise employees require; strategic learning also offers a sense of sharing and community invaluable in any teambased or collaborative environment. And just as virtualization and consultation services act as a silent marketing tool for enhancing the role of knowledge services in the organization, so too does a well-organized and executed strategic, performance-centered training and learning program.

Other voices: Anne Kershaw on the knowledge services strategy framework Anne Kershaw is the Owner and Managing Director, Reasonable Discovery, LLC, and Lecturer in the M.S. in Information and Knowledge Strategy program at Columbia University in the City of New York. Ah yes, the “why” question: Why do we need knowledge services? And why do we need a knowledge strategist to make our knowledge services “roll”? And even more important, why do we need a knowledge services strategy? Must we have some form of knowledge strategy in place if knowledge services is going to succeed? Guy St. Clair and Barrie Levy will answer “yes,” telling you that your organization needs knowledge services supporting knowledge sharing. Why? Because

116

2 Applied knowledge services

knowledge sharing – made better, faster, and an accepted practice through knowledge services – will make everyone a valuable contributor to your organization, will make everyone smarter, and will make everyone more valuable – all of which creates a better organization, whatever its goals may be. And I want to voice another important benefit for organizations that have knowledge strategists, the very leaders and managers who enable the organization’s knowledge services to create a knowledge culture. Simply stated: it’s avoiding or resolving litigation. And, as you can see from the example below, a casual or informal approach to knowledge sharing won’t work, and – worst case scenario – without a knowledge services strategic framework, a casual system for managing knowledge services can create bottlenecks and much wrangling over issues for which established solutions (if available) can and should be applied. As many readers likely know, a lawsuit can be an enormous drain on an organization, in terms of money, lost time, reputational damage, and internal discord (to name just a few of the results that come from a lawsuit). For those unfamiliar with the working of the law, a lawsuit against an organization, especially a lawsuit that is utterly void of merit, is a terrible thing. In the past, a lawyer would never have filed false pleadings in a court of law – we lawyers take an oath pledging never to do so – but these days the oath seems forgotten, with lawyers (and their clients) using our precious system of justice as, sadly, a means for extortion. How does this happen, you ask? Here’s the answer: once a Complaint or Petition is filed in a court of law, the target of that Complaint, the “Defendant” (your organization, for example) is forced to hire lawyers to defend the Complaint, regardless of its lack of truthfulness. Lawyers are very expensive and it quickly becomes apparent that the Defendant, your organization, is presented with a “Hobson’s choice”: either pay money to the Plaintiff extortionists or pay money to the lawyers, with no guarantee that you will prevail no matter how closely you are aligned with the side of the angels. One very important reason why the lawyers you hire to defend you are expensive is that, in order to best defend you, they need knowledge, and it is extraordinarily difficult to obtain reliable knowledge from organizations that have not embraced knowledge services as a management methodology, do not engage in knowledge sharing as an established organizational principle, or have not developed collective knowledge (otherwise known as a “knowledge culture”) . And the rub? That’s easy. Lawyers bill by the hour and the more time it takes to get the knowledge they need, the more expensive it is to defend the litigation and the more likely it is that your organization will pay money just to “make it go away,” which only encourages more extortion-by-litigation behaviors. And here is how the situation plays out when an organization does not have collective

2.4 The knowledge services strategic framework: a recommended strategy

117

knowledge: the lawyer meets with an executive or an in-house lawyer to find out what happened, what people know or don’t know, and who knows what. Let’s say our organization manufactures and sells cars, and the lawsuit alleges that the sunroofs in the cars are defective and explode. The lawyers meet with the executives and in-house lawyers and when asked about the process for examining complaints about sunroofs, or testing sunroofs, they deny liability, saying that the sunroofs are shattering because of “outside incidents,” i.e. rocks or trees falling on the cars. The case proceeds with the company spending hundreds of thousands of dollars filing an Answer, a Motion to Dismiss, and engaging in the process of discovery – that part of a litigation in which each side produces relevant documents, and people to be questioned, deposed, as to what they know about shattering sunroofs. In this case, it happens that – unbeknownst to the lawyers and executives working at the car company – the company uses a sophisticated database system for tracking and investigating customer claims and complaints, and further, that this system identifies and flags “trends,” so that if there is a series of related complaints, an engineer working in the home office or headquarters of the company is alerted, triggering an investigation of the ”trend” so that the company can determine whether or not the trend indicates an issue that needs to be addressed through modifications or further testing of the product. And what’s the problem that comes up at this point? Because of the absence of a knowledge culture, the lawyers didn’t learn about this sophisticated database system for identifying complaint trends until after hundreds of thousands of dollars had been spent filing pleadings, researching legal issues, preparing chronologies, reviewing documents, and preparing for depositions. While they will certainly now attempt to use this information to convince the Plaintiffs that they have no case, the Plaintiffs have now invested financially and emotionally in the case, and “walking them off the cliff” is going to be difficult, if not impossible. Imagine now our same car manufacturing organization with collective knowledge, a knowledge culture, together with someone who can guide the lawyers through the various knowledge repositories and introduce them to the people who understand, use, and share these repositories. First, because the lawyers within our organization have shared with the engineers and others in this business their knowledge about extortion-by-litigation practices, the engineers who use our trend-identifying database know that, in addition to dealing with the shattered sunroof claims, they need to alert the lawyers before the lawsuit is filed. This will allow the in-house lawyers to be armed with knowledge that may allow them to convince the lawyers threatening claims that their claims have no basis. This, in and of itself, translates into a huge win for our car manufacturer, since there are now no “60 Minutes” interviews, no lawyers, no

118

2 Applied knowledge services

damage to our organization’s reputation. If the claims nonetheless roll into a lawsuit, now – because the engineers had previously shared with the executives and in-house lawyers the particulars of the trends-identifying database – when the lawyers hired to defend the lawsuit show up to interview the executives and in-house lawyers, instead of hearing only “there is no liability,” will learn – in their first meeting – that the Plaintiffs’ claims have no basis. Why is this important and what’s the take-way here? Because the story makes it clear that instead of incurring massive legal fees, the lawyers for our car company can push for speedy resolution, avoiding the substantial costs involved in proceeding with the litigation. Naturally, an organization with collective knowledge – our much talked-about knowledge culture – also has an enormous advantage in the event it needs to file a suit. Simply put, the more efficiently and effectively the organization can transfer its collective knowledge to the lawyers, the better the outcome – for all parties involved.

The knowledge services strategic framework: checklist of considerations □

□

□

□

□

□

□

Determine the intended scope of the proposed knowledge strategy. Are you thinking about developing a knowledge culture for the entire organization, for a single individual functional unit (such as the unit or department with current knowledge services management and delivery responsibility), or for a group of parallel business units that focus on information management, knowledge management, and/or strategic learning? Meet with management to discuss how the development of a strategy for building a knowledge culture might be perceived in the context of other management and service delivery applications in the larger enterprise. Identify other innovative strategies that have been formulated and implemented. Review how these innovations were received and determine if there are lessons to be learned from past implementations (or lack of success if some innovations were not implemented). Establish if there is potential for synergies and combining resources with other functional units, especially units with parallel or similar functions as you consider developing a knowledge strategy. Determine if the people-process-technology-strategic alignment-content approach to knowledge services has been effectively established in the organization. Find an example in a business unit which can be replicated in the development of an enterprisewide knowledge strategy. Discuss with colleagues the concept of the organization as a knowledge culture. Do they agree that it is an appropriate goal for the organization? Or is the organization already a knowledge culture? How so? Describe the knowledge services skills required of knowledge strategists in the organization. Make sure those skills are understood by the people the knowledge strategists report to and by their own direct reports.

2.5 Knowledge services in context: ECM and knowledge asset management

□ □ □ □

119

Review the current job description for the knowledge strategists and for their direct reports. Are all employees empowered to contribute their best work? If not, why not? Are there innovation leaders known to the knowledge strategist who can bring fresh “out of the box” thinking to the strategy planning process? Find examples of how knowledge services and the development and implementation of an organizational knowledge strategy bring value to the organization. Identify the central value proposition for preparing a strategy for building and, when built, for sustaining a knowledge culture for the organization. Complete this sentence: Preparing a strategy for structuring the larger organization as a knowledge culture will…

The knowledge services strategic framework: discussion questions 1.

2.

3.

Discuss with colleagues (at different position levels) how they think about strategy as a management concept for their work. Is strategy development a part of their workplace environment or do they simply “do the job?” How would you describe the organization’s readiness for change? How has the organization responded to change management and change implementation in the past? Were these perceived as positive or negative experiences? You have established the critical value of change management and strategic learning in preparing the knowledge strategy. How do you incorporate the technological needs into these two important elements of the strategic plan?

2.5 Knowledge services in context: ECM and knowledge asset management There is a distinct connection between the management and leadership duties of the knowledge strategist and knowledge asset management. The connection begins with the knowledge strategist’s understanding of the importance of well-planned enterprise content management (ECM) and then builds on the knowledge strategist’s skills and capabilities, namely, the aptitudes and professional requirements for the establishment and implementation of the enterprise-wide knowledge strategy. With those carefully arranged, the knowledge strategist moves on to define the steps required for the successful exploitation of the organization’s knowledge assets. We already know that the effective implementation of the knowledge strategy and the achievement of desired results will build on how knowledge assets are acquired, shared, used, and – when necessary – maintained until they are no longer needed, after which they will be outsourced, updated, or discarded.

120

2 Applied knowledge services

Since knowledge services and the desire for a knowledge-centric culture provide the impetus and drive, and IT helps enable the technology, the question then becomes one of addressing how the knowledge strategist and enterprise leadership actually put these disciplines to work. The answer for many organizations is Enterprise Content Management. For some organizations, knowledge asset management (KAM) has come to be recognized as an extension of ECM (using the new term for consistency). After some evolution over the past ten years, it is now generally agreed that ECM/KAM is applicable to a wide range of knowledge services issues and opportunities within nearly every type of enterprise. If knowledge services can be considered “putting KM to work” then ECM/KAM can be considered “putting knowledge services to work,” placing tools and processes in the hands of knowledge workers to enable them to effectively manage information and knowledge (i.e. content), and, as knowledge asset management is integrated into the management process, strategic learning as well. Just as it is important to understand the concepts of knowledge services in order to develop a strategic framework in support of an organizational knowledge strategy, it is equally essential that we understand the IT constructs of planning and implementation as they relate to successful KAM, noting that in the knowledge-centric enterprise, understanding ECM provides a critical link between the organization’s strategy and its implementation through tools used on a day-to-day basis by individual participants. Knowledge strategists and their colleagues in the organization long ago defined Enterprise Content Management as an amalgamation of business strategies, processes, and tools that comprise a number of IT solutions within knowledge services. In organizations, the goal of ECM is quite simple, the life cycle management of all structured and unstructured content across all organizational elements of the enterprise. Knowledge strategists believe that the content being discussed within the organization is intended to be shared. Since content (be it data, information, or knowledge) can only provide value when it is actually shared and used, the ideal and proposed scope of ECM is as wide as possible, hopefully including the entire organization and occasionally even beyond the traditional boundaries associated with the organization (as with external affiliates, suppliers, non-executive managers, et al.). Content is traditionally divided into two types: “structured” and “unstructured.” In seeking to define the two, the easiest route is simply to describe how they contrast. Structured content is generally accepted to be information that can be classified, arriving at a defined taxonomy or, better yet, an ontology. If a digital piece of data, this is enabled using metadata, by tagging or classifying the data elements with hashtags, keywords etc. Its purpose is to ensure that the content

2.5 Knowledge services in context: ECM and knowledge asset management

121

can be searched and reused. Unstructured content is the opposite; it is content that has not been classified and is not built on the organization’s formal content standards. Such a classification includes data or information that is not curated and therefore not formatted, and thus can be rendered useless or not findable to a knowledge worker unfamiliar with the data set. Unstructured content can be just about anything, from an image or a handwritten document to a personal list of items that the single owner wants organized in some manner. Designing a database for developing and capturing metadata for these unstructured content elements moves the designation of the content from unstructured to structured. Content services as a practical management and service-delivery methodology has well known applications and benefits, and the company’s knowledge services strategy requires that the elements of the knowledge services construct be incorporated into ECM. These include a wide range of such elements, such as the many documents, policies, procedures, and other materials generated and intended for internal use, often including content related to document management, intranet, and website content management. It is this management of institutional content that most closely appropriates the second of the three component elements of knowledge services – knowledge management – and thus fits naturally into the knowledge services construct. ECM /KAM begins with the recognition that knowledge assets are in place, even if these assets are not clearly identified or ideally categorized. The next step, focusing on enterprise leadership’s responsibility to reduce costs and generate income, is to conduct a knowledge services audit, an activity (as discussed earlier) that leads to planning for an enhanced knowledge strategy for the larger enterprise and for directing the organization toward the development and continuation of a sustained knowledge culture. Built into the process is a final step, although it is one that in no way is expected to culminate or conclude and it will, in fact, lead to ongoing and regularly scheduled governance. This is the move – following agreement on the recommendations of the strategic plan – toward implementing the recommendations and, if required, restructuring and the establishment of change management procedures. The entire implementation pursuit is based on the understanding that – with both ECM and KAM – the work recognizes the two types of knowledge identified by Kenneth J. Hatten and Stephen R. Rosenthal: – knowledge required by employees, knowledge workers, and other stakeholders for strengthening performance when organizational objectives are known, acknowledged, and pursued, and – knowledge for helping innovative enterprise stakeholders define new objectives and the strategies to pursue them (Hatten and Rosenthal 2001).

122

2 Applied knowledge services

Information Management

Knowledge Management

Practitioners: Strategic Knowledge Professional Knowledge Facilitator / Consultant Knowledge Thought Leader Knowledge Strategist

Strategic Learning

Results: Strengthened Research Approaches: From: Reactive to Proactive To: Interactive and Integrated

Contextual Decision-Making Successful Knowledge Asset Management Accelerated Innovation

Fig. 2.4: Knowledge Services in Context.

Once the audit is concluded, the knowledge asset management process moves forward, with the knowledge services management team planning enterprise knowledge strategy (or revising or enhancing a strategy already in place). Then it is up to the knowledge strategist to adapt the techniques applied in the larger management environment to the management of knowledge services. The knowledge strategist, already well versed in strategic planning, can link that expertise usefully with the best definition of knowledge strategy, that of Michael F. Zack. Zack describes knowledge strategy as an organizational business strategy that incorporates attention to intellectual resources and capabilities, emphasizing the critical connection between the organizational knowledge strategy and the organizational business strategy. Indeed, that connection must not be minimized, and particularly in terms of ECM/ KAM the relationship between knowledge and business success (however defined) must be recognized. At its most fundamental level – with respect to planning knowledge strategy for the larger enterprise – strategy planning focuses on content and the KD/KS/KU process, a planning effort involving consultation, negotiation, and analysis which is then used to support strategic decision-making. Thus, the plan itself is not necessarily the primary objective in developing knowledge strategy, especially if the planning focus does not veer away from

2.5 Knowledge services in context: ECM and knowledge asset management

123

mission-specific content and KD/KS/KU. As with all strategic planning, the goal is to use collaboration and sharing techniques to enable colleagues to come together to focus on how the enterprise, as a knowledge-centric organization, can develop a knowledge culture (or strengthen a knowledge culture that is in place). The goal is to identify and implement tools, techniques, and processes for ensuring that the organization is positioned to take best advantage of its knowledge assets for the benefit of the larger enterprise. The strength of the process is that strategic planning brings together the best planning minds in the organization, detailing them to focus on the future and how the enterprise can be expected – using its knowledge assets – to function in that future. Finally, the effort moves into change management and change leadership, again a recognized methodology in the larger management community and one regularly appropriated in the management of knowledge services. Having developed an audit “package” listing collections and repositories of the organization’s information and knowledge content (and in as much detail possible), and with the knowledge strategy in hand, recommendations for KAM can be implemented. Responsibility for this activity is usually assigned to a senior-level information or knowledge services professional – a knowledge services director, perhaps, or a CIO or CKO – who then puts together a knowledge strategy implementation team. Whether attempting to organize a full-scale enterprise-wide knowledge services methodology or simply to focus on carefully chosen elements of a strategy, the focus again will be on knowledge content and on establishing the highest levels of service delivery through an organizational and boundaryless KD/KS/KU process. With a thorough understanding of the overall organizational culture, and of how stakeholders are likely to react to the changes for a new or enhanced knowledge strategy, the team moves forward to manage and implement a change framework that best serves the needs of the organization and matches its business goals. To reach this stage in the development of the enterprise-wide knowledge strategy, the knowledge strategist will be required to develop a strategic framework for ECM/KAM. If knowledge specialists expect to enhance (or create) a corporate culture supporting KD/KS/KU for the larger enterprise, their role requires them to build ECM/KAM into an organizational knowledge culture, an essential step in the achievement of the organizational mission. KD/KS/KU succeeds when all people affiliated with the parent organizations or workplace are able to find, create, and share the information, knowledge, and strategic learning required for their work. To do that, an enterprisewide tool or collection of tools, behaviors, and other vehicles for KD/KS/KU is critical. And with that statement there is an obvious caveat: even if a content services application is utilized only locally, the concept of ECM/KAM as a

124

2 Applied knowledge services

universal goal strongly affects the organization’s success, thus creating a motivation for planning a strategic framework for content services in the knowledge services context. This is a seemingly obvious note, but one that in execution is tougher than it seems. Nav Chakravarti, in 2008, identified the fact that “daily life depends on granular snippets of knowledge” and content management (CM) is generally designed to manage information that is typically not granular in nature. He also notes that “people don’t and won’t take the time to document what they know.” In order to capture such tacit information, Chakravarti asserts, knowledge capture must be easy, and it must be done as part of the work process and “not as a separate document or content publishing task that an employee might engage in one day.” Additionally, Chakravarti’s description recognizes that the most important difference between ECM and KAM has to do with measurement. Chakravarti offers these core elements to measure: Capture effectiveness. Tracking contributions of authors, and the value of those contributions for rewards and recognition, is critical, so that authors have an incentive to divulge the tacit knowledge in their heads and take the time and effort to document it. This also helps discourage information hoarding since, in the old model, information is power. Given that there is now more widespread authorship, it becomes critical to distinguish the more expert authors from the beginners. This is especially true in self-publishing environments such as blogs and forums. Route efficiencies. In the route process it is necessary to measure time in the workflow process and identify approval bottlenecks. Given that knowledge has a shelf life, it also becomes critical to measure the speed of knowledge updates and ensure timely flow. Conversion success. In the conversion process, the whole objective is to drive users to the best solution for their needs. This is only possible by providing ways to capture feedback from users and customers, such as ratings and comments, discussion on content, or surveys. Further, document ratings need to be captured, and automated review tasks need to be initiated for documents receiving poor ratings. (Chakravarti 2008)

With Chakravarti’s guidance at hand, the question for managers seeking to develop a strategic framework for ECM/KAM becomes one of making it easy for the user to find the required information, knowledge, or strategic learning content, and to differentiate “content-driven websites from conversion-focused, knowledge-based Web applications.” Certainly, the subject of how well content is managed is being given attention. Mary Lee Kennedy and Angela Abell write about the changing roles of the information professional and give very strong advice about how those roles can drive the knowledge services process. They note that there are challenges, including the “major” challenge of managing growing volumes of content. “As more decentralized behavior emerges on intranets,” Kennedy and Abell write, “infrastructure (i.e. team spaces and project collaboration spaces) and

2.5 Knowledge services in context: ECM and knowledge asset management

125

the amount of duplication and redundant content will grow exponentially.” (Kennedy and Abell 2008) This thought still holds true and it is why proper approval workflows, governance, and oversight are required. Kennedy and Abell suggest that avoiding these pitfalls is going to be difficult, and solutions, including KAM, will necessarily be “largely driven by a perceived recognition of their immediate value.” They agree that there will continue to be much attention to technology solutions that demonstrate the practices and outputs of knowledge workers. It is here, it seems, that the influential role of the organization’s knowledge strategists, knowledge workers, and strategic knowledge professionals, both in the knowledge services unit and in all sections of the organization, must be brought into play, for “the biggest challenges” are going to continue to be the same challenges information professionals have long dealt with “for as long as there have been networked information processes,” recognizing that: – knowledge workers won’t use these processes because they simply do not help them do their jobs – early adoption is by information professionals who may taint adoption through their own bias – managers will not support knowledge workers in providing the time or motivation to use them – interfaces are cumbersome and disconnected – the intranet platform may not lead to the behavior management wants The roles and various duties and responsibilities of the knowledge strategist thus relate to an important enterprise-wide function which establishes a valuable relationship in the development of a strategic framework for ECM. And while we would assume with some optimism that the picture they painted in 2008 has improved as new technologies and applications have been developed and come to market, Kennedy and Abell were still wise to recommend six “clusters of responsibilities” for knowledge strategists, each with an important function in ECM/KAM, and establishing work that needs to be done. Kennedy and Abell’s clusters are: – information and knowledge strategy – enterprise information architecture – information governance – content creation and acquisition – communication and publication – information exploitation and use It quickly becomes clear that the important theme that companies and organizations must focus on is business needs as the ECM/KAM strategic framework

126

2 Applied knowledge services

moves forward. And KD/KS/KU succeeds when all people affiliated with the parent organizations or workplace are able to find, create, and share the information, knowledge, and strategic learning required for their work. To do that, an enterprise-wide tool or collection of tools, behaviors, and other vehicles for KD/ KS/KU is critical, despite the fact that with that statement there is an obvious caveat: even if a content services application is utilized only locally, the concept of content services/knowledge asset management as a universal goal strongly affects the organization’s success. How we handle intellectual capital and how we think about dealing with knowledge are both critical in our success in our organizations. ECM/KAM has moved from a “need for a repository” to a truly higher-level requirement, that the company’s information must be captured, codified, and most importantly be kept up to date and findable. This is the big distinction between traditional ECM and KAM. Like our differentiators between KM and Knowledge Services, KAM emphasizes that there is more to content management then having it centrally archived. It encompasses the governance and feedback loops required to ensure that all enterprise parties take an active role in its maintenance. Managers and leaders have made it clear that they want a “service.” They want a service that will support and build upon all facets of the people-process-technology-content managementstrategic alignment formulation holistically.

Other voices: Ben Royce on knowledge services in context Ben Royces is Head of Performance Data Science, Global Agency at Google, New York, and Lecturer in Applied Analytics at Columbia University in the City of New York. He is a graduate of Columbia’s School of Professional Services M.S. in Information and Knowledge Strategy program. In the lightning fast world of internet software, the main bedrock of our value comes from extracting knowledge from data. These are not separate concepts. Data can be distilled to information, and information can be distilled into knowledge. Each step requires a new transformational ingredient. This means there needs to be support for all kinds of sharing, from data, to information, to knowledge. Collecting data is easy. The hard part is making it transformable into other kinds of value. When data is not collected properly, is messy, or poorly structured, it may not make the conversion to information easily or at all. For example, much of my time is spent analyzing billions of impressions on advertising or video content on YouTube. This data in its initial form is massive, and prone

2.5 Knowledge services in context: ECM and knowledge asset management

127

to problems. So we spend a ton of resources cleaning it up and structuring it for analysis. The end goal is a beautiful, informative dashboard, but when data engineering is not taken seriously, even the biggest of datasets is utterly useless when populated with junk data. The transformation to knowledge requires a clean input, and more importantly, organizational context. And that is always in short supply, it seems. Sometimes it is in the name of productivity, or sometimes more cryptically People Success, but that often becomes about project management and less about the main source of value: Knowledge. High-performing organizations treat knowledge like capital: It is constantly protected, measured, and valued. In software, it starts by flattening the world of organizational knowledge. In order to facilitate more knowledge sharing, we must start at the raw materials level. At most startups, and at Google, I constantly see open access to all forms of data as a standard for all full-time employees. This is why some of the most knowledgeable firms are often seen as quite secretive. I argue that they are insular because of the flat nature of access to data. If a person is worth hiring, they are worthy of access. This often jars executives and legal types from more traditional firms, but there are critical reasons for open access: – Peer verification: One analysis by one analyst is a perspective or a viewpoint. The more complex the data a firm collects, the more simultaneous viewpoints there can be on any data set. That means that fellow employees with a vested interest in a particular dataset need to be able to verify each other’s work in the distillation of data into knowledge. – Discovery of new knowledge in old data: In any organization there is a wide-ranging level of data literacy and technical skill; we can almost always extract new knowledge from existing data by trying new techniques and even new ways of visualizing data. When old data is repackaged, or visualized better, net new knowledge can be created. Sort of like upcycling an old bike into a wall piece, familiar data in organizations can be reworked for new use cases. Once knowledge workers have access to the raw material of which knowledge is distilled, we make the communication and distribution of this knowledge easier with: – Freedom to express knowledge as they choose: Everyone has a preferred medium to share their knowledge. Some like email lists, meetings, videos, or presentations. In a perfect world, we would write the perfect email, share it to all the right lists, have a read-at-home ready slide deck, and have a video of us presenting it for even more context. Maybe for your most

128

2 Applied knowledge services

important pieces this is feasible but for all the complex thought in each knowledge worker, that is a lot of work. If you have a centralized knowledge repository, it is why it is critical to make sure it can handle all forms of employee produced knowledge. – Repetition is problematic, distribution is the key: I learned this theory from NPR called C.O.P.E. or Create Once Publish Everywhere. If it is a top down message, it should be emailed, printed on walls and stalls, on digital displays around the office and promoted in homescreens to get the word out. For the average knowledge worker this is likely not an option. But open access to everyone and transparency in what and when communications will be is part of the prevention of silos. Even in highly digital organizations, simple things like posters in bathroom stalls1 are effective at information dissemination. The final piece is to use human capital to find the insights about who has knowledge. – The natural evolution of knowledge management is distributed: Once an organization is generally sharing, retaining, and generating new knowledge, the optimal situation is a decentralization of knowledge. This is alarming for many knowledge practitioners but is likely the end state of a highly knowledge enabled organization. Just like other relatively new capabilities like data analytics or IT, these started as centers of excellence or a centrally grown capability because it was early days and tight management was needed to prove its value. As firms take knowledge management more seriously, a successful program is likely more enablement at scale, than central control. – A simple survey goes a long way: Why not have a map of who is leading knowledge in a certain area? Just ask your employees in a survey: Who do you go to for knowledge on X? X being whichever topic you’d like map, e.g. project management. If you really want to take it to the next level, ask the employee how they rate themselves from 1–10 on that skill, then ask them who they go to knowledge for. – Chart out the results: On the y axis, chart out the self score for each employee. On the x axis, chart out the median or mean peer score. In the top left hand corner you will find employees who have an inflated sense of knowledge on a topic, meaning one of two things: 1) They are experts, who aren’t sharing expertise or 2) They are the product of the Kruger Dunning

1 see https://www.seroundtable.com/photos/google-learning-on-the-loo-26983.html.

2.5 Knowledge services in context: ECM and knowledge asset management

129

effect, a psychological phenomenon whereby those with inferior knowledge consistently rate themselves above average. – Use graph theory to find the real experts: Graph theory is one of the most underutilized data processing theories in modern history. Understanding the relationships between multiple entities (like employees) is critical to modern business and the fact that we do not teach this to our students as a standard is a near crime. When you have a network graph of everyone’s preferred source of information, you uncover the hidden power of knowledge and social networks together. – Incentivize knowledge loss prevention: Whether it is stock, performance bonuses, or requirements for promotion, knowledge capture and retention should be incentivized in a very literal way. Your knowledge survey will surface experts, helping you determine if they getting recognition or promotions at the proportional rate that experts of value should? In the twentieth century we learned that productivity came from sustainable working environments. In the twenty first century, we need to realize that incentivization and detailed measurement will bring in the next wave of productivity in the knowledge worker economy. Continuously working to make sure employees have access to the raw ingredients of knowledge creation, setting up systems to enable that transformation, and accurately (and fairly) measuring knowledge transfers are the evolution of high performing organizations. The organizations that take this more seriously will be the top performers, and luckily, knowledge is a renewable resource, so the upside is nearly infinite. Knowledge services in context: ECM and knowledge asset management: checklist of considerations □

□ □

□ □ □

Take the time to understand the IT constructs of your organization. Know who you might need to lean on to help you implement digital tools as you pursue the knowledge services/knowledge strategy framework. Incorporate ECM/KAM into your organization’s knowledge strategy and strategic learning initiatives; it should not be thought of as a secondary or additional process. Ensure you plan the full life cycle management of knowledge assets and recognize that capture is only one step. On the same note, make sure the governance policy is known and accessible. Connect metrics to asset usage, which will confirm their value and life cycle. Determine what unstructured content needs to be codified. Make sure the organization’s codification is flexible enough to adapt to new needs and inputs as they arise.

130

□ □

2 Applied knowledge services

Importantly, in determining your codification criteria, remember that it must be a collaborative process. If making significant updates to existing workflows or implementing new process, don't forget about the change management/change leadership efforts that are needed along the way.

Knowledge services in context: ECM and knowledge asset management: discussion questions 1. 2. 3.

How to do we know what we know? Is everyone in the know or just a select group? What motivates your organization to help support knowledge sharing of the organization’s collective intellectual capital? Where does the organization want to be in a year, three years, or five years? What do employees need to know or learn to help them get there?

3 The way forward 3.1 Change management and change implementation: the fundamental knowledge services competency While some might challenge the assertion of this section’s subtitle, for knowledge strategists there can be no argument. As the recognized knowledge specialist in the organization’s knowledge domain – meaning that the success of knowledgerelated decisions depends upon the knowledge strategist’s expertise – there is no moving away from the fact that knowledge services cannot exist without attention to change. Change management. It seems to be constantly on the minds of knowledge strategists, and as they move deeper into the organization’s wide-ranging uses of technology, there is more and more potential for “noise” about change in the workplace (and, not to be ignored, in people’s personal lives as well). In this so-called “digital age,” change management (and with it, change implementation, which is just the “getting things done” part of change management) turns out to be a subject that knowledge strategists deal with on an ongoing basis. In fact, and perhaps more in keeping with how knowledge strategists think about knowledge services as the foundation for building their knowledge strategy, they might want to think about a little semantic revision. It is already clear that knowledge strategists must identify management and leadership principles to work with as they invoke the knowledge services principles they follow. In their leadership role, might it not be time for knowledge strategists (and indeed all knowledge workers) to stop saying “change management” and instead take up “change leadership” as they focus on change as the uninterrupted challenge for knowledge development, knowledge sharing, and knowledge utilization in the organizations in which they are employed? We think so. And while it would be nice to take credit for coming up with this idea, it’s not ours. And indeed, it is not even particularly new. Thinking about change leadership began with the person many knowledge strategists (and many others in organizational management) have come to think of as “the father of modern management.” Of course, we are referring to Peter Drucker, and in one of his more famous books, Management Challenges for the 21st Century, Drucker challenged us to think in terms of change leadership instead of change management (Drucker 1999). And he did it again four years later, in Managing in the Next Society (Drucker 2003), a compilation that included essays, interviews, and an article he wrote in 2001 for the Economist. And shortly thereafter, Drucker’s focus on change leadership was singled out in the March 1 entry of https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110635577-003

132

3 The way forward

The Daily Drucker (Harper/Business 2004), leading with the tag line “The most effective way to manage change successfully is to create it.” Here is an excerpt from the commentary in The Daily Drucker, sharing Drucker’s thoughts on change leadership: One cannot manage change. One can only be ahead of it. In a period of upheavals. . . change is the norm. To be sure, it is painful and risky, and above all it requires a great deal of very hard work. But unless it is seen as the task of the organization to lead change, the organization will not survive. In a period of rapid cultural change, the only ones who survive are the change leaders. A change leader sees change as an opportunity. A change leader looks for change, knows how to find the right changes, and knows how to make them effective both outside the organization and inside it. To make the future is highly risky. It is less risky, however, than not to try to make it.

For the knowledge strategist, Drucker’s “organization” – while subject to a variety of interpretations – coincides well with the knowledge strategist’s own organization, the knowledge domain of the larger community or environment in which the strategist is the expert, the “go-to” knowledge specialist. And, equally applicable, the excerpt concludes – as with all entries in the book – with The Daily Drucker’s famous Action Point, always offered to tie things up: “Anticipate the future and be a change leader.” Good advice for all knowledge strategists and, as we note, for all knowledge workers or at least those working as part of the knowledge strategist’s team who in their professional lives focus on knowledge services and knowledge strategy. For the knowledge strategist, it is critically important to recognize that the key element for success in knowledge services (perhaps the key element) has to do with change, and Drucker shows us the way. He does not recommend that we manage change. He commands us to lead change. Nothing has been more evident to knowledge strategists – or other knowledge workers with the ambition to become knowledge strategists – than the importance of embracing change for the good of the larger enterprise, and it is in the knowledge domain that this effort so seriously affects the organization. Certainly, the term “change management” became something of a cliché during the past few decades – perhaps from overuse but just as likely from its characterization as something few workers (even knowledge workers) want to deal with. And the concepts that underlie what we used to refer to as change management continue to be valid and continue to be important as we think about how we – as change leaders – put them to use. For every knowledge strategist interested in leading the organization into knowledge integration as the organization transitions to a knowledge culture, change management becomes, in and of itself, an essential management responsibility. And change management becomes even more important as we think about it in leadership terms. As long ago as 1991

3.1 Change management and change implementation

133

(even prior to Drucker’s thoughts on the subject), it was being asserted by David Ferriero and Thomas L. Wilding that organizations must be in a constant state of openness to change if they are going to maintain a high degree of relevance (Ferriero and Wilding 1991). As Ferriero and Wilding depicted it, change aimed at maintaining organizational relevance was seen as both desirable and inevitable, an idea that has probably contributed to the success of knowledge strategists and the acceptance of their leadership role in the development of knowledge strategies in many companies, organizations, and institutions. Indeed, recognizing the desirability and inevitability of change and developing skills (or employing skills already developed) for building a foundation for leading change have become major factors in determining knowledge services success. The knowledge strategist – as a change leader – becomes expert at managing resistance, encouraging participation, and creating methods for rewarding and recognizing enterprise stakeholders who successfully embrace the concept of the organization as a knowledge culture. In doing so, the knowledge strategist brings attention and credibility to the critical value of leading and implementing change and supports and influences the development the organization needs to undergo in order to have a strong knowledge culture. The need for moving in this direction has only become more evident – as information management evolved into KM and then KM into knowledge services – and as knowledge services moved into supporting knowledge strategy development and the move of the organization to a knowledge culture, the ability to move fast and generate tangible returns became – and remains – critical to organizational success. These qualities – speed of delivery and ROI – are no less true for knowledge services than for any other management pursuit, and it is through the application of change leadership principles that speed of delivery and ROI are achieved. Yet changing how the task is described by the knowledge strategist and colleagues does not adequately describe the work. That requires identifying what needs to be done as the knowledge strategist works with leaders throughout the organization and with them comes to conclusions as to what must be done and, specifically, what the knowledge strategist recommends to organizational leaders and colleagues. So, the change leadership role connects with what are usually thought of as the “principles” of change management and change implementation. These have been studied and written about by many people, and from our observations and studies, the following have generally been identified (and thought of as required):

134

3 The way forward

1.

Sponsorship. This change management principle identifies an influential leader who commits to a consultative role in the change process and agrees to express, model, and reinforce their commitment to the knowledge sharing improvement or innovation being proposed. In the organization, the sponsor is a recognized leader who speaks about, models, and reinforces that critical commitment. 2. Champions and Change Agents. The emphasis here is on identifying and obtaining commitment from influential people willing to speak about the benefits of change as well as the benefits of the strategic knowledge activity being undertaken. Importantly, these are people known in the organization who will encourage adoption (champions are usually thought of as early adopters and change agents as individuals who will express and model the new behaviors to a population of users). 3. Organizational Readiness and Managing Resistance. This change management principle recognizes that users and affected stakeholders are engaged early in the process and, when appropriate, invited to participate in general discussions about the change and — in some situations — to participate in planning change. This principle essentially diffuses resistance or, at the very least, gives those resisting an opportunity to be part of the effort to enable useful and productive change. 4. Communication Planning & Execution. Integral to the fundamental success of change management and change implementation, this principle engages users and affected stakeholders early in the process and connects with the above principles in a coordinated and consistent manner. An example of an effective application of this principle is the development of a calendar of events or project plan that incorporates elements of a consistent message in language that matches that of the organizational culture in which the affected colleagues are employed. In addition, as we deal with knowledge services, knowledge sharing, and developing the organizational knowledge strategy, we find that there is another “first principle” or distinguishing characteristic, one that knowledge strategists must think about before they embark on a campaign of cultural change (or even – a little more realistically – creating or reframing a specific KM/knowledge services project). If the knowledge strategist and the knowledge professionals on the knowledge team are called upon to build a process and develop a plan for a knowledge initiative, what should they think about first? Perhaps they have been asked to work on creating a knowledge repository or implementing a particular decision-support tool. Whatever the task before them, planning that initiative is

3.1 Change management and change implementation

135

probably going to require a wide range of iterations and considerations. And, yes, those four principles listed above are critical, but the strategist must focus on another consideration, one that knowledge strategists speak about with great frequency: if the knowledge strategist is going to succeed with managing and implementing change – leading change – connected with a knowledge services initiative, change management “should be inked in from Day 1.” Here’s the concern: if the knowledge strategist is going to move forward with the initiative, following the steps of the classic project management framework provides a useful structure. Those steps are pretty clear-cut and include the classic five process groups: initiating the project, planning, executing, monitoring and controlling, and closing down. Most knowledge strategists usually include these in their project work anyway, whether they think formally about them or not. It’s all needed for big picture planning, but at what point in the process does the knowledge strategist bring in their methodology for managing change? There’s a clear awareness that change management and change implementation are going to be required if the knowledge services initiative is to succeed, but when is it done? In most situations, change management (change leadership) is usually not given proper attention as the knowledge services project moves forward. In some cases, project managers incorporate change management into the training required for implementing a new tool or technique but this, too, is often treated as an afterthought – an “add-on” or something to “finish with” (not good!). And if the need for change relates to an even bigger or broader perspective, there’s a more serious problem. We often hear references to the need for “cultural change” when we’re working with a knowledge services initiative. It’s not an unusual comment, and in many situations it works to the knowledge strategist’s advantage if, in fact, the effort is one that is seeking to move the organization to that more substantial ecosystem we refer to as a “knowledge culture.” If the knowledge strategist doesn’t approach change management and change implementation up front (in other words, taking the change leadership distinction literally), the knowledge strategy planning team is potentially building in failure, whether the team is aiming for culture change or even if the goal is nothing more than a successful but limited workplace initiative. Hence, a very specific recommendation: early in the process, build in change management/ change implementation/change leadership considerations. And there’s an almost “natural” way of thinking about this: if it’s more appropriate to establish knowledge sharing on the subject of change management and change implementation (as this activity is often described in the workplace), it might be wise to carry the knowledge leadership connection a little further, linking it to strategic learning, the activity that is included as one of the three structural elements of knowledge services. One of the most important

136

3 The way forward

roles of the knowledge strategist is to establish and work with an organized learning and development program (usually undertaken cooperatively with the HR department, the common structural location for these topics in many organizations). Taking such a step provides a winning opportunity for both efforts, embracing a change management activity and connecting with the organization’s strategic learning process. And as the change management plan is developed, focusing on change management as part of the organization’s strategic learning and development program up front, before the plan gets too far along, the knowledge strategist and the knowledge team are assured of a more positive reaction to the whole idea of managing the change that must be put in place.

Other voices: Valerie A. Sichi-Krygsman on knowledge strategy – a special weapon in change management Valerie Sichi-Krygsman believes knowledge is the most important asset of individuals, companies, communities, and cultures. Valerie founded her company, Knowledge Sherpa, to help clients win by using knowledge as a competitive weapon, and speeding organizational change at the intersection of people, process, technology, and culture. Valerie graduated summa cum laude with a B.S. in Information Resources from UW-Milwaukee. Valerie earned her M.S. in Information & Knowledge Strategy from Columbia University in the City of New York. In 2017, she was recognized by the UW-Milwaukee School of Information Studies as one of their 50 Distinguished Alumni. Valerie is dedicated to the development of information and knowledge professionals. She currently serves on the UW-Milwaukee Academic Advisory Council for Information Science and Technology program. Valerie is the current lead of the Information and Knowledge Strategy Community of Practice at Columbia University. She serves on the board of the Wisconsin Chapter of AIIM. She is also a member of ASQ and PMI, the Project Management Institute. I’m a change junkie, and there is no cure. I’m not the only one. The global economy is moving faster. The business world is hungry for change, and its appetite is increasing. As a business transformation consultant specializing in changeintensive projects, it’s my job to feed that hunger for change, and to help organizations become better and stronger because of the change. I have a heavy toolbox filled with the skills and experience expected in this type of work: – Business Strategy – Project Management

3.1 Change management and change implementation

– – – –

137

Process Management Information Management Technology Management Change Management

I also have a special weapon in my toolbox – knowledge services. I use knowledge services to help develop an organization’s knowledge strategy, in concert with other tools, to analyze, plan, and execute the change expected to benefit the organizations I serve. Combining knowledge strategy tools with change management tools gives one superpowers in projects. As knowledge strategists we must take the opportunity appreciate, promote, and contribute our special talent to organizations’ change management efforts, and ensure change management fundamentals are put into practice. Change hurts – knowledge strategy can help My professional point of view is informed by a career filled with work leading challenging, change-intensive projects. In addition to planning and running these projects, I help ensure knowledge is leveraged and protected throughout the project. The change in these projects often stems from major technology implementations, or changes to the organization, e.g. downsizing, reorganization, and outsourcing. My clients and colleagues endeavor to give birth to new offerings and new ways of working. Unfortunately, they make their work harder and uglier by underinvesting in change management. I’m often called in to turn around or assist troubled projects – and there are lots of troubled projects. When coming into a project, I find it useful to start with a quick check on the organization’s prioritization of change management by considering the phrase: “People, process, technology.” That phrase has the key elements of a project in the proper priority order. People must be the first priority because they are the true source and sustainers of change. Yet I continually encounter organizations that focus on technology first, process second, and people last. While project charters and other organizational artifacts may have nicelywritten words about change management activities and a focus on people, I find that spoken words are a better indicator of the true project priorities. In a typical exploratory conversation about a troubled project, I listen for the proportion of conversational air time given to people, to process. and to technology. Often, I hear project sponsors, leaders, and teams use the brand names of the technology. Even the non-technologist shares granular details of the software applications in the project. Rarely do these project participants share that same level of detail about processes or people. In the information economy,

138

3 The way forward

technology can be a bright, shiny object drawing attention away from other elements of a project. Process elements get some airtime, but it’s not unusual to hear of processes being force-fit into the technology. The least airtime is given to people and change management. It’s often mentioned as an afterthought – “Oh yes, and of course we’ll do change management.” In these troubled projects, change management is a “check the box” activity assigned to a couple of specialists (at best). The people side of change gets only what’s left over after the technology and process work is done. In my work, I call troubled projects the “ugly ones.” The root cause of these ugly ones is often a self-inflicted organizational “breech birth” that puts technology first and people last. A breech birth is considered high-risk for a reason – it’s happening backwards! If people are made the lowest priority in a project, there will be lots of crying and screaming as the technology forces change into an unprepared organization. Change is hard. Knowledge strategists can help ease the pain of change through their skill and experience in putting people first. Knowledge strategists deeply understand people and the organization’s culture – that makes us a special weapon in change-intensive projects. The knowledge strategist toolbox for change management Whether leading change, or contributing to change in projects, knowledge strategists can use the tools in their knowledge strategy toolbox to complement change management tools. Here are three examples of how knowledge strategy strengths can address change management challenges in projects. Staffing the project Change-intensive projects may not succeed if they’re staffed with the wrong people. Knowledge strategists can contribute more value if they are brought into a project early to help with staffing the team that will deliver the change. Staffing project teams can be challenging. HR’s job descriptions and reportingfocused organizational charts may lack actionable information on “who does what” and “who knows what.” Known experts may say they lack time for working on a project. Those with time to work on a project may lack required expertise. Project managers and others may rely on flimsy information to select team members for a project. They may reconcile themselves to getting whoever is available to staff strategically important projects. A knowledge strategist develops useful information and relationships that help in the work to identify and select project team members at the heart of driving change in the organization. Knowledge maps and expert location tools

3.1 Change management and change implementation

139

can inform project staffing plans and can help make the case to free experts’ time for strategic change. The knowledge strategist’s relationships with experts supports productive conversations about optimal staffing options, especially when experts’ time is constrained. Having a knowledge strategist help staff a change-intensive project can ensure a strong match in team member to team role. Strong teams have strong team members better positioned to drive the work and have energy left to drive change management. Mitigating communication risks Change-intensive projects may not succeed if the project team isn’t prepared to excel in communication. Projects are temporary by nature. There isn’t infinite time to manage communications and communication risks. Given how fast projects can move, suboptimal communication is a typical project risk that triggers multiple issues. Content may be created by team members without adequate experience in human learning, communication, and change management. People often struggle to keep up with constant flow of information coming out of projects. Their inboxes are so full, they become almost useless. Stakeholders may miss messages and invitations to events meant to help them navigate the coming changes. Other times, communication is nearly non-existent. It’s no wonder change management is suboptimal. Knowledge strategists are masters in the tools needed to support changerelated communication and mitigate communication risks in projects. Enterprise content management, social media, and collaboration are at the top of our toolbox. We can coach project teams in using these tools to support excellence in change-related information. We know that sending a mass email or posting a document on an intranet doesn’t mean people will receive and use the change-related communication. We specifically know the organization and we know what works well for the various groups that must communicate and collaborate. With our people-focused mindset and our mastery of communication-enabling tools, we can help projects optimize the communication that supports change management. Empowering the sponsor As knowledge strategists, we are adept at managing intellectual capital. There are other types of capital at work in projects. Every project needs two “checkbooks” to be successful. One checkbook contains the financial capital needed to fund the work of the project, including funding the people with the intellectual capital required of the work. The other less recognized checkbook contains the political capital needed to drive and sustain change. Project sponsors should come to a project prepared to share a generous amount of their own political capital.

140

3 The way forward

That said, project sponsors and others underestimate the amount of political capital needed for change-intensive projects. It’s not enough to have a highranking leader send out a ghost-written email and conduct an overly optimistic town hall with stakeholders. Every member of the organization has political capital they can use to support or inhibit change. If the culture of an organization doesn’t wish to change, it won’t change. The collective political capital of the organization can easily “outspend” the strongest sponsor. Knowledge strategists don’t typically have large numbers of direct reports. We must map and use the social network of the organization to drive broad action. We must identify and recruit experts to assist us in our daily work. We cultivate communities to find new ways of thinking and new ways of working. In projects, knowledge strategists can use these same approaches to assist project sponsors in their critical role of championing change. We can map the social networks of project stakeholders to illuminate the subtle political dynamics deep in the organization. We can help the sponsor identify and recruit a broad coalition of useful change agents already respected for their expertise and that already have their own political capital in the communities where change is meant to occur. We can help the sponsor’s change coalition leverage their internal communities to deeply discuss and plan for change. Knowledge strategists should use their specialized skills in service of projects sponsors, so the project has the political capital required to fully “fund” the change effort. Moving forward Organizations continue to struggle in building reliable capabilities in change management. That deficit is acutely apparent in change-intensive projects. When the focus and work related to people and change management is left to part-time specialists in projects, change may be inhibited, and may never be sustained in the organization. Knowledge strategists are uniquely positioned to be key players in change management in projects. Our skillset, our mindset, and our knowledge strategy toolbox are well-aligned to the challenges of change management. If we are to help organizations become stronger, we must ensure our skills and reputations are strong. It’s incumbent on Knowledge Strategists to actively promote our profession’s multi-disciplined value to sponsors, HR, IT and Enterprise Project Management Offices. A knowledge strategist cannot be an organization’s special weapon in change-intensive projects if our talent remains a secret to our colleagues and clients. Knowledge strategists owe it to themselves to recognize and appreciate how powerful their skills can be when targeted at the challenge of change management. By virtue of our special talents and experience, we’re ideally suited to

3.1 Change management and change implementation

141

change management work. For knowledge strategists new to the change management discipline, I believe you’ll find the learning curve is quite low. If you’re a knowledge strategist who has never had a formal role in leading change management or is hesitant to take on an opportunity in change management work, I suggest you take the leap and raise your hand. Your colleagues, companies, and clients need you – you’re ready to help. Other voices: Dale Stanley on managing change – vital to your project and career success Dale Stanley is senior consultant at SMR International, a New York-based consultancy focused on knowledge services and knowledge strategy development. He has more than 15 years of experience helping large organizations develop knowledge services strategies and 30-plus years of experience leading corporate library and knowledge management groups in a variety of industries. The following article was published in Information Outlook 21, no. 4 (July/ August 2017). Reprinted with permission. Most major projects fail to meet all of their major objectives, and fully 80 percent of those failures are due to poor change management (Conner 2012). If you have been involved with implementing new systems or projects, it is highly likely you have experienced these and similar sentiments. – We had this great idea for improving productivity. We did our homework and had an awesome proposal, but management shot it down because they said everyone is too busy. – Our new SharePoint® site is well designed and will improve workflows and access to information for our project managers. The training went well, but now nobody is contributing or using it – they’ve all gone back to their previous inefficient ways of doing things. – We can’t get this project off the ground. We’re trying to help the staff, but they won’t come to the meetings. How do we get staff to buy into this project? When you incorporate change management techniques into your projects, you will greatly enhance the likelihood of success, and your work will thus have a greater impact on the organization. This reputation for success, along with the human skills of being a change leader, will contribute strongly to your career success. My company (SMR International) has worked with dozens of organizations and hundreds of students, and we have always emphasized the practical aspects and value of incorporating knowledge management and knowledge

142

3 The way forward

services into existing information-based functions. We even appropriated one of the old taglines from the Special Libraries Association (SLA), “Putting Information to Work,” and amended it slightly to say that “Knowledge Services is Putting Knowledge to Work.” But the challenge with being practical is clear: we need to see results. Sometimes that’s a difficult task – especially when it involves people and getting them to change. And when does it not? Helping people in organizations overcome human behavior obstacles and embrace change is what change management is all about. Fundamentally, change management involves leadership – and yes, you can be the change leader your projects and your organization need. Sure, you can fall back on excuses like “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t force him to drink,” but there are a number of effective methods to entice your audiences to “try the water” and embrace the changes you and your project are presenting. Following are some proven change management principles and practical techniques that will help. Principle: the change curve William Bridges (2003) teaches us that change always involves “transition.” At SMR, we’ve adapted his version of what we call the “Change Curve.” The basic principle at work here is that during change, those affected by the proposed changed will need to “let go” of something before the “new” can be embraced. When faced with change, we all go through this curve. We each go through the curve at different rates, and there are different amounts and types of forces that can compel us to move through the curve or get “stuck” at any particular phase. Eventually, if we are successful, we – or most of us, anyway – will make it through the curve and realize the benefits of resolution. Even the best change management process cannot eliminate the Change Curve. The goal is to create momentum and get through the curve quickly without falling too deeply into the Valley of Despair, where psychological drivers that cause resistance to change will more than likely cause a drop-in productivity and attitude. I will return to the Change Curve when I explain some techniques that you, as a change leader, can employ to help your users “let go” and ensure success. Technique: early, consistent, clear communication It may seem obvious that good communication is an important factor in motivating people to embrace change. However, in post-project evaluations and

3.1 Change management and change implementation

143

debriefs, communication (or “lack of sufficient communication”) is consistently the number-one reason cited for change failures. Following are the top pitfalls that always show up in such surveys: Not connecting the purpose of the project to the larger mission, goals, and/or values of the organization. Stating that the rationale of the project is to “increase productivity” or achieve the goals or purpose of your particular department or function is insufficient. If you fail to tie the project to a meaningful, high-level business purpose or rationale, you likely will not sufficiently motivate your audience to engage. Ask yourself how the project affects the mission of your company or institution. Waiting too long to communicate. Too often, communication with end users happens only at the beginning of projects, during “requirements gathering” meetings, and at the end, during training or “rollout” efforts. While these times are important, it is imperative that there be consistent and frequent communication about the project during its entire development life cycle. Every phase of your project will present opportunities to connect with your end users. Typically, there are opportunities during the early stages to restate the business purpose and rationale for the project and introduce the statements and role of your sponsor (see below). During the development and testing phases of the project, end users need to be reminded that the project is under way and that there are opportunities for providing additional feedback (see below in “surfacing resistance”). Waiting to “install the system onto the users” with training at the end of the project is asking for trouble in the form of resistance, delays, re-training, demands for scope changes, and cost overruns. Taking a “one-size-fits all” approach to communication. Sending a barrage of e-mail blasts to all end users on an arbitrary basis is rarely the correct approach. Consider using different messages and media tailored to the different user groups and staff teams, with different points of view and different work flow drivers. Also consider using established communication channels, such as engaging middle managers as champions and sharing information at established communication meetings and in newsletters and other media. At SMR, we encourage our clients to actually map out their target audiences and then create communication plans for them, starting with appropriately timed, tailored messages and then selecting the media according to the audience and the message content. And speaking of content: Always tell the audience “why” (refer to the business purpose) and then, explicitly, “what” you want them to do.

144

3 The way forward

Technique: surfacing and openness to resistance Once a project is launched, the last thing you want to hear is someone saying why it won’t work. But the very act of asking for and responding to this “resistance” during all phases of the project is an extremely powerful change management tool. It engages users at a time when they are entering (or already in) the Valley of Despair.

Productivity

Inception of Change

Resolution & Realized ROI “Valley of Despair”

Time

Adapted from Bridges, 2003

Fig. 3.1: The Change Curve (after Bridges).

Creating forums and other opportunities for end users to share what they are thinking and feeling about the impending changes is highly recommended and can create some benefits. For example, users, while they may not be able to change the project, will know that at least they have been heard and may be able to help you identify ways to influence how or when certain aspects are rolled out. Relinquishing even minor aspects of control to staff members who will be affected by the change can help accelerate the Change Curve significantly. Following the preceding principle will allow you to identify and categorize users as “early adopters,” “resisters,” or “fence sitters.” The fence sitters (usually 30 to 60 percent of users) are the ones you need to convert, so use the early adopters as advocates and champions to influence them. This will help you create and maintain momentum through the Change Curve, which is your key objective as a change leader. Don’t spend too much energy on the resisters – they can very easily monopolize your time and energy and will only be converted when you have created plenty of momentum. Surfacing and responding to resistance require specific techniques. Here are two of the vital tasks you should implement:

3.1 Change management and change implementation

145

Use “active listening” and ask open-ended questions. Some end users (especially fence sitters) may be hesitant to reveal concerns or resistance, and you must give them space to explore and express the reasons. Creating small focus groups with ground rules, such as confidentiality within the room, and asking questions such as, “What are you thinking about the project now . . . ?” will surface resistance more readily than simply asking, “So, do you like it?” Exercise care in responding to statements of concern and resistance. Acknowledging and even repeating statements of concern is helpful; arguing or making in-the-moment concessions is not. Peter Drucker, the master management consultant, always advocated turning the question back to the questioner and asking him or her to suggest an answer to the question.

Technique: using champions and sponsors Earlier, I mentioned using early adopters to influence the other end users. I would expand that concept and recommend that you actually identify and train a set of “champions” for each segment or department or geographic sector, depending on what makes sense for your organization and project. (For example, does the project have phases or variations for different populations?) Again, at SMR we advocate mapping out target audiences (consider starting with an organization chart) and looking for potential champions. Start with those who you know will be strong advocates, then look for and recruit others to fill in the gaps. Train these champions according to the following considerations: – Make sure they know and can repeat effectively the business purpose and rationale for your project; – Make sure they can answer simple questions about the timelines and status of the project; – Make sure they know what kinds of resistance may be present and how to effectively surface them; and – Make sure they know how to respond without arguing while also letting resisters know they have been heard and the project is moving forward. I have saved what is likely the most powerful change management lever for last: You need a sponsor, and you need to select that person carefully to play a specific partnership role. First, the sponsor must have organizational authority over the group of end users you wish to influence. It’s tempting to just ask your boss to do this, because he/she is likely to understand and support your project. But unless your

146

3 The way forward

boss also has strong organizational reporting authority over your user group, he/she probably will not be an effective sponsor. In addition, the sponsor must be an active partner in your project. An executive may not have time to actively participate in managing the project, but you must, at a minimum, get him or her to personally engage in the following manner: – Say it. Once you have made the business case or rationale (remembering to connect the project purpose with the larger organization’s goals) and thus enabled the sponsor to say he/she will “sponsor” your project, you must emphasize that you need him/her to do a few things for “our” project. First, the sponsor must “say” that the project – and, by extension, users’ compliance with it – is important and required. It’s fine if you volunteer to write the messages or speeches for the sponsor, but the sponsor must say them. – Model it. Your change management message will be even more powerful if you can get the sponsor to say and model the desired behaviors. Get the sponsor to say that he/she will be participating in, using, and/or testing the new system or product. – Reward it. Work with the sponsor or his/her staff to develop reward (or punishment!) systems for compliance with specific behavioral requirements. Finally, take frequent advantage of opportunities to re-engage and utilize the powerful lever you have created with the sponsor. Even very brief meetings for an update on “our project” are sufficient to maintain the relationship and identify additional opportunities for the sponsor to be a visible advocate for your project. Work the sponsorship messaging into the on-going communication plans you have established. Your role as change leader Successful project implementation often requires people to change, and change requires leadership. Practicing and using the techniques and skills described above will enable you to become a change leader and create for yourself a track record of success, both of which are keys to expanding your role and enjoying a successful career. You can choose to be a reactive victim to change, join with those who resist change, or take positive control of your projects and your career. Consider taking the leadership approach by learning and practicing the vital change management skills of communication, surfacing resistance, and engaging partners and sponsors. You can be assured that when you do so, you will enjoy greater influence, confidence, and success in your projects and career.

3.1 Change management and change implementation

147

Sources Bridges, William. 2003. Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change. Boston, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. Conner, Daryl. 2012. “The Dirty Little Secret behind the 70% Failure Rate of Change Projects.” Blog post, July 12. Atlanta, Ga.: Conner Partners.

Change management and change implementation: checklist of considerations □ □ □ □

□ □ □ □ □ □

Identify organizational management and leadership principles to work with as you invoke the knowledge services principles to follow. Anticipate the future and ensure your change management plans are prepared and flexible enough for it. Lead through change, in addition to trying to manage it. Underscore the importance of the change that it is for the good of the larger enterprise but recognize how the change effects individuals or teams and prepares them (work with them) in the specifics. Move your organization toward a state of openness to change, knowing it’s inevitable and part of a successful knowledge sharing culture. Become an expert at managing resistance. Encourage participation. Create methods for rewarding champions and change agents. Recognize enterprise stakeholders who support positive change. Change leadership: make sure change management/change implementation are not afterthoughts!

Change management and change implementation: discussion questions 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

If we all agree that the knowledge strategist must be a change leader, how does the knowledge strategist take on the change leadership role? Discuss with management what steps the knowledge strategist must take - as the knowledge services leader in the organization - to ensure that change, with respect to knowledge sharing, succeeds in the organization. Who in your organization needs to be involved in change management/ change implementation processes? Are they aware of their needed involvement? Are they “onboard” to help? If there is so much discussion (“noise”) about change management and change leadership in almost every organization, discuss the “why?” of this situation. Is this an open invitation for the knowledge strategist to address change as the knowledge strategy is developed? When change is required in the implementation of the knowledge strategy (or any new organizational change), what is the role of the knowledge strategist? How can you help when people involved in the change process begin to slip into Bridges’ “Valley of Despair”? What management and leadership steps are required? Discuss (in as much detail as is required) how the knowledge strategist works with Peter Drucker’s exhortation: “anticipate the future and be a change leader.”

148

3 The way forward

3.2 From knowledge strategist to knowledge thought leader The journey from knowledge strategist to knowledge thought leader is short, and it is a journey worth taking. In making the journey, knowledge strategists have the opportunity to contribute to the knowledge health of their employing organizations in several ways, all of them relating to the influence of the knowledge strategist. The move from knowledge strategist to knowledge thought leader is not necessarily automatic, but it is an effort that does, when it happens, influence the development of the organization as a knowledge culture and enables an ambiance or a way of thinking about the enterprise-wide knowledge culture as an undeniable organizational asset. The progression from knowledge strategist to knowledge thought leader is not difficult, and it begins with two simple steps. The first is to review the role of the knowledge strategist and then to follow up on that, to give attention to defining and thinking about thought leadership as a concept and, in particular, to think about how the idea of thought leadership is captured in the organization’s management and leadership structure. The knowledge strategist then matches the two, establishing how they are similar or, if appropriate, considering how they might differ or “get in the way” of one another. When this exercise is complete, the knowledge strategist and enterprise leaders are then positioned to come to a conclusion about whether it is important to merge the two elements of what we can now refer to as “knowledge thought leadership,” and to envision what the results of that merger can be. As for the purpose and role of the knowledge strategist, an earlier section of this book provided several characteristics and recommendations. While there are many attributes that relate to the enterprise-wide effectiveness of the knowledge strategist, especially in relation to that person’s function as a knowledge thought leader, the most important is certainly that of the manager/leader’s role as an advisor (perhaps even describing that role as the organization’s “primary advisor”) to senior management and staff in matters relating to knowledge and knowledge sharing. The knowledge strategist’s second purpose is to serve as the organization’s knowledge services consultant, for the knowledge strategist works with employees and provides expertise for the organization’s knowledge domain in whatever business unit of the organization the strategist is needed (or, most desirably, enterprise-wide). In this role, the knowledge strategist is an adviser, producer, coach, or analyst, performing in whatever capacity the strategist’s expertise is required. Finally, the knowledge strategist is the organization’s product entrepreneur, working with organizational employees – knowledge professionals

3.2 From knowledge strategist to knowledge thought leader

149

or technology specialists, often both, and often working in teams – and all of them working together to develop knowledge-based products, such as new social media applications, metadata-based feature sets for an application, or repeatable knowledge-based processes. With the move to the concept of the thought leader, it becomes relatively easy to match the knowledge strategist’s professional qualities with those of the thought leader, a managerial role first identified by Joel Kurtzman, editor-in-chief of Strategy & Business, the business magazine of technology consulting firm Booz & Company. When discussing the publication’s profiles of major business icons, Kurtzman made the distinction that those leaders worth talking to are thought of as “thought leaders” (or are in some stage of being considered thought leaders). It was a term Kurtzman originated in the first issue of the magazine in October 1995 and it was an accomplishment with which Kurtzman, as noted in his obituary in 2016, “forever changed the world of management by coining the word ‘thought leader’ in the first issue of the magazine.” (Kleiner 2016) Just three years before Kurtzman’s death, the thought leadership concept was characterized by Lauren Hockenson in a short account that seems designed for any organization’s knowledge strategist. Writing in a post originally published by American Express OPEN Forum, Hockenson offers clear directions that the knowledge strategist can use to move into knowledge thought leadership: – The thought leader pushes the boundaries of a particular method and then uses those ideas to strengthen and then leverage awareness in the affiliated environment. – Thought leaders are not only known for radically changing thoughts or ideas about a particular topic or methodology but thriving in it as well – The moral of the story? Do something everyone else in your field thinks is dumb and be right about it (Hockenson 2013). And how does the knowledge strategist “push the boundaries of a particular method”? It’s an easy question to answer, and all it takes is a quick look at the history of knowledge services, for until knowledge services came along, managing an organization’s intellectual capital had been, and for some organizations was continuing to be, a struggle. Throughout the organization, business, or enterprise (the type of organization didn’t – and doesn’t – matter), management and knowledge workers were aware that organizational knowledge was not being developed, shared, and used to its best advantage, especially to the best advantage of the parent organization. As noted earlier, attempts at knowledge

150

3 The way forward

management (KM) were put together, some successful, others merely given lip service from enterprise leaders in control of resource allotment and not supported. Some few – with assorted knowledge professionals in the organization with strong enough awareness-raising skills – were able to “get started” but when KM was talked about, this new approach to managing intellectual capital was quickly caught up in attention to tools and processes. The real need for knowledge sharing was often simply ignored and eventually just “went away.” Despite what might be thought of as an over-simplification in the description above, in knowledge work Hockenson’s reference applies as we think about pushing the boundaries of a particular method. In all organizations, the boundaries that needed “pushing” for managing knowledge were twofold: the overarching lack of quality in knowledge sharing in most organizations and a muted enthusiasm about KM, since for many organizations KM did not provide the needed solution. That solution was what came to be known as collaborative knowledge services, the subject of this handbook. The knowledge strategist, as described throughout this book, not only pushes those boundaries but does indeed use the ideas that come from that effort not only to strengthen knowledge services in the parent organization but to go beyond “strengthening” to – through a carefully thought-out and well-leveraged awareness raising program – re-inventing the organization as a new operational framework benefitting the organization at large, the creation of an enterprise-wide knowledge culture, and the achievement of the rewards that result. Of course, the knowledge-strategist-as-thought-leader is bringing about a new way of management for the organization (and one for which the knowledge strategist will be known, which is why we refer – and have done so frequently in this book – to this leader/manager as the “go-to” knowledge specialist for the organization). The success of the knowledge thought leader in bringing about this change will, yes, be recognized, not only for changing thoughts or ideas about knowledge sharing but for leading the organization to thriving as an environment in which knowledge sharing is in place as well. In addition to the specific criteria that connect the knowledge strategist’s professional skills to the identified aptitudes of the thought leader, three other criteria come into play as one moves from knowledge strategist to knowledge thought leader, now combining them together into a single role that directly benefits the organization. In the first, knowledge strategists are passionate about knowledge work and delight in that passion. They find themselves strongly positioned to move forward the effort for applying knowledge services. These knowledge strategists now have a clear understanding of the organization and of the organizational culture, of how information, knowledge, and

3.2 From knowledge strategist to knowledge thought leader

151

To Succeed As A Knowledge Strategist (Become the Knowledge Thought Leader)

Generosity of Spirit

Intellectual Curiosity

Passion about Knowledge Work

Fig. 3.2: To Succeed as a Knowledge Strategist (Become a Knowledge Thought Leader).

strategic learning are valued within the organization, and of the functioning of the KD/KS/KU process throughout the enterprise. And, regardless of one’s individual management or leadership style, integrated into the work of the knowledge thought leader is a passionate and high-level enthusiasm for the entire knowledge-transfer process, a passion that carries over into interactions with organizational affiliates and in fact distinguishes the knowledge strategist as an enterprise-wide knowledge thought leader. At the same time, this passion for knowledge work matches two other personal characteristics that come into play for the knowledge thought leader. It almost goes without saying that the knowledge thought leader is intellectually curious, considering the focus of the work for which this individual has responsibility. Not only satisfied to understand and have mastered the management and leadership principles required for raising knowledge work in the organization to its highest standards, the knowledge strategist is constantly on the lookout for doing better and better and more, always asking “is this the best way we can do this?” or “can we go beyond the minimal standards or the basics?” In other words, the knowledge thought leader is always asking the big “why?” — always aiming to find a “bigger” solution to the situation than just fixing what needs to be fixed. In any given situation, the knowledge thought leader probes, asking questions that get to the basic concepts for solving whatever problem must be solved or need met. And the third particular ability, almost naturally suited to the role of the knowledge strategist as knowledge thought leader, is that knowledge professional’s “generosity of spirit” — a way of looking at one’s work that connects with

152

3 The way forward

an almost-automatic interest in sharing what one learns and knows — and it is a personal (and professional) characteristic that leads to knowledge thought leadership. Particularly for the knowledge strategist – the person specifically charged with the authority to manage the organization’s intellectual capital — generosity of spirit is the baseline supporting all work in the knowledge domain. So, what do these aforementioned qualities help the knowledge thought leader carry out for the organization? First of all, the knowledge thought leader is particularly qualified for the task of bringing a more humanistic side of management into the formula for success. As the manager/leader who led the development and implementation of the knowledge services strategic framework – the organization’s knowledge strategy – this employee is already recognized as the primary advocate or champion supporting the organization’s knowledge domain. The reputation has by now been acquired, and what has happened is that the knowledge thought leader has in effect built up an enterprise-wide “brand” for knowledge services, knowledge strategy, and the role of the organization as a knowledge culture. While “branding” is generally not thought of, with respect to the work of the knowledge thought leader, as part of awareness raising, such considerations begin to affect the success of organizational operations and the achievement of the organizational mission, and that is what is happening when the knowledge strategist becomes the organization’s knowledge thought leader. With the success of the knowledge thought leader – and the recognition of that individual’s role in the success of intellectual capital management in the organization – the brand for the organization’s management of knowledge services falls into place. It defines knowledge services and how knowledge is thought about within the organization and determines its position in the hierarchy of topics that enterprise leaders and organizational stakeholders identify as important to the organization’s success. And it is this knowledge thought leader who brings continuity to the management of intellectual capital, performing professional duties in an uninterrupted chain of knowledge-focused tasks and activities that keep the organization moving forward. The knowledge thought leader is very naturally a knowledge services champion or advocate, but there is more to knowledge thought leadership than that, and many clearly defined attributes – in addition to those already described – are identified in people we know as knowledge thought leaders. We distinguish the knowledge thought leader as an individual – a professional knowledge strategist – who: 1. Recognizes and understands the role and value of knowledge services in the success of the larger organization 2. Connects collaborative knowledge services to the organizational mission, vision, and values

3.2 From knowledge strategist to knowledge thought leader

3. 4.

5. 6. 7. 8.

9.

10.

153

Listens to employees and takes their advice — or at least considers what they have to say — with respect to enterprise-wide knowledge services Connects the role of psychology, human relations, and human interactions with knowledge development, knowledge sharing, and knowledge utilization (KD/KS/KU) Performs as a leader Has no use for complacency in the workplace Is committed to continuous improvement Goes beyond the practical (knowledge thought leaders are recognized for their innovative thinking and, in particular, having the confidence to turn innovative thinking into actionable opportunities) Combines professional ethics with understanding and recognizes when subordinate team members require development, assuming a developmental role without castigating the staff member Practices integrity.

The knowledge thought leader also takes on an almost inspirational role among colleagues (especially direct reports and others who work in the knowledge services unit or the enterprise-wide knowledge services function of the larger organization). From that experience comes a “following,” it could be called, a group of people who understand the role of enterprise-wide KD/KS/ KU, perhaps even a community of practice (or several CoPs), people who share in the passion, generosity, and intellectual curiosity of being involved with knowledge work. This is one of the fundamental rewards of the knowledge thought leader’s influence, and there is an aspirational quality in the products and services of the knowledge domain. The people who work in knowledge services are expected to understand this and to bring this idea into their thinking about the knowledge domain and its results. And is there a “moral of the story,” as Hockenson asks? If the knowledge strategist (in this case) moves on to becoming the organization’s knowledge thought leader, did the knowledge strategist do something “everyone else” working with knowledge and the management of intellectual capital thought was “dumb”? And was the knowledge strategist “right about it,” to move from knowledge strategist to knowledge thought leader? Naturally, there’s no way of knowing if everyone else thought moving into collaborative knowledge services was “dumb,” but it doesn’t matter, does it? Knowledge strategists bringing knowledge services, knowledge sharing, and knowledge strategy into their organizations were “right about it,” and they continue to be right about it. As knowledge thought leaders, these manager/leaders are responsible for the organization’s excellence in knowledge sharing, and along with the same

154

3 The way forward

excellence in knowledge development and knowledge utilization, collaborative knowledge services is now identified as demonstratively leading to success for the organization in which it is practiced. The knowledge strategist as knowledge thought leader has repositioned organizational concerns about managing intellectual capital as a winning game.

Other voices: Christopher Mundy on the knowledge thought leader Christopher Mundy is Director, Solutions Consulting, at Clarivate Analytics. He is a graduate of the M.S. in Information and Knowledge Strategy program at the School of Professional Studies at Columbia University in the City of New York. For the matter at hand, I don’t refer to myself as a “knowledge services thought leader.” And I do not know of a single colleague of mine – both past and present – who would conjure up such a moniker. What I do know is that I have a reputation for getting things done, which is just my brash way of saying that in order to become the knowledge services thought leader, you’re inevitably going to need to build a reputation of not only creating and demonstrating value, but also communicating it out to the broader organization. To that end, I can impart to you five practical lessons I’ve learned over my career: – Develop deep domain expertise and keep an eye on shifts in the broader organization – Learn to be comfortable operating on your own – Learn to make friends, build alliances and networks quickly – Be like a chameleon and adapt to your environment – Be selective Develop deep domain expertise & keep an eye on shifts in the broader organization No shocker here but if you want to become the knowledge services thought leader you aspire to be, you need to develop a strong foundation in some domain – any domain. Just pick one and get going! The beauty of our complex world these days is that your domain expertise doesn’t have to fall in some neat box like cell biology or coding in Python/R but anything that delivers value to an organization. Early on in my career in biopharmaceuticals, I embedded myself by sitting next to my colleagues in R&D to get an innate understanding of how they did their research. What applications did they use and for what? What shortcomings did they ascribe to those applications? What processes did they follow? What processes did they believe were working well and which ones did they hate and why? From there, I started to build a strong understanding of how they were

3.2 From knowledge strategist to knowledge thought leader

155

operating in a broken and nonsensical the environment. And the best part of it was that while they were experts in their respective domains, e.g. biology, chemistry, toxicology, etc., I became the expert in how they worked. Nonetheless, I did a terrible job of placing my bet by not keeping an eye on organizational shifts in my early years. As I developed an innate understanding of how data, information, and knowledge flowed through the R&D organization, the company was struggling commercially and like so many other biotechs before us we went through the inevitable layoffs & restructuring process. Many of my colleagues were gone and the value of my expertise with them. The lesson was clear – sometimes the path of least resistance is the quickest path to becoming irrelevant. Quite the opposite of being a thought leader. I quickly learned not to become so enamored with my own idea that I lost sight of what was happening around me. Learn to be comfortable operating on your own Armed with a new sense of purpose, I went on to develop my niche expertise – identifying areas for improvement along the Knowledge Value Chain across the organization. I grounded my skillset by learning additional methodologies, e.g. Lean Six Sigma and its integration in Project Management, to better arm myself with tools to dissect and quantify the problem/solution on one hand, and the ability to design, plan and execute against my vision. With a number of new tools under my belt, I was ready to set the world on fire and save the day. The only challenge with having a unique skill set was that I was also looking at the world with a unique lens. In the beginning, this was an absolute nightmare and made me feel more isolated than ever. Why was I the only one that could see the problems staring at us in the face? Were my colleagues really incapable of understanding the deficiencies and inefficiencies in their decision-making processes? Was I crazy? As it turns out – a little bit crazy, yes – but on the wrong path? No. I just needed to learn how to articulate the problem in terms that would resonate with colleagues and get them on this whole “Knowledge Management/Knowledge Services” bandwagon I was starting. This wouldn’t be the only time I felt like this in my career. Far from it. I’ve come to realize that every time you set out to do something novel, you’re going to run into organizational inertia. So be ready to start the journey on your own at the beginning, especially when you’re in an organization that doesn’t understand the value and competitive advantage that effective KM/knowledge services can provide. Learn to make friends, build alliances and networks quickly Fortunately, your journey to becoming a knowledge strategist is a solo journey for as long as you make it. As you start to uncover organizational challenges,

156

3 The way forward

priorities, social nodes, and influencers and decision makers in your due diligence process, you’ll inevitably develop relationships with those you’re trying to help. Build on these relationships. Build on them some more. Then do it again. It’s really easy to get started and I’ve usually started with something like this: “If we had unlimited resources to solve your most pressing issue – what would it be? How can I help?” As you set out to tackle these challenges, you’ll need to be able to come back and leverage the relationships you build as you run into the typical organizational inertia: “That just won’t work.” “We don’t work like that here.” “Nobody works like that.” Just excuses. Don’t listen to them. The relationships that you’ve built up this point become your allies in helping you push your vision forward. Plenty has been written about the need for program champions, and while executive support is great, I prefer having strength in numbers. It takes time but the effort up front pays dividends down the road when you start to challenge the same NIMBY-attitude (the “not-in-mybackyard” attitude) in the upper echelons of the organization. Be like a chameleon and adapt to your environment Developing the relationships is critical and you’ll be even more successful in your endeavors if you learn to adapt to your environment. In my earlier example, discussing challenges and needs with bench scientists was far different from discussing challenges and needs with my colleagues in market research, business development and every other group. Layer into that the different perspectives and priorities you uncover as you traverse the organization in both directions – horizontally and vertically – and you’ll learn the full lexicon of your organization. To build your support networks most effectively, you have to be able to frame the challenge, solution, and benefit to the various stakeholders within their context. Failing to do so and you run the risk of losing support for the change you’re trying to implement. An incredibly common example in our world is replacing legacy systems. At minimum, you’ll contend with three different stakeholders: – The end-users – The application’s business owner – The IT team

3.2 From knowledge strategist to knowledge thought leader

157

For end-users, they’re most interested in whether your solution is going to make their lives easier. The application’s business owner is going to challenge whether your proposed solution can actually deliver that benefit or if it’s cheaper and/or easier to make a tweak to the current application that might not be fit-for-purpose. Lastly, the IT team is interested in a whole host of other parameters like Total Cost of Ownership (TCO), data security, etc. So be careful. If you fail to modify your language and don’t address the needs of the different stakeholders, your big “Save the World” initiative is dead in the water. Be selective Inevitably, there will be a greater demand for your time than you can ever provide. The organization will ask more of you – which is a good thing and what you want – so you must be selective in focusing on areas where you can deliver the most impact. In the beginning, you’ll focus on quick small wins with colleagues eager to work with you on opportunities where you can deliver value. As you continue to build towards your vision of an organization where knowledge flows freely through thoughtfully designed systems and processes and in-person exchanges, you can start to place bigger bets and work towards your moon-shot initiatives. As a final personal example, I worked for a data analytics company that sells in the life sciences space. I joined their commercial organization to build a new pre-sales support function. As one of only a handful of pharma-side veterans (i.e. our clients), my credibility and expertise were established right out of the gate. In my first few weeks, I received e-mails from teams around the world asking for help on marketing campaigns, training programs, leadership webinars – and the list goes on. I politely asked for time to get my grounding so I could evaluate what I thought the organization needed most. After my first 30 days, I identified a way to dramatically influence our go-to-market strategy and arm a relatively junior salesforce with confidence by overhauling all our sales collateral to address the huge deficiencies in our messaging. I interviewed my new colleagues in marketing, sales, support and a whole host of other folks to socialize the idea and identify folks who would support the initiative. After several months and an ungodly amount of work, we launched a new, centrally managed portal to house the new sales enablement material that was developed in tandem. The result? A dramatic uplift in sales with the direction to roll the application out globally.

158

3 The way forward

To be frank, this wasn’t my job – it was technically marketing – but I saw the opportunity to deliver value with my expertise and ran with it. As Guy and Barrie say, it isn’t necessarily difficult to evolve into a knowledge services thought leader. You just have to be confident in your approach, validate it with the people you want to help, build your support network and push like hell. Your organization will be better for it.

From knowledge strategist to knowledge thought leader: checklist of considerations □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

Review the role of the knowledge strategist and define what the goals of the role are in your organization. Define and think about how thought leadership is captured in the organization’s management and leadership structure (if it is so captured). Work with employees and share your expertise with them to enable the organization’s knowledge domain to be more readily leveraged. Know when to push the boundaries of existing organizational methods/ knowledge sharing practices. Be passionate about knowledge work and delight in that passion. Continue to be intellectually curious. Work with a “generosity of spirit,” an almost-automatic interest in sharing what you learn. Make conscious decisions about your professional brand, internal and external to your organization. If you were becoming a knowledge thought leader, determine what you think is an important - if not the most important - concept or idea for you, in knowledge services/ knowledge strategy development.

From knowledge strategist to knowledge thought leader: discussion questions 1.

2.

3.

The knowledge strategist's role is defined as “primary advisor,” the person in the organization expected not only to provide advice but (equally) to anticipate or identify elements within the organization that might forecast opportunities for stronger KD/KS/KU. Does the knowledge strategist have the political capital and/or trust to question the “status quo”? Are the three qualities for moving successfully to the role of knowledge thought leader (a passion for knowledge work, intellectual curiosity, and generosity of spirit) viable in your organizational workplace? How does the knowledge strategist and your organization at large deal with the situation when compromises are required? As the organization’s knowledge services thought leader, what are your specific recommendations for dealing with knowledge challenges? Do you prioritize one

3.2 From knowledge strategist to knowledge thought leader

4.

159

particular challenge before you look at others? Or do you see the entire list of identified knowledge challenges as a single challenge? How might this relate back to you knowledge culture? Is there an identified knowledge thought leader in the organization at the present time, and is the knowledge strategist in a position to work with that person? If there is not such an identified knowledge thought leader, is there a candidate or employee for whom this is an appropriate designation? Should the knowledge strategist take on this role?

Epilogue: knowledge services: the critical management discipline for the twenty-first century organization [17 knowledge services principles every knowledge strategist should know] The management of what an organization “knows” (or needs to know) is changing drastically in today’s twenty-first century organization. The organization’s collective content that ensures success in the achievement of the organizational mission, and thus, the ability to maintain its competitive advantage, is important but is not going to be the same in the future. Indeed, already now, any former tendency to hoard information or knowledge is no longer viable when dealing with organizational intellectual capital. There will be a different approach to information management, knowledge management, and strategic learning, the three elements that make up collaborative knowledge services. Managing intellectual capital will be done differently, utilizing (often without making any conscious effort to do so) a basic knowledge development, knowledge sharing, and knowledge utilization (KD/KS/KU) arrangement that builds on a fast-growing recognition that knowledge sharing is the key to organizational success. Knowledge hoarding is no longer accepted, and the so-called “information power” of history will give way to interdependent and synergistic shared power. The acceptance of the fact that knowledge value and the enterprise-wide perception of knowledge value directly affect organizational success, through the wise implementation of knowledge services and knowledge sharing throughout the organization, will lead to a more open and – not to put too fine a point on it – a more trusting organization. The organization, enterprise, institution, or any other group (or society) seeking to accomplish an agreed-upon end result will model itself to function, regardless of the type or kind of organization, as an environment that not only relies on open and positive interactions among its staff and affiliates but, indeed, expects such. Certainly, there is a downside, and not all organizations (and certainly not all of society) will embrace the knowledge-as-value construct. So of course the opposite of our assertion is true as well, but we nonetheless believe that in dealing with the organization’s intellectual capital – in terms of knowledge services and the benefits of knowledge sharing for knowledge strategists and

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110635577-004

162

Epilogue

all who work with them – the downside will eventually be recognized as the purview of the few, not the many. So in organizations that succeed, in differing departments within organizations, business units within corporations, working groups and teams, and even in larger societal forces, there will be discovered that setting themselves apart and thwarting knowledge sharing (i.e. hoarding, as mentioned above) and blocking or disrupting the sharing of information, knowledge, and learning will, in the long run, not merely impede success but prevent it. We recognize and encourage all who have anything to do with their organization’s knowledge domain to recognize with us the inherent and critical importance of knowledge value. We believe that organizational management in the future will build on a different cultural framework with respect to knowledge services and knowledge strategy, especially in terms of what has recently been noted as the “knowledge stocks” that affect organizational success. Writing on an entirely different subject, the tension created by the Brexit upheaval, Thomas Friedman in April 2019 brought knowledge services and knowledge sharing directly into the larger societal, indeed global, setting: Over centuries, notes John Hagel, who currently co-heads Deloitte’s Center for the Edge, business has “been organized around stocks of knowledge as the basis for value creation. The key to creating economic value has been to acquire some proprietary knowledge stocks, aggressively protect those knowledge stocks and then efficiently extract the economic value from those knowledge stocks and deliver them to the market. The challenge in a more rapidly changing world is that knowledge stocks depreciate at an accelerating rate. In this kind of world, the key source of economic value shifts from stocks to flows. The companies that will create the most economic value in the future,” Hagel says, “will be the ones that find ways to participate more effectively in a broader range of more diverse knowledge flows that can refresh knowledge stocks at an accelerating rate.

Freidman then makes the point that resonates with every knowledge strategist, a statement that relates not only in the international arena but is destined to apply in every workplace, noting that in “a world of simultaneous accelerations in technology and globalization, keeping your country as open as possible to as many flows as possible is advantageous for two reasons: You get all the change signals first and have to respond to them and you attract the most high-I.Q. risk-takers, who tend to be the people who start or advance new companies” (Friedman 2019). How do knowledge strategists and their knowledge strategy teams keep their employing organizations “as open as possible to as many flows as possible”? The answer – as is made clear throughout this handbook – is to identify and work within the knowledge services principles that must be observed as knowledge strategy development and implementation move forward. While

17 knowledge services principles every knowledge strategist should know

163

knowledge services principles, before now, have not been established and articulated (because knowledge services is still a new topic for many knowledge workers and enterprise leaders in the organizations where they are employed), that picture can now be changed. The knowledge strategist has a distinct advantage, having come to the subject of knowledge services and the objective of knowledge strategy development with a good, solid understanding of management and leadership principles. Recognizing that advantage for the knowledge strategist and the success of collaborative knowledge services, with this handbook we pronounce our knowledge services principles. These principles begin not with statements but with questions. For the knowledge strategist seeking to develop a knowledge strategy for the organization (either enterprise-wide or for a particular department, division, or business unit), it is critical to have a clear picture, an understanding of the organizational ambience with respect to knowledge services, knowledge sharing, and the overall knowledge exchange process. These questions, and the answers to them, will determine whether there is value in seeking to move forward with a knowledge strategy for the larger organization (we think there is such value, and if it is not self-evident to all affiliated with the knowledge strategist and the knowledge domain of the employing organization, it soon will be). Therefore we begin with these questions: 1. How is change managed in the organization? Can change leadership on the part of the knowledge strategist ensure support and enthusiasm for a knowledge culture, especially among enterprise leaders? 2. How do different business units and sections (especially those not necessarily connected with research or knowledge or other work related to the organization’s knowledge domain) deal with restructuring and the introduction of different management methodologies? 3. If a decision is made to undertake the management of knowledge services, will the knowledge strategist “own” the effort? If not, who is to be the senior responsibility authority? 4. Will it be possible to build an enterprise-wide knowledge services strategic framework in order to incorporate KD/KS/KU into the larger organizational culture? 5. As information management, knowledge management, and strategic learning take on the defining characteristics of the twenty-first century, is there a willingness in the larger organization to move to an integrated digital environment in which collaboration and KD/KS/KU are the norm? 6. Finally, can enterprise leadership commit to the support of a knowledgecentric opportunity-focused and results-focused structure? (St. Clair and Stanley 2009)

164

Epilogue

As these questions are honestly answered, the knowledge strategist and the strategy development team will quickly be able to surmise if knowledge value is recognized in the organization, and if it is, if there is a productive opportunity for moving forward. If the results are positive and encourage moving forward, the following can be adopted as knowledge services principles for guiding the process.

17 knowledge services principles every knowledge strategist should know 1. Knowledge Strategist/Leadership Teamwork. Even early discussions will require the support and enthusiasm of people who are well-versed and understand the role of knowledge in the larger organizational environment. Identify and seek participation from knowledge workers who are comfortable with organizational development, strategic planning, strategic partnership development, strategic learning, and KD/KS/KU. 2. Organizational Culture and Values. Learn about and confirm the organization’s culture and values. Nothing kills a project more effectively than being misaligned with the user community’s culture and values. Learning and discussing this topic and then incorporating the language and concepts learned in the early proposal stages of the project will ensure strategic alignment and the best possible user uptake and value. 3. Conversational Knowledge Culture. Give some attention to developing a “conversational” knowledge culture in the larger organization through identifying and engaging knowledge workers. They should be colleagues who can be effective advocates and champions and, if at the senior level, are willing to sign on as knowledge services sponsors (noted below). Bring organizational politics into the process and use political skills to achieve your objectives. 4. User Engagement. Learn about your employee environment and the commitment of your potential user base. Obviously, your team is starting with considerable anecdotal information and probably more than enough information based on the team members’ own observations. Talk about what you know.

17 knowledge services principles every knowledge strategist should know

165

5. Formal Studies. A knowledge services audit (“opportunity assessment”), surveys, interviews with executives, and the use of benchmarking studies are tools that will be used, probably with other tools as well, at this stage. Make use of MBWA (Management By Walking Around), identifying and then listening to people who are interested in knowledge services. 6. Challenge the Knowledge Services Mission. The opportunity to implement knowledge services will likely cause you to stretch or propose stretching the very mission or purpose of your role or function in the larger enterprise. This is an essential step because it forces you to think of the largest possible impact of your initiatives. Be prepared to recognize that this enterprise mindset can be at once energizing and threatening, and keep in mind that relying on solid values, good research, and strong sponsorship will help ensure success. 7. Knowledge Services Enterprise Vision. By incorporating your knowledge of the organizational culture, enterprise needs, and the changing mission and vision of the enterprise (with the understanding that enterprise values generally do not change), the organization’s knowledge strategy will create a compelling and clear future knowledge services charter for the larger organization – and your role and that of all parallel information-, knowledge-, or strategic learning-focused business units in the organization. This step will be a critical foundation to creating relevant and innovative enterprise goals. 8. Sponsor. Identify and seek commitment from a senior-level manager to support your efforts, even if you are still only in the “thinking about it” stage. Get to know that senior manager (it probably is someone with whom you already have a relationship of one sort or another, and you recognize one another in the workplace). Encourage that person to come along. Explain how important it is to support the value of the initiative, i.e. the knowledge strategy you are pursuing. 9. Knowledge Strategy Development Team. Put together a knowledge services strategic framework planning team or working group and use your experience with the development and implementation of the knowledge services audit. Begin to identify people in your leadership team who have either expressed interest in the subject or who can be persuaded into service because of their particular skills and expertise. Recognize that this activity is going to require time, commitment, and much hard work, and it is

166

Epilogue

the type of exercise that will often (indeed, can be expected to) require a level of commitment beyond the usual tasks associated with people’s work. There are people who are willing to go “the extra mile.” For this process, the planning team members must understand that they will be required to do so. 10. Knowledge Workers. In addition to bringing actual “participants” into your working group or planning team, you and they should make special efforts to identify people who are accustomed to working with information, knowledge, and strategic learning (that may be the person in charge of training activities in human resources, if that is the function in which training and strategic learning activities “reside”). Bring these people in as advocates or “interested parties,” people to whom you and your working group can go to with questions that are best discussed “on the floor” rather than in theory or in a management office. 11. Specific Goals. The SMART (Specific/Measurable/Achievable/Relevant/Time-bound) method – one of the most popular techniques for goal setting – can assist the planning team as it develops tangible and realistic proposals. Make sure these goals are known to the organization at large and that people at all levels understand how their work helps achieve these organization goals. Equally important is the establishment of personal goals – professional and developmental – to ensure individuals continue to perform and grow with the organization. 12. Statement of Work (SoW). Whatever format is used for project planning in the organization, use it, based on your experience in setting up the same type of process when you and your team designed and implemented the knowledge services audit. Before you get too far along in thinking about knowledge services in the larger organization, it is helpful to attempt to specify the scope and details of your projected effort and describe any conditions or particular or unique environmental situations that might affect the work. Later attention to a more formal terms of reference document will define the work and include schedules, timelines etc., but at this point you need to have a brief (and flexible) background document in place, to ensure that all stakeholders are in agreement and have a shared understanding of the value of the effort. 13. Propose Plans. With the input and engagement of strong sponsors and champions, devise and propose plans that are in alignment with the culture, methods, and procedures

17 knowledge services principles every knowledge strategist should know

167

in your enterprise, using the implementation framework described above or, if your organization has its own planning framework, use those concepts as a guide and incorporate them into the corporate framework. 14. Team Leads. With one or two of the organization’s recognized knowledge leaders serving as team lead (or leads), the planning group will begin to coalesce into subgroups or focus teams, with specific areas of responsibility and established collaborative and cooperative links. Communities of practice (probably but not necessarily informal) will be set up, and a central group will seek to capture the results of the different mapping exercises undertaken to give attention to identified “pain points,” ensuring that these are included in the larger planning focus. 15. Interested Observers. Invite others (like the advocates mentioned above) to attend – as visitors – meetings of the working group. Manage the meetings well and be very specific about staying with the agenda but give the visitors the opportunity to form opinions from their observations about the group’s work. 16. Baseline Schedules and Milestones. Once the effort is underway, the different teams and groups will establish baseline schedules and progress milestones. Documentation standards will be developed next, to ensure that all participants continue to have a clear picture of steps taken and that evaluation methodologies, when appropriate, can be utilized. 17. Change Management, Strategic Learning, and Communication Planning. As the strategy development project moves toward implementation, ensure that change management, strategic learning about change requirements, and communication plans are developed and communicated for all affected staff and affiliates (with reasonable timelines to enable participation without major conflicts). Taking these steps to support the move toward a knowledge culture will give the knowledge strategist a structure from which to work, providing the needed information that gives the knowledge strategy development team a wide range of topics to address and to discuss with others. At the same time, they play an enormous role in raising awareness throughout the organization about the value of knowledge services and the KD/KS/KU process.

Appendix 1: The knowledge services strategy: a guide for the knowledge strategist (an outline for KD/KS/KU) Re-printed from Knowledge Services: A Strategic Framework for the 21st Century Organization, by Guy St. Clair (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016) Organizational effectiveness begins with an enterprise-wide knowledge culture, built on a knowledge strategy supported by a knowledge services strategic framework for knowledge development, knowledge sharing, and knowledge utilization (KD/KS/KU). The knowledge strategy matches the organization’s business management strategy. To achieve KD/KS/KU success and to ensure the development of a meaningful knowledge strategy, corporate leaders turn to knowledge strategists. The knowledge strategist and the knowledge services strategic framework development team begin with the knowledge services audit, developing the knowledge strategy by applying their own background of experiences and expertise to the knowledge services audit findings. These are then incorporated into the knowledge strategy. The main objectives of the knowledge strategy are: – To empower staff and increase corporate and organizational efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability by providing easy access to accurate, timely, and relevant information and knowledge and strategic learning content, including procedures that enable all organizational stakeholders to carry out their work effectively, make informed decisions, and promote an organizational culture of learning – To strengthen internal collaboration and harness the organizational network in order to document and synthesize knowledge, experiences, best practices, and lessons learned – To establish cost-effective organizational frameworks and systems to support priority knowledge needs, in order to improve evidence-based KD/KS/KU. A. Why a Knowledge Strategy? 1. Organizational success – however defined – requires an established supportive environment for managing intellectual capital 2. The knowledge domain is the environment in which intellectual capital is managed, the knowledge; the knowledge strategy provides the blueprint/guidelines for its management https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110635577-005

170

Appendix 1: The knowledge strategy: A guide for knowledge strategist

3.

Understanding the data/information/knowledge/learning background enables collaboration and the application of knowledge for organizational success (“organizational effectiveness”) 4. The knowledge services/knowledge strategy operational function exists as one critical element of the larger, enterprise-wide corporate or organizational structure 5. Highest-level professional support in the knowledge domain creates an environment for innovation, contextual decision-making, strengthened research, and knowledge asset management. B. It’s all about knowledge and managing the organization’s knowledge, its intellectual capital. 1. Knowledge a. “What is known” b. Information (“practical and utilitarian”) for action based on insight and experience (“knowledge is information that is used”) c. Can – and often does – refer to both tacit and explicit knowledge 2. Knowledge management (KM) a. Usually defined as “working with knowledge” b. Also often thought of as managing the knowledge eco-structure c. For some knowledge workers, KM focuses on knowledge access through the utilization of an inventory or catalog (formal and/or informal) of the organization’s intellectual infrastructure, available to and shared by all stakeholders 3. Knowledge services a. The practical side of KM (“putting KM to work”) b. Converges information management, KM, and strategic learning c. Combines people, processes, and technology for managing information and knowledge assets at all functional levels 4. Why a “Strategy”? a. Strategy – a group of actions or activities that produces an established or agreed-upon goal b. Requires focus on the organization’s vision, mission, and values c. Serves as a blueprint (“road map”) for action d. Includes milestones for monitoring achievements and assessing results 5. Strategic issues (for knowledge strategy): anything in the KD/KS/KU context that causes concern or impacts organizational performance or

Appendix 1: The knowledge strategy: A guide for knowledge strategist

171

effectiveness – the level of urgency depends on leadership perspective about each issue 6. Strategic issues probably include (but are not limited to): a. b. c. d. e.

Organizational structure Financial planning/management Information management and information technology Knowledge services management and delivery Infrastructure planning/future services

C. Knowledge Strategy vis-à-vis Organizational Business Management Strategy 1. Knowledge strategy (Drucker et al.) a. Opportunity focused and results focused b. Supports enterprise-wide emphasis on knowledge needs and service-delivery successes for the larger organization c. Enables decision-making about KD/KS/KU that balances objectives and needs against possible returns for the larger organization 2. Separate knowledge strategy? Or knowledge-domain concepts incorporated into the organization business management strategy (Zack: knowledge strategy: “organizational business strategy that takes into account its intellectual resources and capabilities”) D. Preparing the Knowledge Strategy: Establish the Perspective 1. Identify the perspective or point-of-view of the client organization with respect to the development of the knowledge services audit (sometimes referred to as the analytical context) a. Carefully describe how the knowledge strategy is structured on the same basis for both the knowledge services strategic framework development team and management staff with responsibility for the audit (this point-of-view is usually evident in the results of the knowledge services audit) b. Categorize the reason or reasons for the development of the knowledge services strategic framework a. Solve a problem? b. Seek an innovative approach to a new product, concept, or activity? c. Conduct a management review for a group of functional units all focused on knowledge work? d. Other

172

Appendix 1: The knowledge strategy: A guide for knowledge strategist

2.

Identify sponsors, advocates, and champions who have some affiliation with the knowledge-related situation under study; cultivate their understanding of the purpose and goals of the knowledge strategy (their support and enthusiasm will be required to ensure implementation success for the knowledge strategy)

E. Describe the Results of the Knowledge Services Audit 1. Demonstrate the direct connection between the organization’s overall business management strategy and the knowledge strategy. Is it clearly established? If not, make it so. a. Company, institution, or organization overview (if not included in the knowledge services audit; if included provide a brief summary) b. Descriptive statement of the company, institution, or organization business management strategy 2. Describe the knowledge services audit findings, in as much detail as required 3. List and explicate recommendations based on the audit findings 4. Use the findings and recommendations of the knowledge services audit to demonstrate how the organization’s knowledge strategy will a. Foster a knowledge culture in the larger organization by: i. Establishing the organization as a learning organization ii. Providing guidance for establishing enterprise-wide policies and procedures that support knowledge sharing F. Propose a Core Strategy, including but not limited to such topics as: 1. Enterprise leadership expectations 2. Knowledge services value proposition 3. Employee engagement/knowledge services strategic framework team development 4. Communication and reflection 5. Situational/environmental analysis 6. Priorities and requirements evaluation 7. Organizational strengths (especially relating to knowledge services) 8. Key performance indicators 9. Untapped resources (missed opportunities?) a. Technology issues b. Analysis and evaluation c. Strategic learning and continuous improvement

Appendix 1: The knowledge strategy: A guide for knowledge strategist

173

G. Propose a Knowledge Strategy Implementation Plan 1. Change management preparation – early in the process, create a change management/strategic learning plan (to ensure buy-in from all affected stakeholders) 2. Identify what’s been done already (management needs to know if there has been an earlier approach to the situation under study) 3. Provide a statement of recommended activities, the knowledge services “road map” for the organization or institution 4. Identify required resources for implementing the knowledge strategy 5. Describe required awareness-building and marketing activities 6. Timeline – what will happen when? 7. Describe responsibility assignments – what are the staff requirements for which parts of the knowledge services? 8. Milestones and metrics – establish procedures for monitoring and measuring success along the way; for each milestone ask these questions: a. Who will be receiving the information and making judgments based on the metrics? b. What do these people want (or need) to know? c. How will the metrics be used? Are decisions made based on these metrics? H. Identify Risks – Does the Knowledge Strategy Involve Risk? 1. What kind of risk? 2. Who is affected? I.

Threats to the Proposed Knowledge Strategy 1. What barriers/impediments are or might be in place a. Environmental scan – if undertaken as part of the knowledge services audit – might reveal possible anticipated threats or barriers; if that content is pertinent it should be summarized and included b. Unanticipated threats or impediments (financial crisis, natural or other disasters, etc. – generally not included in a knowledge strategy) 2. Is there a contingency plan and/or exit strategy, in case the knowledge strategy cannot be implemented or if implemented, does not succeed?

J.

Make Your Case and Conclude the Knowledge Services Strategic Framework – The Organizational Knowledge Strategy 1. Collaboration is critical a. Ensure that the entire knowledge strategy development process includes all affiliates (or their representatives) whose work in the

174

Appendix 1: The knowledge strategy: A guide for knowledge strategist

2.

corporate or organizational knowledge domain will be affected with the implementation of the knowledge strategy b. Offer a preliminary or draft/interim report for commentary from critical enterprise management or leadership and, if appropriate, from other stakeholders as well c. Review comments submitted and establish a process for incorporating or rejecting specific concerns, strengthening recommendation and/or procedures if required, and publishing and delivering the final strategy document (usually with a presentation to selected leaders or organizational knowledge domain stakeholders) Knowledge strategy a. Is the strategy an end in itself or part of a larger KM/knowledge services function? b. How is the strategy positioned within the company, institution, or organization as a knowledge culture?

Appendix 2: Knowledge services: your foundation for building the twentyfirst century knowledge organization By Guy St. Clair As pointed out by President Barack Obama and other leaders in recent years, knowledge is the currency of the twenty-first century. Most organizations, though, are not yet prepared and struggle with a particular challenge: how does the organization manage what its people know? How do knowledge workers share and use the facts, truths, and principles they must have at hand in order to do their work? In many (if not most) organizations, knowledge is not shared as well as it should be. And generally speaking, not much attention is given to how what people know influences organizational success. Now, as the sheer volume of information, knowledge, and strategic learning content has increased in all communities, institutions, and organizations, impeded knowledge sharing has become extremely expensive, no matter how the cost is measured. Think about “big data” or all the concern about keeping up with the much talked about (and much written about) “information overload.” Enterprise leaders continue to be perplexed as they seek to find a solution to the dire state of knowledge sharing in the organizations for which they are responsible, and most agree that knowledge management (KM) alone is not the solution. Many of us thought KM would be the solution we were looking for, but our optimism was short-lived as KM passed from the conceptual to the “How does this work in my company?” stage. Why? One of the major reasons is that the sharing of knowledge is specific to the environment or organization; there is no single solution for knowledge sharing that will work in all organizations, and much of the effort in KM appears to focus on one-size-fits-all solutions. It doesn’t work. Each organization’s vision, mission, and values are different, established to support that organization’s individual objectives. So, it is almost impossible to come up with a KM solution that can work in a wide variety of organizations. Still, some versions of KM have been developed, with varying levels of success, but there continue to be issues. One problem has to do with the popular people-process-technology concept for the successful integration of anything related to the management of information, knowledge, and strategic learning. That ideal – that integration – has become somewhat skewed, for as we sought to apply the concept in the knowledge domain we forgot to connect to one of Peter Drucker’s basic principles, that “management is about human beings” (as quoted in Elizabeth Haas Edersheim’s book The Definitive Drucker). But https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110635577-006

176

Appendix 2: Knowledge services

when managers attempted to figure out how to share knowledge with KM, they did get very far, and many organizations moving to KM ended up focusing almost exclusively on technology and process. So, we are not yet in a position to assert that an organization’s information, knowledge, and strategic learning are shared to the extent the organization, its stakeholders, and its affiliates require. We know that most organizations need better knowledge sharing to master the challenges of the twentieth-first century, not only enterprise-wide but also within (and between) individual departments and business units. We seek a knowledge sharing solution that is practical, applicable in a wide range of organizational types, and – as important as any process or technology adopted for its implementation – a solution that focuses on the people who will lead and manage its application as an organizational practice and those who will be most affected by its adoption. The solution is knowledge services.

Knowledge sharing through knowledge services Kevin Manion at SunTrust Bank understands knowledge sharing as “the very core of how we lead our business,” referring to knowledge sharing as the “key concept of business leadership.” Knowledge sharing, he says, . . .needs to be woven into the very culture of the organization. Leadership that does not promote a knowledge sharing culture is far less likely to succeed in reaching the firm’s full potential and, by extension, to attract and retain the talent needed to grow and innovate beyond competitors. Knowledge sharing is a powerful differentiating factor in our increasingly competitive environment.

Knowledge sharing begins with knowledge services, an approach to knowledge sharing that converges information management (including technology management), knowledge management, and strategic learning into a single enterprise-wide discipline (knowledge services as a management methodology is spoken of as a single entity, a compound subject. As such, we apply the singular verb when we speak of knowledge services). Indeed, as knowledge services includes KM as one of its three pillars, the discipline obviously connects with KM. Dale Stanley, formerly with Gilead Sciences, makes that clear: “Knowledge services,” Stanley says, “enables enterprise leaders to ‘put KM to work’ – it’s the practical side of knowledge management.” The purpose of knowledge services is to ensure the highest levels of knowledge sharing within the organization in which it is practiced, with leadership for knowledge sharing the responsibility of the knowledge strategist, the management employee who uses knowledge services as a foundation for

Appendix 2: Knowledge services

177

creating (or strengthening) the organization’s knowledge culture. As a management discipline, knowledge services contributes to organizational success as workers improve knowledge sharing across the enterprise. In doing so, they establish knowledge services as supporting the organizational or business mission, leading to overall company success.

The knowledge strategist Knowledge services, though, is not the end of the game. In fact, knowledge services is only the beginning, used by the knowledge strategist to transform the larger organization. This manager develops the objectives of the knowledge strategy and then proceeds with designing implementation plans for how these objectives are to be achieved through the enterprise-wide adoption of knowledge services. A first step is an attempt to provide an honest response to the inevitable “Why do we need a knowledge strategist?” question. The answer takes the organization back to the “why?” for knowledge strategy itself: organizational success requires an established environment for knowledge sharing, and it is the organization’s knowledge strategy that provides the blueprint and guidelines for ensuring that information, knowledge, and strategic learning are managed for the organization’s benefit. With a knowledge strategy in place, all stakeholders and affiliates come to understand the value of knowledge for organizational success, establishing the knowledge services/knowledge strategy function as a critical element in the enterprise-wide organizational structure and leading inevitably to the development of the organization as a knowledge culture. With a knowledge culture, all the pieces fall readily into place. At Microsoft, Nishan DeSilva believes that when the company functions as a knowledge culture, the leadership role of the knowledge strategist becomes even more important, positioning that employee to move knowledge-related projects forward. DeSilva notes that there are wide variations in awareness about the value and the importance of the knowledge sharing function, and in looking at the overall organizational ambiance for success with knowledge sharing, “the company’s structure as a knowledge culture has great influence in policy development.” The knowledge strategist brings that influence into play. Another important attribute of the work of the knowledge strategist is that the job provides a valuable opportunity for ensuring that all parties have the tools and content they require, enabling them to contribute to organizational success. Victoria Harriston at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in Washington, D.C., thinks so. She is absolutely certain that the more that knowledge services is applied across the overall enterprise, the better:

178

Appendix 2: Knowledge services

I want to embed knowledge services in every part of the organization. That’s my goal. And I particularly want knowledge services to be a critical component in the readily visible parts of the organization. I want the knowledge services staff to partner and collaborate wherever knowledge services is required. That’s the strategic direction I’ve chosen and it’s what I’m trying to bring to the National Academies.

Knowledge services: the leader’s role In addition to the knowledge strategist’s efforts, others with established management and leadership responsibilities must take an active role in raising awareness and participate in advancing knowledge services throughout the organization. Initially, the leader has to learn about the concept of knowledge services and get the ball rolling by, for example, reading this article or observing a department or affiliated company adopting the knowledge services framework. Being aware of the benefits and looking at the successful adoption of knowledge services elsewhere creates commitment for transforming the leader’s own organization into a knowledge culture. Two critical tasks are required. The knowledge strategist must identify existing knowledge sharing functions within the organization and, at the same time, identify suitable co-workers willing to participate in developing the knowledge services framework. The former is completed by assessing the knowledge sharing success (or lack of it) in the identified knowledge-focused organizational units. This management exercise (usually referred to as a “knowledge services audit”) establishes the background for developing the knowledge services framework. The second activity, identifying colleagues who demonstrate an interest in working with the knowledge strategist in moving to “better” or “higher-level” knowledge sharing, is achieved as the audit is performed. Indeed, it is a fairly common experience that when the audit is taking place, colleagues will make themselves known and, in many cases, ask to participate, often simply because they have already recognized that information, knowledge, and strategic learning can be shared better in their own workplace. And from a more positive perspective, employees already working in successful knowledge-focused units will quickly become interested in the adoption of the knowledge services framework. They, too, will prove helpful as the organization transforms into a knowledge culture. From that point on, leaders play five active roles in supporting the transformation: sponsoring, mentoring, managing the change, sharing, and justifying. As a sponsor, the leader promotes the value of a particular knowledge sharing initiative and expresses enthusiasm for its development and implementation. Moreover, the leader models the activity, perhaps by establishing it as a desirable tool or technique for use in the sponsor’s workplace. Finally, the leader-as-sponsor reinforces

Appendix 2: Knowledge services

179

and rewards the development of the initiative by ensuring that all stakeholders understand that the initiative is to be undertaken and implemented. At the same time, participants are rewarded by having the sense that their participation is recognized as a contribution to organizational success. As a mentor, the leader provides guidance to his or her mentee so that the employee can accomplish the organization-wide adoption of the knowledge services framework required for the knowledge strategy to succeed. Part of this effort (not surprisingly) requires the leader to focus on managing the change, which means overseeing the adoption process and installing measurements of the success of the change toward a knowledge culture. As part of the leader’s awareness-raising responsibility in sharing the knowledge services concept, noted previously, the leader must ensure that the “idea” of knowledge sharing is incorporated into the organization’s strategic learning program. In this role, the leader approves – with appropriate organization staff – a strategic learning initiative to make knowledge workers familiar with the wide range of activities relating to knowledge services and knowledge sharing. Concurrently (probably by using known experts and the organization’s existing communication framework), the leader embarks on a campaign to disseminate information about the value of knowledge sharing and knowledge services throughout the larger organization. Last, the leader justifies support for knowledge services among the C-suite and other high-ranking executives, to create buy-in from all relevant parties and ensure that utilizing the knowledge strategy is a priority at the highest organizational level. Progress metrics and continuous reporting of success will help to make the case for the adoption of the knowledge services framework enterprise-wide and allow the organization’s transformation into a knowledge culture.

Knowledge services best practices: an example When dealing with organizational knowledge, one of the advantages of moving forward with a relatively new perspective is that some problems or situations not solved successfully in the past now become strong candidates for “the new way.” Such has been the case with knowledge services and the establishment of knowledge strategy as an organizational function. A fine example is the knowledge strategy developed for and implemented at the United Nations Human Settlements Programme, headquartered in Nairobi, Kenya. UN-Habitat (the more common name) is the UN agency working towards a better urban future. As noted on the UN-Habitat website, its mission is “to

180

Appendix 2: Knowledge services

promote socially and environmentally sustainable human settlements development and the achievement of adequate shelter for all.” At UN-Habitat, agency leaders recognized that the agency’s success depends on how well its knowledge is managed and used. Accordingly, in 2009 and 2010 efforts were undertaken to develop a knowledge strategy. Agency leaders authorized a wide-ranging and comprehensive knowledge services audit to develop the background all stakeholders required. When completed, the findings of the audit led to important recommendations for future action and the development of basic knowledge sharing principles focusing on UN-Habitat’s role as a purpose-driven and service-oriented organization. As part of this effort, the agency identified a new vision for future strength and committed UN-Habitat to specific enhancements, including improved internal collaboration, empowered staff, and a new way forward that included stronger efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability. Among the vision’s stated goals were strengthened capacity for staff and partners to “share, reuse, and create” information and knowledge, an aspiration that led to the development and implementation of a knowledge network system for sustainable urbanization and actionable planning for leveraging sustainable urbanization in countries throughout the world.

Conclusion At this point in time, as organizations move into the knowledge era of the twentyfirst century, there is no longer any question about the need for managing and encouraging knowledge sharing. Knowledge management has been one approach, but KM is not always the best solution. Certainly, by the late 1990s, many managers and enterprise leaders felt a sense of futility in speaking about “managing” knowledge because their responsibilities required dealing with knowledge sharing in more practical terms. Achieving successful information management, knowledge management, and strategic learning became a challenge. I took up the challenge. In our consulting practice, my colleagues and I heard organizational leaders describe their struggles to find a solution to the knowledge-sharing problem (often an enterprise-wide problem) and we decided we needed to do something about it. As we spoke with executives, we realized that they understood some of the concepts relating to managing information (especially technology management) and strategic learning but the idea of “managing” knowledge continued to be a barrier. We concluded that the difficulty was probably related to the fact that the “people” element of the widespread “people-process-technology” idea was being neglected. When we then explained knowledge management and connected KM to their work with their

Appendix 2: Knowledge services

181

people who managed information and strategic learning, the enterprise leaders got it. My colleagues and I found we could speak with executives about knowledge-related issues in terms of services required for solving their problems (as opposed to managing knowledge), a context that gave these decision makers a new perspective for thinking about information, knowledge, and strategic learning in ways they could measure and for which they could identify tangible benefits. Knowledge services came into the management lexicon. This is the important distinction. With knowledge services the organization’s leaders recognize and understand the role of the people who are leading their organizations in addressing issues relating to the knowledge domain. Together with their knowledge strategists, knowledge specialists, and knowledge workers – employees and affiliates embracing knowledge sharing as a solution – leaders are now able to bring the highest levels of knowledge sharing to their organizations. They and their employees embrace continual and ongoing conversation, discussion, continuous learning, and the establishment of the organization as a knowledge culture (in whatever “version” matches the needs of their workplace). As they embrace knowledge services, leaders arrive at the solutions their companies need. At the same time, they strengthen the peopleprocess-technology alignment. This requires making sure that everyone on every team and in every business unit, department, and division of the organization understands and feels that he or she has a personal and professional role to play in building the successful twenty-first-century knowledge organization. This article was originally published in Leader to Leader, a publication of the Frances Hesselbein Leadership Institute, in June 2017. Prepared with the greatly appreciated assistance of Benjamin Walser.

A knowledge services glossary: a guide for conversation The last several years have seen an amazing growth of interest in knowledge management (KM), knowledge services, and knowledge strategy. For those of us working in the so-called “knowledge domain” – regardless of the specifics of our work – there is often discussion about our language, the jargon (in the positive sense of the word) we’ve developed for discussing what we do with others who are not part of the knowledge domain community or workplace. Most of us in this field recognize that there can be no single way of describing the different elements of an organization’s knowledge domain, since each workplace represents an individual environment, specifically developed to meet the knowledge sharing requirements of the people who make up that workplace community. All we can do is develop management and leadership principles for the specific knowledge domain in question (based on generally accepted management and leadership principles) and put those principles to work in our specific environment. On the other hand, it does seem that we have developed a jargon, as mention above. Most of us use these terms. At SMR International – where the work is focused on knowledge services – the company’s colleagues and clients frame their work in that particular language (hence the title of this briefing). At the same time, it is important to acknowledge that many of these concepts, words, phrases, and constructs overlap in many other knowledge domain environments and it seems appropriate – at this point – to bring together these various ways of speaking about knowledge services. As we speak with clients, workplace colleagues, members of professional associations to which we belong, and others with whom we come in contact and speak with about knowledge services, we sense that it would be important to capture some of the terms we use, and how we use them. Although the focus of this particular book is on knowledge strategy, this preliminary glossary is offered in the interest of opening the conversation and perhaps finding some common language for describing all of our work, not just the language we use in knowledge strategy development. This glossary is expected to be a fluid document, with changes incorporated as new concepts and terms are added or current ones revised. For us, as the authors of this book and serious knowledge services practitioners, we welcome input about these terms, and we hope readers will use these terms to engage in broader discourse as they use the handbook. – Guy St. Clair and Barrie Levy https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110635577-007

184

A knowledge services glossary: a guide for conversation

A knowledge services glossary: a guide for conversation Change Management vis-à-vis change leadership

Change management is a collective term for the wide variety of elements that enable organizational change. Since the most common change driver relates to organizational restructuring, an understanding of change management is particularly critical for the knowledge strategist, the manager/leader responsible for “turning around” an organization’s knowledge services structure and practices. For the knowledge strategist, the most effective approach to change management is through change leadership, which Peter F. Drucker recommends should be of more concern than “managing” change: “One cannot manage change. One can only be ahead of it . . . Anticipate the future and be a change leader.”

Collaboration in Knowledge Services a. (alternative: collaborative knowledge services)

b.

Knowledge strategists are responsible for the organization’s excellence in knowledge sharing, and along with the same excellence in knowledge development and knowledge utilization. Collaborative knowledge services is the knowledge services methodology that leads to success for the organization in which it is practiced. Collaboration is defined as “a working practice” that enables individuals to work together to achieve a defined and common business purpose, in two forms, synchronous and asynchronous.

Community of Practice

A group of people, often drawn from different functions within the organization, who work on similar processes or in similar practice areas, and who share experiences and knowledge.

Document Management

The process of managing documents and other means of information such as images from creation, review, and storage to dissemination. Document management also involves the indexing, storage, and retrieval of documents in an organized method.

A knowledge services glossary: a guide for conversation

185

(continued )

Enterprise Content Management (ECM)

Enterprise content management (ECM) is an amalgamation of business strategies, processes, and tools that comprise a number of IT solutions within knowledge services. The goal of ECM is simple, the life cycle management of all structured and unstructured content across all organizational elements of the enterprise.

Information Management

A process for acquiring, maintaining, and distributing information, and, ultimately, disposing of the information through established governance (e.g.: archiving or deleting).

Intellectual Capital

For an enterprise to succeed in achieving its operational objectives, and to function as a knowledgecentric organization, enterprise management must include the management of intellectual capital as a competitive asset. “Intellectual capital is the sum of everything everybody in a company knows that gives it a competitive edge.” – Thomas A. Stewart Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations (New York: Doubleday/Currency, )

Knowledge

a. b.

c.

Knowledge Asset Management (KAM)

“What is known” Information (“practical and utilitarian”) for action based on insight and experience (“knowledge is information that is used”) Can – and often does – refer to both tacit and explicit knowledge.

Knowledge Asset Management (KAM) emphasizes that there is more to content management then having it centrally archived. KAM encompasses the governance and feedback loops required to ensure that all enterprise parties take an active role in its maintenance.

186

A knowledge services glossary: a guide for conversation

(continued )

Knowledge Culture

a.

b.

Shared beliefs and values about knowledge and the role of knowledge in the company or organization and, as appropriate, in the larger society. The Knowledge Culture is supported through Knowledge Development, Knowledge Sharing, and Knowledge Utilization (KD/KS/KU) and managed through Knowledge Strategy. 1. Attributes of the Knowledge Culture: 2. Collaboration is a given – and expected – at all levels 3. The role of information technology and communication in the KD/KS/KU process is acknowledged and enthusiastically embraced 4. The intellectual foundations for the effort are respected – the intellectual quest is not disdained 5. Ownership of the KM, knowledge services, and knowledge strategy development function is clearly established, with a carefully planned out governance structure and a senior-level employee tasked to work with all organizational functions (the enterprise-wide “knowledge domain”). An ambiance or environment in which knowledge development and knowledge sharing provide the standard, operational framework. For ease in description, we can think of the knowledge culture as a culture in which the environment for the management of research in the organization – and, indeed, all knowledge sharing – embodies the highest objectives of knowledge management, organizational learning, and organizational teaching. It is a sharing culture, one that builds on the assumption that all organizational stakeholders accept their responsibility to develop and to share tacit, explicit, and cultural knowledge within the enterprise, for the benefit of the larger organizational enterprise.

A knowledge services glossary: a guide for conversation

187

(continued )

Knowledge Development/Knowledge Originally described as knowledge development and Sharing/Knowledge Utilization – knowledge sharing (KD/KS), Mor Sela, Founder and usually abbreviated KD/KS/KU) Principal Consultant at Bettercollaboration.com, recognized in  that knowledge development and knowledge sharing require a connection with knowledge utilization – KU – to ensure success in the management of intellectual capital in the organizational knowledge domain. In some environments KD/KS/KU is described as “information management and collaboration,” recognizing that with most knowledge strategists the knowledge domain language/jargon will connect with that used in the larger organization seeking success in KD/KS/KU. Knowledge Domain

The environment in which intellectual capital is managed; the knowledge strategy provides the blueprint/guidelines for its management. All organizational activities, at every functional level, require KD/KS/KU. The principles of whatever line of work for which knowledge is developed and shared can be applied to the management of all of the company’s intellectual capital and, at the same time, ensure that knowledge services – as a management and servicedelivery tool – rises to the highest levels knowledge services can achieve.

188

A knowledge services glossary: a guide for conversation

(continued )

Knowledge Management (KM)

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

A method for working with the organization’s intellectual capital, the combined knowledge of all organizational stakeholders, KM is also a process, . the element of the knowledge services practice that enables the capture, development, sharing, and utilization of organizational knowledge for the benefit of the organization. Often defined as “working with knowledge” (Larry Prusak, with Tom Davenport). Prusak remarks that they would like to “take back” the “knowledge management” term: “It really is working with knowledge (not managing knowledge). You can’t manage knowledge per se. You can’t manage love, or honor, or patriotism, or piety. It is clearly working with knowledge, but the words got there, and there it is.” – De Cagna, Jeff. “Keeping Good Company: A Conversation with Larry Prusak,” Information Outlook 2, no. 5 (May 2001) Also, often thought of as “managing the knowledge eco-structure.” – Steven B. Abram, private conversation For some knowledge workers, KM focuses on knowledge access through the utilization of an inventory or catalog (formal and/or informal) of the organization’s intellectual infrastructure, available to and shared by all stakeholders. Alternatively, knowledge management is the definition, creation, capture, usage, sharing, and communication of the wisdom accumulated by workers over their years of experience – in other words, the intellectual capital of an organization.

A knowledge services glossary: a guide for conversation

189

(continued )

Knowledge Services

a.

b.

c.

d.

A management approach that streamlines the management of an organization’s knowledge by converging information management, knowledge management (KM), and strategic learning into a single enterprise-wide discipline. Its goal is to ensure the highest levels of knowledge sharing within the organization, and as an operational function, knowledge services contributes significantly to the successful achievement of the organization’s stated and agreed-upon mission and vision. – Guy St. Clair Knowledge Services: A Strategic Framework for the 21st Century Organization (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016) The management and service-delivery methodology that converges (encompasses) information management, knowledge management, and strategic learning into a single overarching function. The practical side of KM (“putting KM to work”), enabling accelerated innovation, contextual decision-making, strengthened research, and excellence in knowledge asset management (however “knowledge asset” is defined). Combines people, processes, technology, content management, and alignment for managing information and knowledge assets at all functional levels, ideally enterprise-wide.

190

A knowledge services glossary: a guide for conversation

(continued )

Knowledge Services Audit (“Knowledge Audit”)

A process for reviewing and mapping organizational information, knowledge, and strategic learning need, creation, use, flow, and storage; identifies gaps, duplication, costs, and barriers to effective information flow and establishes knowledge value in (for) the larger organization. Sometimes considered an inventory of the organization’s intellectual infrastructure, the knowledge services audit combines the methodologies of the standard needs analysis (asking what information resources and services people require to do their work), the information audit (which determines how information resources and services are actually used), and the knowledge audit (which looks at knowledge assets and how they are produced and by whom). Alternatively, the Knowledge Services Audit is defined as a systematic examination and evaluation of an organization’s explicit and tacit knowledge assets (“knowledge resources”). The objectives of the Knowledge Services Audit are: a. to determine what knowledge is required by staff b. to identify how information and knowledge are used, and c. to establish the extent to which this knowledge use contributes to meeting larger organizational objectives. In practical terms, the Knowledge Services Audit is a statement of things as they are with respect to KM, a statement of things as they should (could) be, and a description of the gaps between the two. The Knowledge Services Audit takes a broad and shallow approach as opposed to a narrow and deep approach to assessing business needs, a key difference between a Knowledge Services Audit and other audits.

A knowledge services glossary: a guide for conversation

191

(continued )

Knowledge Services Audit (Core Elements)

Knowledge Services Audit Core Elements include but are not limited to: a. Identification of current trends in knowledge services management b. Identification and evaluation of range of services provided for implementing knowledge services c. Description of strategic benefits of these services (e.g. perceived value) d. Description of metrics and key performance indicators e. Determining the knowledge services link to organization/corporate vision, mission, and values f. Identification of strategic learning and continuous improvement. Knowledge Services Audit: The Seven-Stage Model 1 Planning 2 3

Data Collection Data Analysis

4

Data Evaluation

5 6

Communicating Recommendations Implementing Recommendations

7

The Knowledge Services Audit as a Continuum

Adapted from: – Henczel, Sue. The Information Audit: A Practical Guide (Munich: K.G. Saur, 2001)

192

A knowledge services glossary: a guide for conversation

(continued )

Knowledge Services Focal Point

A departmental or business unit employee designated with ownership responsibility for the function of knowledge, usually with a certain level of oversight responsibility (or custodial responsibility) and positioned to coordinate planning and implementation of knowledge services activities, including service delivery. In the business unit, the knowledge services focal point serves as a vital link between knowledge services – as a management practice or discipline – and other members of the department, serving as the chief advocate for monitoring and improving the status of knowledge services across the unit. Typical activities include advocating and assisting in knowledge services policy formulation within the unit, sharing and showcasing good knowledge services practices, and collaborating in the development of recruitment and promotion mechanisms.

Knowledge Sharing = Collaboration

a.

b. c.

Collaboration is a principle-based process of working together, which produces trust, integrity, and breakthrough results by building true consensus, ownership, and alignment in all aspects of the organization . . . Put another way, collaboration is the way people naturally want to work . . . Collaboration is the premier candidate to replace hierarchy as the organizing principle for leading and managing the 21st century workplace . . . ” – Marshall, Edward M. Transforming the Way We Work: The Power of the Collaborative Workplace (New York: American Management Association, 1999)

A knowledge services glossary: a guide for conversation

193

(continued )

Knowledge Strategist

The Knowledge Strategist has authority, responsibility, and accountability for developing and implementing strategies for Knowledge Services (that is, for managing information, knowledge, and strategic learning). These activities provide focus for the Knowledge Strategist for designing and planning knowledgerelated activities and policy, and in particular the Knowledge Strategist is expected to give attention to future knowledge-related roles and activities that will affect corporate or organizational success. Ideally, in performing these functions, the Knowledge Strategist becomes the enterprise-wide knowledge thought leader. In this role, the Knowledge Strategist is thus positioned to advise all stakeholders in all efforts relating to the organization’s knowledge domain.

Knowledge Strategist, (sample) job description

The knowledge strategist is a trusted advisor to the organization’s management with responsibility for leading and overseeing the development of collaboration and implementation solutions for information and knowledge sharing within various corporate groups. As knowledge strategist, this manager/leader will have the opportunity to combine technical skills, creativity, and customer focus to define and improve internal processes and deliver great solutions, to ensure that colleagues within the immediate department and customers have access to and get the best from the company’s collected knowledge.

194

A knowledge services glossary: a guide for conversation

(continued )

Knowledge Strategy

The management discipline that ensures organizational effectiveness by matching intellectual capital management with the corporate or organizational mission. “ . . . the organization’s business strategy that takes into account its intellectual resources and capabilities” – Michael F. Zack “Developing a Knowledge Strategy” California Management Review, , no.  (Spring ) Alternatively, Knowledge Strategy is defined as a group of actions or activities that produces an established or agreed-upon goal, a plan to be executed in the future to achieve specific knowledge-sharing objectives and viewed as a combination of the actions that are intended to result in anticipated business outcomes. Also, defined as the actions that emerge as a result of the many complex activities that are undertaken within an organization: a. the actions that are intended to result in anticipated business outcomes b. the actions that emerge as a result of the many complex activities that are undertaken within an organization. – Shawn Callahan (Anecdote, Melbourne AUS) Developing the Knowledge Strategy: a. requires focus on organizational vision, mission, values b. serves as a blueprint (“roadmap”) for action c. includes milestones for monitoring achievements and assessing results.

Knowledge Strategy vis-à-vis Corporate/Organizational Business Strategy

Knowledge Strategy (Drucker et al.) a. both opportunity-focused and results-focused b. supports enterprise-wide emphasis on knowledge needs and service-delivery successes for the larger organization c. enables decision-making about KD/KS/KU that balances objectives and needs against possible returns for the larger organization.

A knowledge services glossary: a guide for conversation

195

(continued )

Knowledge Strategy Plan (formerly “strategic planning” for knowledge work or – historically – “long-range planning” for knowledge work)

A two-part document or statement that details the organizational or business approach to success with KD/KS/KU: ) Strategy: aspirational (inspirational) ) Implementation Plan: practical (tactical).

Knowledge Strategy (Core Elements)

Knowledge Strategy Core Elements include but are not limited to: a. Leadership expectations b.

KM/knowledge services value proposition

c. d.

Employee engagement/knowledge development Communication and reflection

e.

Situational/environmental analysis

f.

Priorities and requirements evaluation

g. h.

Organizational strengths (especially relating to KM and knowledge services) Key performance indicators

i.

Untapped resources (missed opportunities?)

j.

Technology issues

team

k.

Analysis and evaluation

l.

Strategic learning and continuous improvement.

196

A knowledge services glossary: a guide for conversation

(continued )

Knowledge Strategy (Implementation Knowledge Strategy Implementation and Planning and Planning Elements) Elements include but are not limited to: a. Change management preparation b. c.

Identification of prior knowledge strategy/ implementation Recommended activities (the knowledge “roadmap”)

d.

Resource requirements

e.

Awareness-building and marketing activities

f.

Training requirements

g.

Timeline

h.

Responsibility assignments

i.

Milestones and metrics

j.

Target audience (how will the strategy be used?)

k.

Risk identification, threats, anticipated barriers and impediments (anticipated and unanticipated, e.g. per environmental scan) Contingency plans and/or exit strategy, in case the knowledge strategy cannot be implemented or, if implemented, does not succeed?

l.

Knowledge Value Chain® (KVC)

Critical to the knowledge strategist’s success in achieving an enterprise-wide knowledge services framework for the organization is understanding and practicing the Knowledge Value Chain® (KVC), created by Timothy W. Powell. In , Powell referred to the Knowledge Value Chain as “a structured methodology for understanding and accelerating the transformation of your data into knowledge and intelligence and finally into outcomes and operating results.” With this direction for thinking about knowledge, Powell noted that within the organization, this transformation typically happens in the form of knowledge-based processes – for example, business strategy, market research, corporate intelligence, knowledge management, specialized libraries, and even R&D and legal research. Those processes occur within a value context – that is, they produce both costs and benefits.

A knowledge services glossary: a guide for conversation

197

(continued )

Knowledge Thought Leader

Joel Kurtzman made the distinction that those leaders worth talking to are thought of as “thought leaders” (or are in some stage of being considered as such). The organization’s knowledge strategist takes on that role, pushing the boundaries of whatever approach to knowledge sharing is adapted and applied enterprisewide in the organization and in many cases radically changing knowledge-sharing ideas and methodologies to support excellence in knowledge services and knowledge strategy.

Leadership

Leadership is “a process of social influence which maximizes the efforts of others, towards the achievement of a goal.” (Kevin Kruse in Forbes April , ). For the knowledge strategist, two leadership styles take precedence, the visionary and transformational, for the knowledge strategist accepts the responsibility to provide knowledge leadership. The knowledge strategist has the ability, the knowledge of concepts, and the skills for that rarified role, and it’s a place in the organization that many management employees do not have – a subjectspecialty leadership position. With knowledge leadership comes additional influence in the organization and it becomes associated with the knowledge strategist and can make or break the leader/manager’s professional success. Knowledge leadership is a role the knowledge strategist has to play, for in the workplace the knowledge strategist can see – and act on – the connection between the organization’s intellectual capital and the organization’s successful achievement of its stated mission and goals.

198

A knowledge services glossary: a guide for conversation

(continued )

Management

In , Peter F. Drucker provided what is probably the most viable definition of management for the knowledge strategist: “Management is what tradition used to call a liberal art – ‘liberal’ because it deals with the fundamentals of knowledge, self-knowledge, wisdom, and leadership; ‘art’ because it deals with practice and application. Managers draw on all of the knowledge and insights of the humanities and the social sciences – on psychology and philosophy, on economics and history, on the physical sciences and ethics. But they have to focus this knowledge on effectiveness and results – on healing a sick patient, teaching a student, building a bridge, designing and selling a ‘user-friendly’ software program.” (Drucker, ) Probably unwittingly, the Drucker definition echoes that of David Lilienthal from  years earlier (Lilienthal, ). In doing so, it provides a critical connection with the management style required of the knowledge strategist, a way of managing that enables the knowledge strategist to get “back to basics” and doing so in humanist or “humanistic” terms. Or, put another way (from Lilianthal’s perspective), working with both sides of the coin, with both scientific thinking, logic, order, and process, and – at the same time – with the “softer,” more humanistic side of life, taking managers and leaders in both directions to come to a meaningful and useful framework for accomplishing what the knowledge strategist wants to “get done,” to provide the knowledge-sharing framework that enables organization success. Most managers understand that management is an organizational function that uses available resources efficiently and effectively, to ensure that the organization’s goals and objectives are achieved.

A knowledge services glossary: a guide for conversation

199

(continued )

Organizational behavior/ organizational effectiveness

For the knowledge strategists, the science of organizational behavior provides guidance as they connect what they are doing with knowledge strategy for the larger organization or enterprise. Knowledge strategists recognize organizational behavior for what it is, the study of human behavior in the organizational setting, where they study – or attempt to study – the human/organization interface, which is what they are trying to do with knowledge services and knowledge strategy, to use their education, their management and leadership skills, and their knowledge services expertise to make knowledge sharing work in the organizational environment.

PEST

A popular management review process that looks at situational political, economic, social, and technological influences that can affect the outcome of a specific activity or undertaking.

Sponsorship

This management principle identifies an influential leader or leaders who commit to a consultative role in the knowledge services/knowledge strategy development process. The sponsor or sponsors agree to express, model, and reinforce their commitment to the knowledge sharing improvement or innovation being proposed or, in later stages, being implemented. In the larger organization, the sponsor is a recognized leader who speaks about, models, and reinforces that critical commitment.

Strategic planning (e.g. strategy development)

“ . . . the continuous process of making entrepreneurial decisions systematically and with the greatest knowledge of their futurity, organizing systematically the efforts needed to carry out these decisions, and measuring the results of these decisions against the expectations through organized systematic feedback . . . The question that faces the strategic decision-maker is not what his organization should do tomorrow. It is “what do we have to do today to be ready for an uncertain tomorrow?”” (Drucker )

200

A knowledge services glossary: a guide for conversation

(continued )

Strategy

Strategy is defined as a plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal. It is a well known and muchused management term, and in relating strategy to working with the organization’s knowledge domain, the specifics of the strategy are straightforward: We use management to control how what we want to get done gets done, and we use strategy as the overarching methodology to achieve our goals. Leadership – as part of our broader management picture – provides guidance, direction, and tone to those with whom we interact, to ensure that we are building strong relationships with our staff and peers.

Strategic Issues (in the Knowledge Domain)

Anything in the KD/KS/KU context that causes concern or impacts organizational performance or effectiveness – the level of urgency depends on the leadership perspective about each issue. Strategic issues probably include (but are not limited to): a. Organizational structure b. Financial planning/management c. Information management and information technology d. KM/knowledge services management and delivery e. Infrastructure planning/future services.

A knowledge services glossary: a guide for conversation

201

(continued )

Strategic Learning (Organizational Learning)

a.

b.

c.

SWOT

Strategic learning is carried out through any training and education relating to organizational knowledge – in any format, formal or informal. The successful achievement of skills, competencies, knowledge, and behaviors through professional learning, staff development and professional growth, all required for excellence in workplace performance. As a result, Strategic Learning enables those who develop knowledge to share it, for the benefit of everybody in the workplace (i.e. combines knowledge development with knowledge sharing and knowledge utilization – KD/KS/KU). The convergence of knowledge management, knowledge services, and strategic (organizational) learning is synergistic. All three are about people – the relationships between people, different areas of a company, and multiple stakeholders. Alternatively, Strategic (Organizational) Learning can be any process (formal or informal) through which knowledge workers acquire information and knowledge that improves or enhances work performance.

A popular management review process that looks at situational strengths, weaknesses, threats, and opportunities that can affect the outcome of a specific activity or undertaking.

Works cited Abbajay, Mary. “What to do if you have a bad boss.” Harvard Business Review, September 7, 2018. AIIM Glossary. “What is collaboration?” https://www.aiim.org/What-is-Collaboration Apte, Suhas, and Jagdish Sheth. “Developing the sustainable edge.” Leader to Leader 85 (Summer 2017). Callahan, Shawn. “Crafting a Knowledge Strategy.” https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ January 24, 2016. Chakravarti, Nav. “Content Management vs. Knowledge Management.” KMWorld (2008). Bridges, William. Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change. Boston, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 2003. Conner, Daryl. “The Dirty Little Secret behind the 70% Failure Rate of Change Projects.” Blog post, July 12. Atlanta, Ga.: Conner Partners, 2 De Cagna, Jeff. “Keeping Good Company: A Conversation with Larry Prusak.” Information Outlook 2, no. 5 (2001): 36. Drucker, Peter F. The Daily Drucker. New York: Harper/Business, 2004. Drucker, Peter F. Landmarks of Tomorrow. New York: Harper, 1959. Drucker, Peter F. The New Realities. Transaction Publishers, 2003 (originally published by Harper & Row, Publisher, New York, 1989). Drucker, Peter F. “The Next Society.” Economist, p. 53 (November 1, 2001). Drucker, Peter F. Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices. New York: HarperBusiness, 1993. Drucker, Peter F. Management Challenges for the 21st Century. New York: HarperCollins, 1999. Drucker, Peter F. Managing in the Next Society. New York: St. Martin’s, 2003. Drucker, Peter F. Managing in a Time of Great Change. New York: Elsevier, 1997. Drucker, Peter F. The Ecological Vision: Reflections on the American Condition. Rutgers, New Jersey: 1992. Drucker, Peter F. “Age of social transformation.” Atlantic Monthly (1994). Drucker, Peter F. “Rethinking work.” Executive Excellence 12, no. 2 (February 1995). Drucker, Peter F. “The discipline of innovation.” Leader to Leader 9 (Summer 1998). Drucker, Peter F., Frances Hesselbein, and Joan Snyder Kuhl. Peter Drucker’s Five Most Important Questions: Enduring Wisdom for Today’s Leaders. New Jersey: Hoboken, 2015. Duncan, W. R. “The process of project management.” Project Management Journal 24, no. 3 (1993): 5–10. “Corporate culture.” In Entrepreneur Small Business Encyclopedia. https://www.entrepreneur. com/encyclopedia/corporate-culture (n.d.) Edersheim, Elizabeth Haas. The Definitive Drucker. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2007. Edersheim, Elizabeth Haas. McKinsey’s Marvin Bower: Vision, Leadership, and the Creation of Management Consulting. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley, 2004. Ferrero, David, and Thomas L. Wilding. “Scanning the Environment in Strategic Planning.” Proc. of Special Libraries Association, San Antonio TX USA. Washington D.C.: Special Libraries Association, 1991. Florida Institute of Technology (Florida Tech). “What makes a good KPI for project management?” Florida Institute of Technology, 2018. https://www.floridatechonline.com/ blog/business/key-performance-indicators-in-project-management/) Freidman, Thomas. “The United Kingdom Has Gone Mad.” New York Times, April 2, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110635577-008

204

Works cited

Goleman, Daniel, Richard Boyatwzis, and Annie McKee. Primal Leadership: Realizing the Power of Emotional Intelligence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School, 2001. Hatten, Kenneth J., and Stephen R. Rosenthal. Reaching for the Knowledge Edge: How the Knowing Corporation Seeks, Shares, and Uses Knowledge for Strategic Advantage. New York: AMACOM/American Management Association, 2001. Hesselbein, Frances. “Transformational Leadership.” In Peter Drucker’s Five Most Important Questions: Enduring Wisdom for Today’s Leaders, edited by Peter Economy. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 2015. Hislop, Donald. Knowledge Management in Organizations. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Hockenson, Lauren. “How to Become a Thought Leader.” Mashable (originally published in American Express OPEN Forum), July 13, 2013. Hunt, Deborah. “On Leadership.” Telephone interview. February 19, 2016. Hunt, Deborah, and Dale Stanley. KMKS101: The Foundations of Knowledge Services. Special Libraries Association KM/Knowledge Services Certificate Program, 2010–2109. Isaacson, Walter. The Innovators: How a Group of Hackers, Geniuses, and Geeks Created the Digital Revolution. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2014. Kennedy, Mary Lee, and Angela Abell. “New Roles for Info Pros.” Information Outlook 12, no. 1 (2008): 25. Kleiner, Art. “Remembering Joel Kurtzman.” Strategy + Business, April 10, 2016. Kruse, Kevin. “Leadership.” Forbes, April 9, 2013. Lilienthal, David E. Management: A Humanist Art. New York: Columbia University Press, 1967. Marshall, Edward. Transforming the Way We Work: The Power of the Collaborative Workplace. New York: AMACOM (American Management Association), 1995. Matthews, Joseph. “Determining and communicating the value of the special library: Valuing the Balanced Library Scorecard.” Information Outlook 7, no. 3 (2003): 16. Mills, Peter K., and Kevin M. Snyder. Knowledge Services in Management: Organizing around Internal Markets. New York: Springer, 2010. Powell, Timothy W. The Knowledge Value Chain Handbook (Version 4.0). New York: Knowledge Agency, 2014. Powell, Timothy W. “Value for Dummeze.” in Competing in the Knowledge Economy: Observations by Timothy Powell. August 5, 2012. http://www.knowledgevaluechain.com/ 2012/08/05/value-for-dummeez/#more-1916. Powell, Timothy Wood. “Sustainable knowledge.” In Competing in the Knowledge Economy: Observations by Timothy Powell. January 7, 2019. http://www.knowledgevaluechain.com/ 2019/01/07/making-knowledge-sustainable/. Sinek, Simon. Start with Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action. New York: Portfolio, 2009. Sinek, Simon. How Great Leaders Inspire Action. TEDxTalks, September 28, 2009. TEDx Puget Sound (YouTube). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4ZoJKF_VuA Snow, C. P. The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Canto, 1993 (1959). St. Clair, Guy. “Frances Hesselbein: Knowledge sharing at Its Best.” In Sharing Guy’s Journey. November 1, 2016. https://guysblog.smr-knowledge.com/ St. Clair, Guy. “Knowledge Services: Your Foundation for Building the Twenty-First Century Knowledge Organization.” Leader to Leader 85 (Summer 2017).

Works cited

205

St. Clair, Guy. “Manager and Leader: Defining the Knowledge Strategist.” SMR Special Report, November 2012. St. Clair, Guy, and Dale Stanley. The KM/Knowledge Services Continuum: Building the Knowledge Services Strategic Framework. New York: SMR International, 2009. Stanley, Dale. “Knowledge Services = Catalysis.” Personal interview. October 12, 2008. Stanley, Dale. “Managing Change: Vital to Your Project and Career Success.” Information Outlook 21, no. 4 (July/August 2017): 10. Stewart, Thomas A. Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Symons, Craig, Alexander Peters, Alex Cullen, and Brandy Worthington. “The Five Essential Metrics for Managing IT.” CIO Zone: Network for IT Leadership, 2008. Wenger-Trayner, Etienne, Richard McDermott, and William Snyder. Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press, 2002. Wenger-Trayner, Etienne. “Introduction to communities of practice.” 2015. https://wengertrayner.com/introduction-to-communities-of-practice/ Wheatley, Margaret. “Who do you choose to be? An Invitation to the nobility of Leadership.” Leader to Leader 85 (Summer 2017). Zack, Michael F. “Developing a Knowledge Strategy.” California Management Review 43, no. 3 (1999). Accessed January 24, 2016.

Additional titles The following titles by Guy St. Clair, while not cited in the text, may be of value to knowledge strategists as they explore knowledge services and knowledge strategy development:

Books SLA at 100: From “Putting Knowledge to Work” to Building the Knowledge Culture: The Special Libraries Association 1909–2009 (Alexandria VA: Special Libraries Association, 2009) SMR Management Action Plans (SMR MAPs), written with Dale Stanley and published by SMR (at SMRShare / https://www.smr-knowledge.com/smrshare/): Building the Knowledge Culture: The Knowledge Services Effect (2009) The KM/Knowledge Services Continuum: Building the Knowledge Services Strategic Framework (2009) Critical Success Factors: Management Metrics, Return-on-Investment, and Effectiveness Measures for Knowledge Services (2009) Enterprise Content Management (ECM) for Knowledge Services: A Strategic Approach to Knowledge Asset Management (2009) Beyond Degrees: Professional Learning for Knowledge Services (New York/Munich: K.G. Saur, 2003) Change Management in Action: Industry Leaders Describe How They Manage Change in Information Services (Washington, DC: Special Libraries Association, 1999)

206

Works cited

Customer Service in the Information Environment (London and New Brunswick, NJ: BowkerSaur, 1993) Benchmarking, Total Quality Management, and The Learning Organization: New Management Paradigms for the Information Environment, edited by Guy St. Clair. A special issue of Special Libraries 84 (3), Summer, 1993. (Washington, DC: Special Libraries Association, 1993)

Articles and presentations (selected) “Manager and Leader: Defining the Knowledge Strategist,” SMR International Special Report, November 2012 (at SMRShare) “The New Knowledge Services – Next Steps for Career Professionals – Specialist Librarians as Knowledge Strategists,” SMR International Special Report, July 2012. Presentation at the Special Libraries Association Annual Conference, July 16, 2012 Chicago IL (at SMRShare) “Knowledge Strategy: Take Charge – Move Forward as the Knowledge Thought Leader in Your Organization,” SMR International Special Report, February 2012 (at SMRShare) “Starting KM in Your Organization: Here’s Your Strategic Road Map,” SMR International Special Report, January 2012 (at SMRShare) “The New Knowledge Services.” Presentation at the Special Libraries Association Annual Conference, June 13, 2011 Philadelphia PA (at SMRShare) “Information and Knowledge Strategy for Specialized Librarianship: Kim Dority Interviews Guy St. Clair about Columbia University’s M.S. in Information and Knowledge Strategy,” SMR Briefing, May 2011 (at SMRShare) “Knowledge Services and SLA’s History: An Interview with Guy St. Clair,” Information Outlook 7 (9), September 2003. (with Victoria Harriston and Thomas A. Pellizzi) “Toward World-Class Knowledge Services: Emerging Trends in Specialized Research Libraries,” Information Outlook 7 (6–7), JuneJuly, 2003 “Knowledge Management,” Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science (New York: Dekker, 2003) (with Martina Reich) “Knowledge Services: Financial Strategies and Budgeting,” Information Outlook 6 (6), June 2002. “Knowledge Services: Your Company’s Key to Performance Excellence,” Information Outlook 5 (6), June, 2001 “Knowledge Services: Records and Information Management in the New Profession,” Bulletin of The Records Management Society of Great Britain 111, October 2002 “Qualification Management in Information Services: My Grand Design,” Information Outlook 4 (6), June 2000.

Index Abell, Angela 124, 125 AIIM (Association for Image and Information Management) 68 Airbnb (corporation) 44 Bower, Marvin 29, 101 – "The Bower Reach" 29 Bridges, William 142 Brogan, James 49–50 Callahan, John 61–65 Callahan, Shawn – strategy (defined) 106 – strategy (two elements) 106 Chakravarti, Nav – capture effectiveness 124 – conversion success 124 – measurement elements 124 – measuring ECM and KAM 124 – route efficiencies 124 change – both desirable and inevitable 133 change leadership 131 change management 131 – as priority principle 136–137 – communication 142 – openness to resistance 144 – technique 142 – using champions and sponsors 145 – with knowledge strategy 138 change management principles – champions and change agents 134 – communication planning and execution 134 – organizational readiness/managing resistance 134 – sponsorship 134 collaboration – through communities of practice 76 collegiality 56 communication strategy 6 communities of practice – three characteristics 73 communities of practice, CoPs 73 https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110635577-009

corporate culture 55 DeSilva, Nishan – on knowledge culture 177 Drucker, Peter F. 1, 10, 11, 39, 40, 69, 71, 78, 79, 82, 83, 103, 106, 132, 145, 171, 175 – change leadership 131 – developing the organizational knowledge strategy 79 – Five Most Important Questions 82 – strategic planning 105 – strategy (defined) 106 – systematic feedback 106 – value of collaboration 57 Duncan, W. R. 92 Edersheim, Elizabeth Haas 29, 71, 101–103, 175 enterprise content management (ECM) 119, 120, 139 – content (structured and unstructured) 120 – goal (managing content) 120 fact-based visioning 29 Ferriero, David 133 Florida Institute of Technology 93 Forester, Molly 61–65 Garfield, Stan 7 – Communities of Practice tips 77 – on collaboration 74–78 Goleman, Daniel 29 Harriston, Victoria – on knowledge services applications 177 Hatten, Kenneth J. 121 Henczel, Susan 113 – on critical success factors – the knowledge services audit 86–90 Hesselbein, Frances 29, 30, 39, 83, 181 – leadership milestones 29 – leadership success 39 Hislop, Donald 29

208

Index

Hockenson, Lauren 149 Hunt, Deborah (Deb) 3, 5, 29 Igel, Lee H. 101–103 information management – defined 2 information professionals – challenges 125 – clusters of responsibilities 125 institutional knowledge services – knowledge strategy 18 – leadership components 22 KD/KS/KU – defined 2, 9, 43, 81, 153, 161, 169 Kennedy, Mary Lee 124 Kershaw, Anne 115–118 – litigation (avoiding) 116 – on the knowledge services strategic framework 115 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) 93 KM and knowledge services – differences 5 knowledge asset management 5, 81, 107, 119–126, 129–130 knowledge assets – defined 87 knowledge culture 1, 55, 68, 71, 74, 84, 85, 86, 92, 95, 109, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 123, 132, 133, 135, 148, 150, 152, 163, 164, 167 – advanced thinking about organizational knowledge 58 – attributes 56 – characteristics 56 – defined 56 – elements of 59 – foundational essentials 61 – four steps to planning 60 – larger organizational role of knowledge 57 – role of technology 57 – underlying themes 109 knowledge domain – defined 59 knowledge leadership 3, 5, 27, 31, 135 – defined 28

– engagement 29 – influence of 29 – successful 32 knowledge leadership team 5 knowledge management – defined 2 knowledge services – as collaboration 67 – central role 16 – collaborative 2, 10, 16, 56, 74, 108, 150, 152, 153, 154, 161, 163 – defined VII – fundamental elements 68 – industry agnostic 55 – institutional 16 – interactive and integrated 67 – managing 10, 11 – proactive 67 – reactive 67 – results 67 – value establishment 95 knowledge services audit 47, 79–91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 100, 109, 111, 112, 115, 121, 165, 166, 169, 172, 173, 178, 180 – both diagnostic and evaluative 87 – both qualitative and quantitative 87 – defined 87 – deliverables 84 – end-product (result) 85 – importance to the organization 80 – infrastructure 88 – knowledge sharing behaviors 88 – knowledge sharing risk analysis 89 – objectives 80 – plan 84 – processes 88 – review and assess 82 – scope 81 – statement of work 81 – survey 81 knowledge services collaboration – eight conceptual levels 68 – value criteria 68 knowledge services focal points 60 knowledge services measurement strategy 93

Index

knowledge services strategic framework – objectives 169 – organizational knowledge strategy 169 knowledge services thought leader 154, 158 knowledge sharing – capture and reuse processes 75 – knowledge sharing communication strategy 6 knowledge strategist (as thought leader) – two steps 148 knowledge strategist(s) – as change leader 146 – knowledge leadership 27, 42 – as consultant 45 – as entrepreneur 46 – as knowledge catalysts 13 – as knowledge professionals 45 – as knowledge thought leader 12 – as manager 45 – collaboration strengthening elements 71 – creating knowledge value 13 – defined 43 – engagement opportunities 15 – job attributes 45 – knowledge leadership 3, 5, 30, 135 – leadership opportunities 15 – management role 12 – strengthening collaboration 72 – tasks and duties 46 – three tasks 109 knowledge strategy – deliverables (documenting) 112 – development 48 – development basics 111 – development themes VIII, 9, 12, 27, 43, 45, 48, 67, 85, 92, 100, 119, 120, 122, 134 – elements 49 – objectives 169 – outline 169 – planning 110 – rationale (five reasons for) 107 – requirements for success 119 – two types of knowledge 121 knowledge strategy (knowledge services strategic framework) 169 knowledge strategy action plan 114

209

knowledge strategy objectives 169 knowledge thought leader (criteria) – generosity of spirit 151 – intellectual curiosity 151 – passionate about knowledge work 150 Knowledge Value Chain 97, 99, 155 Kurtzman, Joel – thought leader (defined) 149 Leader to Leader (journal) 181 leadership – "DNA" 34 – "real" 34 – self-centered 36–38 – transformational 29 – visionary 29 leadership (organizational) responsibilities – identifying background 178 – identifying knowledge workers 179 – Justifies support for knowledge services 179 – managing the change 179 – mentor 179 – sharing the knowledge services concept 179 – sponsor 178 leadership success 38 leadership without a soul 36–38 Lilienthal, David – defining management 108 – humanistic management 108 management success – adds strategic alignment and content management 91 – people/process/technology 91 Manion, Kevin 34–38, 176 – leadership fundamentals 34 – leadership success 38 – on knowledge sharing 176 Marshall, Edward M. – on collaboration 69, 70 Mastics Moriches Shirley Community Library, Shirley, New York 16 Matthews, Joseph 97, 98 measures and metrics

210

Index

– "Moneyball" 102 – classic assessment tools generally 97 – five questions 103 – fundamental questions 95 – how will metrics information be used 96 – knowledge services audit results 100 – senior management participation 96 – what information is required 96 – who receives the metrics information 95 measures and metrics in sports – links internal plans and performance 101 Mundy, Christopher 154–158 Obama, President Barack – knowledge as currency of the 21st century 175 – knowledge in society 175 organizational behavior – connection with knowledge strategy 108 – defined 108 organizational development 3, 164 organizational effectiveness 3, 9, 34, 59, 107, 169 performance standards 5 PEST analysis 48 Powell, Timothy W. 97, 98, 99 Return on Investment (ROI) – defined 98 Rosalia, Kerri 16–26 Royce, Ben 126–129 Shaw, George Bernard 41

Sichi-Krygsman, Valerie A. – on change management 136–141 Sinek, Simon 47, 80, 90, 112, 113 – "The Golden Circle" 47 sponsors 12, 83, 109, 115, 137, 139, 140, 145–146, 164, 166, 172 sponsorship 76, 85, 96, 134, 146, 165 sports management – knowledge services effect 101 – measures and metrics 101 Stanley, Dale 3, 5, 13, 176 – on managing change 141–146 Stewart, Thomas 4 strategic learning VII, VIII, 1, 3, 4, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 40, 43, 45, 46, 47, 49, 57, 58, 67, 71, 72, 74, 82, 85, 86, 92, 95, 105, 107, 108, 110, 113, 115, 119, 120, 123, 124, 126, 129, 135, 136, 151, 161, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 169, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181 – defined 2 Superstorm Sandy 22, 25 SWOT analysis 48 United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) 179 Walser, Benjamin 181 Wenger-Tryner, Etienne 73 Wheatley, Margaret 30, 31 Wilding, Thomas L. 133 Yeats, William Butler 39 Zack, Michael F. – knowledge strategy (defined) 122

About Guy St. Clair and Barrie Levy Guy St. Clair and Barrie Levy are affiliated with Columbia University in the City of New York, with both teaching Managing Information and Knowledge: Applied Knowledge Services for Columbia’s School of Professional Studies (SPS). Guy is the Lecturer for the course, and Barrie is the Associate Lecturer. Guy is the author of Knowledge Services: A Strategic Framework for the 21st Century Organization, published by De Gruyter in 2016. He is the Series Editor for De Gruyter’s Knowledge Services, for which The Knowledge Services Handbook: A Guide for the Knowledge Strategist is the first title in the series. He is the Founding President and CEO of SMR International, the New York-based knowledge services consulting firm, and for many years Guy has been recognized as a strong knowledge services “evangelist” for the profession. Barrie is a member of the 2015 graduating cohort of the Columbia’s School of Professional Services M.S. in Information and Knowledge Strategy program. She is the Knowledge Services Coordinator/Knowledge Strategist for Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates, Architects.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110635577-010