why having too much money can be bad

In response to a post by John "Desert Storm" Maloney on the Value Networks email list, the thought came to me that the KM scene in Australia is much healthier than in the US (feel free to disagree) and that's largely because we have less money. We can't afford a heavily customised technology solution or heaps of FTE staff. So the focus becomes finding the few things that make the most difference and then doing those.

This isn't unique to Australia. Stan Garfield did great things at HP with only 4 people.

A friend of mine at Microsoft said: "We have too much money. We never have to make tough decisions or focus on one thing".

If you want to reinvigorate your KM programme, maybe you need to cut its budget. Mary Abraham's suggestion of a KM Dept of One is good - but you'd need a KMer outside your organisation you can trust & talk to for that to work.

the day after tomorrow for knowledge management

So we know that today is pretty screwed up. The world was running on US consumer debt and now the tab has to be paid. It's all about cost reduction and efficiency at the moment. Knowledge managers will face a tough couple of years. You can axe most KM operations and not see any impact for, ooh, 3-6 months. Of course 6 months down the track managers will be saying "we used to do this stuff well, why do we suck at it now?" but that's in the future.

The bad news: Some of you will be fired no matter how good your work is. Corporate cullings may be presented as rational exercises in cost control & restructuring but from the inside seem more like frantic acts of self-harm by bulimics at break point. If the chamber in your game of involuntary Russian Roulette does contain a live round then take the money and get out of there.

The good news: KM really began as a movement after the last major recession (and the BPR-related blood-letting) of the early 90s. Organisations will fire too many people, just as they probably hired too many people in the recent past. They will be awash with ignorance. Fertile territory for those whose job it is reduce the dead weight of ignorance.

Hang on.

stupid ideas and dead people

You may remember my obsession with the Cochrane Collection Collaboration. I've been pursuing this on the actKM list with all the ferocity of a man trying avoid a major deadline around a difficult client report. Anyway, we got into a big discussion of measurement and causality and stuff - but the vibe I got from a few people was "this is just too hard, we will never produce anything as rigorous as medical science". They may well be right. Knowledge managers are not doctors.

But if you compare the Cochrane Collection with The Old Operating Theatre in London then some perspective comes into play. I was at the Operating Theatre a few months ago (there's nifty picture of me getting my leg cut off that I've go somewhere) and, although they'd tidied it up a bit, you could imagine what a dirty, dingy, deathly place it must have been. If you got a broken limb then you were probably dead. And if you weren't dead then you were certainly due an amputation.

How has medical science advanced? Simple: stupid ideas and dead people. There have been lots of stupid ideas in the history of medicine. Often not completely wrong but not right either. And these stupid ideas meant lots of dead people. And at various points in history, medics have decided (whether for reasons of humanism or greed or pride or whatever) that working out which ideas are the least stupid will mean less dead people. This is not a linear narrative of progress. This is messy. There were (and are) mistakes, blind alleys, and maddening gaps.

One of the most interesting things for me are the articles in the Cochrane Review that say "there is insufficient evidence to come to clear conclusion on this". That speaks of an ambition to eventually find out what works and to improve health.

In my own discipline, we need that ambition. Lots of catastrophes have a knowledge dimension (or more frequently an ignorance dimension). But to be honest, most of my work is about the alleviation of small problems that make working lives miserable and organisations less effective than they could be.

We need to be more reflective and critical of our own practice. We need to find ways of sharing our failures as well as our successes. And we must not loose the focus on results. Most of all, we need to understand that our first efforts in this will be partial, messy, crude. We don't get to start in a gleaming, hi-tech surgical lab. We are rummaging around in the darkness and grime of garret. Tough - that's where you start.

We may not have as many dead people but I'm sure we can make up for that with stupid ideas.

bad science and getting better

Ben Goldacre writes for the UK's Guardian newspaper and also puts out the Bad Science blog. His mission is to attack poor uses of science - esp. in the medical field where he was trained. New Age therapist, Big Pharma PR, dodgy neuroscientists, credulous journalists and dishonest labs get mercilessly ripped. BG seems to rather enjoy doing this.

It's via BG that I discovered the Cochrane Collection Collaboration. It's an organisation that systematically reviews the medical literature for evidence that particular treatments work (or don't).

For the past year or so, Patrick's presentations and blog posts have explored the development of health science as discipline in comparison with knowledge management. It's something I've been pondering recently too. In part because I've been reflecting on the divisions between academics and practitioners in the KM world - which encompassed a discussion on actKM (many thanks to the participants). Patrick articulates it well:

"There is no great merit in and of itself that a practitioner "gets into" academia, or an academic engages in practice successfully, or that gifted individuals manage to get invited to both tea parties. The merit is in whether practice gets better. KM is fundamentally a practice - theory is its servant. And the practice needs to show beneficial outcomes affecting real people in real organisations in real economies and societies."

How do we get better?

km theory vs case studies

Final follow-up to this post below. Most case studies are useless. I remember being at a major KM conference and a friend asking me: "What's wrong with me? Why aren't my KM projects as smooth and flawless as these presentations?" It reminds me a bit of the argument about unrealistic portrayals of female bodies making ordinary women depressed. If everyone looks like a Hollywood starlet then I must be ugly and useless.

The thing is most case studies as written up in articles or presented at events leave out the really useful stuff. Where did you screw up and why? What were the unexpected events?

However 'real' case studies (warts n all) are very powerful indeed. I love The Mistake Bank. I think that knowledge managers are slowly, painfully building up this base of experience - but we could do a whole lot better - as Patrick has often stated.

The role of theory here is, for me, not fully decided. Dave, Patrick, Shawn, Gary Klein and others, have all done a brilliant job of bringing in research from complexity theory, cognitive science and narratology to bear on real-world problems. More KM practice needs to be built on research. However theory by itself is not enough. It needs to be constantly tested against brute reality.

What I am arguing for here may be impossible: A transparency around KM practice that requires a strong theoretical base, a willingness to experiment and a drive to learn from the work of others.

the strategic question for knowledge managers

This throw-away post seems to be still generating more heat than a forest fire.

The challenge I (and my colleagues) faced as knowledge managers was getting beyond the "oh, you look after databases" dismissiveness of staff, managers, execs, etc*. It wasn't that we didn't want to focus on strategic issues (well, some were happier hiding away but I think they were in the minority) but that getting the opportunity to tackle them is harder than just walking into the CEO's office and saying: "Hey I'm going to solve your strategic problems for you".

I can remember sitting in meetings where we were talking about workforce change, systemic organisational risk, improved performance for a group of workers and we'd get asked for some minor changes to be made to a web site. Occasionally an issue would erupt that would give us some traction, some leverage with someone we already had a relationship with (possibly because we'd edited their web page for them). And then we'd run as far as we could with it. And then there would be a pause. N.B. Simply showing how our KM activities aligned with the corporate strategy didn't really differentiate us because that's what everyone does. Saying you support the corporate strategy is like saying your in favour of "good stuff" (motherhood, apple pie) rather than "bad stuff" (war, famine).

So you readers out there (all 3 of you). Can you give an example of a game-changing moment that you have had? A moment where you saw an opportunity and went for it?

*A core quality of a successful knowledge manager is sheer bloody-mindedness.

Now if I can get through this without accusing anyone's mother of darning socks in Hull, we may get an interesting discussion.

white paper - justifying your km programme

A new white paper over at the other place.

km methods cards

Patrick gave me a pack of these today. I'll probably be writing a more formal review elsewhere but here I'm wondering what games you could play with them:

• KM Poker - Everyone sits round the table and mentions something that no one else has heard in a bid to appear more expert. They may not know what it is themselves. They may or may not get called on that bluff. If you can pull it off, a tasty consulting engagement may emerge. If you fail, there will be hours of email list abuse debate.
• KM Strip Poker - You play the above game as your budget gets divested with each round. The results are often embarrassing for participants.
• KM Solitare (it's the only game in town) - A lonesome KM practitioner plays with their cards while everyone else in the organisation ignores them.
• KM Tarot - You pretend to know what the future holds for the gullible. Gypsy scarf and gold earring optional.
• KM Snap - You discover that everyone else has the same challenges as you.
• KM Soccer Cards - Your pack has 80 cards - but 2 sets of 40. You must trade cards with others to get a full set. There may be fisticuffs in the playground.
• KM Top Trumps - You claim your method is better than everyone else's. There will be hours of email list abuse debate.

I actually think these cards are very useful.

Buy some.

put your hands up for detroit

Stan Garfield* arranged a one-day Mid-West KM meet - featuring attendees from GM, Ford, the US Airforce, Deloitte, The Fed and others. Stan kindly picked me up from Detroit bus station and introduced me to the finer points of Mexican cuisine. The one-dayer was a darn good start - and I'll be posting the mp3 files to the SI KM Leaders list when I return to Australia.

*In its infinite wisdom, HP has decided to disband Stan's KM team. If you need an inspirational KM evangelist then look no further...

chicago - km & exhaustion

Yesterday I went to the KM Chicago gig with Stefan Lafloer & Dave Simmons & the Kroll dudes. I recorded these sessions and will be making the results available when I get back to Sydney. I finally got to meet Alice Dunlap-Kraft (who I knew from my IBM days).

Then it was full steam ahead to the Art Institute of Chicago, Millenium Park and Lake Michigan. Which is a lake so huge you could mistake it for the ocean. I even bought a ticket to the Annoyance Theatre improv gig - but passed out instead.

I am not a mornings person but jetlag tends to get me up early and then knock me out early.

presentation - showing the value of km

A presentation on demonstrating the ROI / Value of Knowledge Management to beancounters - based various experiences. Of course, I can't put the really juicy stuff in the presentation - you'd have to get me in to deliver it for that...

View Upload your own

incentives schemes and behavioural economics

I am currently reading (& loving) this book. I was reading chapter 4 on social vs market norms last night - excerpt here - and it explains why incentive programmes around knowledge sharing often run out of steam. Alfie Kohn has written at length on this topic but Dan Ariely puts it in a slightly different way.

When people share their experiences, skills or knowledge they either do it in a social context or a market context. If they do it in a market context they will expect to be rewarded appropriately - and if they are highly experienced (and expensive) it will cost you a lot. Conversely, if they do it in a social situation, they do not necessarily expect financial reward (but they will often expect some form of social reciprocation). However once you replace a social context with a market context it becomes very hard to bring social norms back. You are stuck in "**** you, pay me" situation. The interesting thing is that a gift is OK in a social situation provided you do not link it explicitly to money.

The issue with most incentive schemes designed to encourage collaboration is that collaboration is built on social norms that you destroy when you make it all about the money. And most KM programmes do not have enough budget to pay participants for their collaboration at the market rate.

DA goes on to write about the broader implications of social vs market norms for employers, employees and customers but I'll let you read that for yourselves.

australian km? deceptive pragmatism

I was shooting the breeze having a very serious business meeting with Laurie Lock Lee yesterday and I was reminded of this post I wrote a few years back. Laurie has been applying some VNA stuff to a specific set of business issues in a neat way. In many ways it reminds me of Shawn's approach to the Cynefin / Cognitive Edge stuff.

• There is distinctly pragmatic approach to both Laurie & Shawn's work.
• This may mean simplifying the source material and adapting it to local needs.
• There is a willingness to mix approaches from different sources where appropriate.

In many ways with chimes with Thomas Barlow's book on the history of innovation in Australia. As a nation, we are great at taking other people's stuff and making it work. You want a 2020 vision, then go for this. The Chinese are brilliant at ripping off other nation's brands (and creating their own unique forms of innovation in the process). We need to return to our past as the China of Ideas & Tools.

I doubt Australian KM will ever produce someone with the mercurial brilliance of a Dave Snowden or the visionary fervour of a Verna Allee. We are more likely to produce writer/practitioners with the clarity of Tom Davenport or the considered erudition of a Larry Prusak (although arguably Singapore has got that last one already).

N.B. I have probably offended everyone mentioned in this post but I'm writing this with a huge amount of respect & gratitude to all concerned. And if you don't like what I've said about you, well, tough.

sticky fingers

Just finished Sticky Knowledge by Gabriel Szulanski. It's a brief book written in a somewhat academic style but GS's point is both simple and powerful.

We often wonder why we can't get the one team/division/subsidiary that does something really, really good to show the other team/division/subsidiary how to do. There is a tendency to think that this main barrier is recipient motivation - "they just don't want to improve" - and that this barrier can be surmounted by tweaking incentives.

GS's research indicates that the main barrier in his examples was actually the absorptive capacity of the recipients - i.e. the people that need to learn don't know enough to take the new stuff on board. The knowledge jump is too great for them. The second barrier was causal ambiguity - i.e. we didn't understand what made the original good thing tick well enough to transport it lock stock & barrel.

So if we are going to learn from each other (generalisations ahoy):

• A little and often is better than all at once.
• We must be cautious of overconfidence in our preferred solution.
• Bribery may not help.

saddles for the horsemen

Starting here and ending here, Patrick Lambe talks his way out of an apocalyse (perhaps). This is PL at his best - erudite, thoughtful, practical, compassionate. I want to touch on Patrick's last post about struggle and the role of the consultant.

It doesn’t rest on us alone, but on all those involved in the struggle, and those whom we encourage along the way.

Struggle within an organisation to reach a goal (which may not have been the goal you started out for) is a wearing business. It takes its toll physically and mentally. And you cannot do it alone. Any kind of organisational change requires support from others - including outsiders. What help can we give each other, gentle readers?

What help and encouragement do you need from me, right here, right now?

for the plebs

This post by James D reminds me of an experience I had doing KM at a global consulting firm. I was working with a colleague on a proposal toolkit - a set of templates and tools that consultants working on proposals for telco clients could use. It would basically say what we did and why that was great - so they could (hopefully) spend more time tailoring the proposal to the clients needs (because we never created cookie-cutter proposals, oh no).

Anyway she had gone to show this to one of the senior partners. And he had said: "That's of no interest to me, I never write proposals." The reply to this guy is obvious: "It's not for you, dickhead, it's to stop the 6 grads you've got writing these things 18 hours a day from going insane and popping a cap in your over-golfed ass."

This bloke obviously thought employee engagement* meant someone proposing to their PA. Though a fair bit of that happened too from what I recall. What is that turns middle-aged men with too much money into walking cliches?

*It might look like the postings on this blog are completely random but it's all connected. Connected, I tell you. Now about JFK and the moon landings...

brutish

Patrick Lambe has some disturbing survey results (well, disturbing for KM practitioners anyway).

It's not about the people

I'm not the fastest person in the world. I get delayed reactions to things. At the KM in the Public Sector event I attended a couple of weeks ago, speaker after speaker said: "It's all about the people".

And it has generated an allergic reaction. They're right. But also wrong. It's not really about "the people" in the warm, fuzzy, humanistic way that phrase implies. Increasingly it's about how people work with and against sociotechnical ecosystems. And to many of us, these ecosystems are monstrous.

City folk (and for all the stories they tell themselves about their bush heritage, Australia is an urban society) have a tendency to venerate nature (provided it's neat & tidy &doesn't burn down your home). But the natural world is a disturbing place. And the world we have created to work in is no less disturbing.

Sometimes I wish it wasn't about the people.

Different knowledge, same ****

James D talks about this paper from this paper from Haas & Hansen. It talks about the impact of the use of different knowledge resources by consulting sales teams. A lot of it rings true. I observed proposal teams working under tight deadlines rip off leverage previous proposal documents. This did not always result in a winning proposal as clients tended to prefer proposals tailored to them. The authors emphasize that different sources of knowledge are not necessarily "fungible" - i.e. you cannot replace expert insight with more documents:

This suggests that firms that primarily compete on quality can benefit most from emphasizing personal advice usage (and perhaps downplaying electronic document usage), while the opposite holds for firms relying on efficiency.

Which frankly is not such a surprise but nice to see in black-and-white. Of course, for many organisations, it is not a straight-forward decision between quality and efficiency but some combination of the two.

KM in Public Sector redux

Small but intense, the KM in the public sector conference was enlightening on a number of fronts.

Paul McDowall presented on the last 10 years of KM in Canadian public sector. Given that senior public officials are rotated every 18-24 months and the organisational changes involved in a full KM programme require 2-5 years, the story was largely one of bursts of activity & brilliance that were unsustained.

There were presentations by James Digges, Paulette Paterson, Craig Delahoy, Suzanne Zyngier & Nicholas Gerhard but the 4 delivered on the morning of the second day resonated with me. The SageCo / Country Energy presentation on managing the exit of baby boomer experts from a technical workforce was cool, as was David Pender's mix of ONA techniques with collaborative climate surveys. Steve Bussey of VicRoads talked about cultivating technical expertise and Kerry Moir's presso on KM in ATO Business Solutions (which included CoPs, lessons learned & narrative) overlaps with a lot of things I have been involved with from a work perspective.

And it was a whole heap of fun co-presenting with Keith De La Rue. Cheers...