I think I first said this over a decade ago and I have seen no reason to change it since. The early abortive attempt involved things like requiring x documents contributed to a community of practice or similar measures. Net result there was meaningless material been published to achieve a target along with plagiarism in many cases. Then people started to play games with networking mapping but that didn't get anywhere. I remember one crazy start up company creating software that managed thank you credits. If someone did a good job for you then you gave them a credit. At the end of the year the credits would be totaled out and translated into money. I was reviewing said idea and pointed out if such a system was linked to money or status then friends would gang together to swap credits. Humans display high ingenuity when you create a targeting system, and the ingenuity is focused on the form not the objective of the measurement system.
Knowledge is a voluntary act, if people trust each other they will share. If they work together and create interdependencies then they will share. If the context requires it even political rivals will share. Good management (including knowledge management) is about creating the right sort of environment and interactions. Creating a set of explicit targets is an abrogation of management responsibility not its assumption.
Comments (6)
Very rightly said.
Posted by pinastro | June 10, 2008 5:29 AM
Posted on June 10, 2008 05:29
Rightly said.When we have the X number of documents per half-yearly the Knoeledge management system later becomes a huge Write-Only Wasteland of Decaying and stinking outdated documents
Posted by pinastro | June 10, 2008 5:31 AM
Posted on June 10, 2008 05:31
I agree. Only one point to add: it would require targets for higher management to enable their own people to share knowledge and expertise. I could think of one: at the end of the year give 2 examples of succesful knowledge sharing in your team. Maybe that will 'seduce' them to leverage the circumstances to let knowledge flow? By support employees so that they are able to arrange regular coffee corner sessions or knowledge cafes?
One of the major problems is still senior management. If I am standing at the coffee machine, talking with some colleagues, and a manager passes by, you can see him think: "Well, go back to work you!". Fact is, we ARE working. The thing is: it's invisible and intangible. Every manager should follow a course where, for once and for all, that knowledge management is a intangible asset that forms the backbone for the company. Without that: wave goodbye to your shareholders value on the long term.
Posted by Jurgen Egges | June 16, 2008 9:56 AM
Posted on June 16, 2008 09:56
So, given that "God management (including knowledge management) is about creating the right sort of environment and interactions," and the uselessness of the abortive attempts you mention above, how then do we build a business case for KM initiatives, how do we measure (and attribute) their success in helping the business achieve it's outcomes?
I totally agree with what you say, but "now what?" How do we draw the connections?
What's a meaningful way to measure KM program/project performance and contribution?
Posted by Dale Arseneault | June 16, 2008 5:39 PM
Posted on June 16, 2008 17:39
I think you build a business case for KM by focusing on fine granularity projects where KM techniques or tools can help and where the impact can be measured. Trying to justify a big programme is a mistake I think. How to do this is one of the things we teach on the accreditation programme and there are some articles on the web site on knowledge mapping which link to the idea.
Posted by Dave Snowden![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/dave/nav-commenters.gif)
|
June 18, 2008 11:28 AM
Posted on June 18, 2008 11:28
Thanks Dave.. I'll look into your suggestions. And sorry about the typo in my post. Obvously I meant to refer to "good management" not "God management," which presents a whole other set of challenges.
Posted by Dale Arseneault | June 23, 2008 1:10 PM
Posted on June 23, 2008 13:10