I found this remarkably thought-provoking book review in the March 11 Weekend Wall Street Journal Books and Arts section, The science writer and reporter Sally Adee, in her recent book, “We Are Electric” (Hatchette), describes how it is time for focusing on the “Electrome” – the “electrical dimensions and properties of cells, the tissues they collaborate to form, and the electrical forces that are turning out to be involved in every aspect of life.”
We are reading about the evolution of conversational AI in the form of ChatGPT and the like. Not without its challenges, it is having a major impact on how we view, access and share knowledge … and how it can leverage learning quickly.
Did you know that we may possess within ourselves the capability to acquire specific (tacit) experience almost literally “on demand?”
In Sally Adee’s book, she describes how she “ended up buying a brain stimulator” herself. It was through her experience with one such wearable device at a U.S. military training facility—where her brain was electrically stimulated from outside her skull, turning her from a novice marksman into a sharpshooter within hours—that her interest in the field [of bioelectricity] was sparked. For the next few days, she writes, “life was so much easier.”” While this was an experiment, she also acknowledges that it’s the “very, very early days” for this evolving technology capability.
Knowledge Management is an exciting and evolving edge-based discipline crossing many domains (e.g. scientific, business, education…). Wonder where KM is going next?
Systems Thinking and Requirements Definition Are Missing in Action
Readers of my articles can refer to my October 2021 discussion focused on knowledge management (KM), critical thinking, and requirements definition in legislative decision making and solution finding.
One dimension I discussed was the value of reading early in my career Peter M. Senge’s book, “The Fifth Discipline.” One of the important tenets of the book, still relevant today, is the idea of a “community(s) of inquiry and experimentation” and how this is and should continue to be a continuing model for thinking and course of action decisions. Inquiry and experimentation lead to an improved ability to independently form (new) opinions, beliefs, and discover new facts and insights to further enrich and support decision making; and I would add not only at the personal level, but also as importantly at the national and international decision-making levels.
The pursuit of new ideas and more effective solutions to challenges and problems, relying in part on evidence-based research and learning (e.g. lessons learned), and critical thinking*, involves sharing one’s ideas not only in professional communities but also broadly sharing these ideas publicly in speech and through media channels. Diversity of thought and perspective is necessary and required. Cancellation of unpopular views and of thinking that is different from one’s own beliefs is always self-defeating. Diversity of thought and the subsequent discussions of diverse ideas, with a mind open to learning new facts or concepts, is necessary on the pathway to solution finding.
While one can disagree with the solutions, approaches, and outcomes used to derive the solution(s), one also must also be able to discern fact from emotion and opinion. This applies to developing a reasonable, balanced and successful national climate change mitigation strategy.
Systems Thinking is Missing in Action
The definition of Systems Thinking has evolved. For example, according to Steve Brown, Deputy Director of Collaborative Learning and Strategic Insight at Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU), “Systems thinking is about investigating what set of factors and interactions are contributing to or could contribute to a possible outcome. Systems thinking is useful in helping teams become more aware of how they’re interacting with each other and within the team, and it helps them understand the outcomes they’re producing.” Discussions, strategies, and sustainable solutions to mitigate climate change impacts would clearly benefit from a systems approach (holistic, multi-dimensional) since climate change and its impacts are intertwined across many social, political, and economic ecosystems and environments.
Online Search for Climate Change Mitigation Solutions Show a Lack of Systems Thinking
My search for a comprehensive, multidimensional statement of a US national climate change mitigation strategy produced no meaningful result. I did find many organizations’ “statements of objectives (SOO)” (a what) without underlying strategies (the how) to deliver the outcomes. These SOOs read as “independent and not interdependent” across multiple government departments and organizations. Few mention any relationship or interdependency with the private sector, although many private sector organizations are bound by government legislative, regulatory, and policy goals and objectives they must individually achieve within their industry sector (e.g. energy, environment, others).
Resolving climate change challenges is complex and interdependent…and this demands our thinking and approach be complex and interdependent as well in order to develop and implement “fit for purpose” solutions. Holistic thinking is a fundamental characteristic of systems thinking: (1) Consider the whole over the parts, and (2) The whole can be greater than the sum of its parts. As discussed previously, systems thinking requires “diversity of thought and perspective” which is critical. I see systems thinking grounded in a simple definition of knowledge, that is, leveraging all of the information (explicit, codified) and all of the experience/insight (tacit/personal) in an organization to derive better solutions and deliver better decisions to continuously improve performance.
Trying to resolve a simple or complex problem set by focusing only on the part that directly impacts what you see through a single lense always risks failing to see the outcomes’ impact on others and thus the sustainability of the solution. This can often lead to creating new problems or worse, never solving the original problems.
Integrated National Climate Change Mitigation Strategy – Common Value and a Shared Narrative – Possible?
I do not underestimate how unimaginably complex developing and implementing a holistic and multi-dimensional national climate change mitigation strategy is. Relying on the patchwork of political, singular, or divergent “approaches” that exists is a losing strategy. While many of these approaches are ecologically and environmentally sincere and thoughtful descriptions of what to do, many are driven by disingenuous social, political, and economic agendas that may or may not at their core seriously address a sustainable climate mitigation strategy.
Our national policy on energy independence is an example. This is in fact a “collision of theory with reality.” We are environmentalists when gas is $2 a gallon. The fact is that the US was energy independent in January of 2021. We are no longer and a reason was the administration’s focus on one sector driven underpinned by political motivation without fully appreciating the relationship energy has to every part of our lives. Not systems thinking.
A national climate change mitigation strategy must focus on shared outcomes, must be holistic, requirements-based, and must be focused on defined needs. Clear and unambiguous consensus measures of success across the US economy, public sector (federal, state, and local), and private sector (business and households) are necessary. This leads to the question “How can the US commit to an international climate change mitigation strategy without first defining our desired outcomes and requirements…developing a strategy that is “fit for purpose” and “bottoms up?” There is a great risk that agreeing to international measures of climate change mitigation solutions before the US develops agreed to domestic measures of success may force us to pursue unachievable outcomes and unsupportable timelines that could impact the development of a sustainable national climate mitigation strategy.
Developing a successful, consensus-based national climate change mitigation strategy can make one’s mind explode when considering all of the moving parts and players. Is it achievable and is it realistic within the desired timelines needed (This is a separate discussion)? Granted, there are focused, individual mitigation actions that can be pursued, but, independently, will these actions solve challenges or create new ones?
An Extraordinarily Difficult Challenge to Model?
We know we can succeed when faced with complicated technical challenges requiring complicated solutions. Consider the very successful James Webb telescope, a massive, multi-decade program comprised of many people from across the public and private sectors. This program began in September 1989 when the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) and NASA co-hosted the Next Generation Space Telescope Workshop. In 1996, an 18-member committee formally recommended that NASA develop a space telescope that would view the heavens in infrared light. Three teams made up of scientists and engineers from the private and public sectors met to determine whether NASA could realize the committee’s vision. All three came to the conclusion that the proposed telescope would work. NASA agreed in 1997 to fund additional studies to refine the technical and financial requirements for building the telescope. By 2002, the agency had selected the teams to build the instruments and the group of astronomers who would provide construction guidance. Also in 2002, the telescope was formally named the James Webb Space Telescope, after the NASA administrator who led the development of the Apollo program. Engineers and astronomers innovated new ways to meet the Webb telescope’s scientific demands, as well as a mission at an unserviceable distance from Earth. Construction on Webb began in 2004 and Webb launched in December 2021 (source: NASA).
The James Webb telescope integrated extraordinarily challenging requirements and developed a multi-dimensional program strategy to launch this spacecraft. The interdependencies required for success were complex. Systems thinking, lessons learned from other space projects, defined requirements, extraordinary program management, and clear measures of success resulted in the successful launch and deployment of the Webb.
Note that NASA achieved this over 30+ years.
Knowledge Management, Systems Thinking, and Critical Thinking Are Linked and Required
Climate change impacts will only increase. Webb began over 30 years ago. Many believe we are way behind in developing a climate change mitigation strategy that is implementable across our private and public sectors. It is clear to me that the current approach is marginal.
Practically speaking, this is a discussion that must be focused on outcomes, should be requirements-based, and should be focused on actual needs. So what defines success? What are the cost, schedule, technical, fiscal, social, political, and environmental challenges? How are the cost, schedule, and technical challenges balanced (trade-offs for best value) to achieve the best possible outcomes? What are the implementation details and do they align with the requirements? For critical thinking and evidence-based analysis to guide decision-making, the tendency to discuss this through a lens that lacks political competition must change. Practically, this is not an all-or-nothing situation. Sound business judgment and collective common sense underpin meaningful consensus.
Behavior Change is a Parallel Challenge That Must be Part of Requirements Definition and Success Measures – Begin with the End in Mind
Knowledge Management practitioners and program managers alike know that successful, complex projects require behavior change, in fact, and very importantly, cultural (behavior) change is required. The multi-dimensional business case for climate change mitigation is evidence-based, supported by data from multiple sources. A national strategy for a future “climate balanced” environment requires consensus on defining the current state, defining the elements of transition, and consensus on what is “successful and measurable climate change impact mitigation.” And the “how” is complex.
Critical is the flow down from strategy to execution…changing minds, sharing systems thinking, value, and benefits. Success must be believable at the personal level. Great strategies fail when the execution lacks buy-in from those doing the executing. Prosci’s Tim Creasey says that we apply change management “because it has a distinct and pointed focus on benefit realization and achieving desired results and outcomes from change. When embarking on our change management journeys, we begin with the end in mind. The end is successful change. And the means to that end is applying a structured approach to help individual employees adopt and use changes that impact them.” He also explains change management as “the application of a structured process and set of tools for leading the people side of change to achieve a desired outcome.” It is not by accident that the phrase “achieve a desired outcome” completes the definition. By framing change management in this results-oriented way, we overcome assumptions about change management being merely the soft side of change. Change management ensures benefit realization by addressing one of the most critical elements of it: the people side of change.”
There is a required connection between the people who are expected to accept and participate in a change and realizing desired outcomes of that change. I believe that this is a fundamental challenge in realizing successful climate change mitigation.
Yes, I know this is complex. One step at a time.
* One definition: Critical thinking is the analysis of facts to form a judgment. The subject is complex; several different definitions exist, but which generally include the rational, skeptical, and unbiased analysis or evaluation of factual evidence. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities as well as a commitment to overcome native egocentrism and sociocentrism.
I was honored to be invited by the KM Global Network (KMGN), as part of the 2022 KM Advanced Methodologies Series, to present KMAgile – KM Strategy Development: “Faster than the Speed of Change.” This unique approach to KM strategy development or KM strategy refresh delivers an alternative path to the “waterfall” method of developing KM strategies for any organization of any size. The KMAgile approach can reduce strategy development time by many months. The video of this one-hour session with Q&A can be found here. The presentation slides from the presentation can be found here.
Bruce Boyes Celebrated RealKM doubling readership in 2022 in less than a year. This amounts to one million article views! This readership accomplishment highlights the value of RealKM Magazine‘s purpose of supporting and promoting evidence-based knowledge management. Bruce recognized Bill Kaplan, Founder of Working KnowledgeCSP, among others, as a valued patron of the RealKM Magazine mission.
When I began my knowledge management career in 1998, I had the good fortune to read Peter M. Senge’s book, “The Fifth Discipline.” One of the important tenets that I took away from the read is the idea of a “community of inquiry and experimentation.” This is and should be a continuing model for thinking and course of action decisions. I find that inquiry and experimentation lead to an improved ability to independently form (new) opinions, and beliefs, and discover new facts and insights to further enrich and support any decision I need to make. This pursuit of both new ideas and more effective solutions to challenges and problems, relying in part on evidence-based research and learning (e.g. lessons learned), and critical thinking*, often involves sharing one’s ideas not only in their professional communities but also sharing these ideas publicly in speech and through publication. Diversity of thought is critical. It helps to keep one objective in their thinking.
Encouraging Inquiry and Experimentation
I was fortunate to attend Newark Academy and Lehigh University, unique and independent secondary and collegiate learning institutions in the ’60s and early ’70s, that taught me the value and necessity of evidence-based research; how to conduct, analyze, and implement research and analysis to make better decisions while adding “common sense and sound business judgment” to the mix, eliminating emotion as much as relevantly possible, and while not ignoring my gut. This approach guided me through my USAF career. Given the space to share and add my ideas and opinions to a conversation, my ideas may not have prevailed but my voice was heard, my ideas were considered, and I believed that along the way my thoughts, ideas, and suggestions, formed part of the ultimate understanding of a position, decision or “consensus” solution. I was able to change an opinion more easily or adjust a conclusion. Unlike today, the educational and social environment then more often than not requested and encouraged diversity of opinion and thought—encouraging inquiry and experimentation to solve problems and address challenges.
Free Speech and Cancelation
Sharing of ideas and opinions is called free speech and with free speech, there can be consequences. What you say can get you praised or ridiculed, included or excluded, hired or fired. If what you say can deprive you of your livelihood, the right to free expression is useless and a fear of retaliation is well-founded. History is rich with examples of speech censorship where saying the wrong thing could get you arrested or killed; there is economic censorship in which the result is diminished information flow for media consumers that often rely on single (risky) or multiple pathways (better) to inform their own opinions, conclusions and to make decisions.
We are increasingly subject to being “canceled” for expressing our opinions, not only on the job but also on our own time in venues unrelated to our occupations. In those instances where the “sharer” publicly shares an opinion or conclusion that may not be broadly or specifically accepted, and attempts at cancellation fail, “guilt” becomes the tool of choice to influence the behavior and thinking of those with whom you disagree. Emotion and personal or tribal agendas guide behavior; evidence and facts are ignored, and alternative “facts” are promoted, even if the sharer’s conclusion follows a logical and “systems thinking approach” to their conclusion. While one can disagree with the conclusion and the approach for deriving that conclusion, one should account for a documented history of evidence and learned lessons relevant to similar or closely identical situations and their outcomes that the sharer provides.
I read an opinion article recently that states, “To be guilty means you’re culpable and responsible for some wrongdoing, ethically and/or legally. And if it’s accurate, we have to serve our time or pay our fine or make our apologies or somehow confess and atone. That’s a call for society to make, not special interest groups or individuals trying to manipulate us. But I’m not leading a life influenced by guilt flung by others who corrosively believe “if you’re not with us, you’re against us.”
Manchin and Sinema — Critical, System Thinkers?
Consider the positions held by Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema on current reconciliation legislation. While the Senators serve demographically different constituencies, give the Senators credit for taking what appears to be a systems view to arrive at their current positions. Consideration has been given to the social, fiscal, environmental, and political objectives of the proposed legislation and the outcomes of its implementation. Many of those that disagree with the Senators have ridiculed and derided them. Does it make better sense to unpack their line of analysis, thinking, and conclusions in order to look for ways to arrive at common ground using evidence and learning…to apply evidence-based and critical thinking? And now with a 31 October deadline for a decision and vote announced by the House Speaker today, there seems to be time to do this.
Legislative Outcomes and Requirements Definition
Practically speaking, this is a discussion that must be focused on outcomes, should be requirements-based, and should be focused on actual needs.
What defines success? What are the cost, schedule, and technical (fiscal, social, political, environmental…) challenges? How are the cost, schedule, and technical challenges balanced (trade-offs for best value) to achieve the best possible outcomes? What are the details of implementation and do they align with the requirements? For critical thinking and evidence-based analysis to guide decision-making, the tendency to discuss this through the lens of how it will affect either the Democrats’ or Republicans’ political fortunes must change. Practically, this is not an all-or-nothing situation. Sound business judgment and collective common sense underpin meaningful consensus.
Knowledge management and critical thinking are requisite fundamentals for legislative success. The two are essential in creating necessary understanding between differing opinions on problems and solutions and then guiding the thinking and behavior of members of Congress in defining and legislating effective solutions to national challenges.
* One definition: Critical thinking is the analysis of facts to form a judgment. The subject is complex; several different definitions exist, but which generally include the rational, skeptical, and unbiased analysis or evaluation of factual evidence. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities as well as a commitment to overcome native egocentrism and sociocentrism.
Over 100 KM Professionals nationwide met in the DC Metro for two days in March 2020 to discuss and share their experience and insights on the practical application of KM. I was honored to be among the speakers presenting.
My presentation, Knowledge Management Is Easier To Deliver as a Slogan than as a Sustainable Initiative, focused on the planning needed to transition from KM theory and KM concepts to KM strategy and KM practice and how to align effort with the business and operational environment and KM environment in an organization for sustainable KM success. I included a survey of successful practices gleaned from 20 years of KM consulting. You can watch the presentation here.
Bill Kaplan, Working KnowledgeCSP Founder, is speaking at the upcoming Special Libraries Association (SLA) Annual Conference, to be held virtually from August 3rd to13th. The SLA Annual Conference brings together special librarians and information professionals who want to explore the latest challenges and trends in knowledge and information management, refine their skills, and network with colleagues.
Bill will be co-presenting with other industry experts in an SLA On-Demand Presentation, Developing, Implementing, And Resetting A KM Strategy In A Time Of Uncertainty which will discuss how to assess the changes you need to make in your KM Strategy if you have one, and if you don’t have a KM Strategy, what you must do to get started. Relatable industry examples and case studies will be shared to give viewers clear and practical tips for dealing with a KM Strategy in times of uncertainty.
I’m interested in Texas right now because some of my family lives there. Beyond COVID impacts they tell me it’s a very hard winter for Texas residents without power and utilities – heat, light, and running water – that is affecting millions of the Lone Star State’s residents for the third day. The prognosis is not good at the moment so it looks like suffering will continue in the near term until Mother Nature lets up.
Here is an excerpt from today’s WSJ Opinion section: “Texas energy regulators were warning of rolling blackouts late last week as temperatures in western Texas plunged into the 20s, causing wind turbines to freeze. Natural gas and coal-fired plants ramped up to cover the wind power shortfall as demand for electricity increased with falling temperatures. It wasn’t until temperatures plunged into the single digits early Monday morning that some conventional power plants including nuclear started to have problems, which was the same time that demand surged for heating. Gas plants also ran low on fuel as pipelines froze and more was diverted for heating. Gas power nearly made up for the shortfall in wind, though it wasn’t enough to cover surging demand.”
We have seen a (policy) effort to take nuclear and coal plants offline as part of an evolving energy policy. This evolving policy impacts the public when blackouts occur because the grid is fragile and there is little or no backup – no plan B in other words.
Whether one agrees with this explanation or not, the reality is people were living in sub-freezing temperatures in Texas with no power, heat, or utilities.
A Solution Must Focus First on Learning, Not Blame
If you watched or read any news sources today about the Texas crisis the discussion often centered on who was to blame. This approach goes down the wrong road. As knowledge management practitioners understand, when the focus is on who is to blame vs. what can we learn to deliver better energy outcomes, results are marginalized. In the political environment, and looking at past crises, if this is where the focus is, it is no wonder that policy, in this case, energy policy is and is likely to be disjointed.
The discussion, I believe, should first be focused on what have we learned from this crisis and how can we apply these learnings to develop a balanced energy policy that achieves environmentally sound and sustainable goals while protecting the public and providing the power and utilities people need? In my opinion, this would seem to be the primary focus and accountability of government at the national, state, and local level influenced by the context of regulatory and policy expected impacts driving implementation in the respective geographic area. One size does not necessarily apply to all. Think of it as policy development and implementation designed to be “fit for purpose.”
Some questions to consider to get started:
How could this crisis and the hardship in Texas have been mitigated or avoided?
How can lessons learned be applied to craft a non-political, bipartisan, and sustainable energy policy that also focuses on reducing emissions in the future and supporting the public?
Along with the law, regulatory, and policy implementation of whatever the national energy policy roadmap turns out to be, how will we achieve the national, regional, and local behavior change necessary for a new energy policy to be both effective and sustainable in meeting the public’s needs?
Design Thinking as an Approach to Energy Policy Development
I have an idea. It might be useful to approach energy policy outcomes underpinned by using “design thinking.” What is “design thinking?” “Design thinking is a process for creative problem-solving. … In employing design thinking, you’re pulling together what’s desirable from a human point of view with what is technologically feasible and economically viable.”
This 3-part interview is part of the KnowledgeWebCast series, a unique platform where Santhosh Shekar Interviews Global Experts from the KM world to discuss their KM Journey, career learnings, and KM standards. This interview/podcast was published in RealKM Magazine.
… each man is my superior, each woman also my superior, in that I may learn from him and her.
Norman Lear (an American television writer and producer) Norman Lear believes“… each man is my superior, each woman also my superior, in that I may learn from him and her.” He believes that “Somebody doesn’t have to be a professor. Somebody can be just knocking on your door, or somebody can be selling you something on the street, or somebody can be peddling wherever, and you have a reasonable conversation, and suddenly you heard something you hadn’t heard before or something the person you feel is about suggests just something you haven’t thought before.” He is 98 years old. He has experienced a lot. I believe he has credibility here.
The value of the opportunity to continuously learn
The political, social, and economic events of the past four years (really even longer) repeatedly remind me as a knowledge management practitioner how valuable is the continuous capability and ability to learn from others, especially those that share a different perspective than mine. The denial and loss of this capability
and ability to continuously learn have led to unintended outcomes in the past, does so in the present, and will likely lead to unintended outcomes in the future.
The failure of media and the failure within the campuses of our learning institutions to promote the opportunity to freely and continuously learn from others is a major challenge to our (collective) ability to develop an understanding of the meaning and impact of the people with whom we interact, the value of their conversation, the beliefs they hold even especially when different from our own, and the decisions they make. To make us valuable and informed participants in our society, denying the opportunity for others to hear alternate views, to listen, and to draw their own conclusions from different views on any subject not only destroys the opportunity to continuously learn, to continuously improve through the ability to process new knowledge but also marginalizes or eliminates and opportunity to use that new knowledge to make better decisions and to develop new solutions to new and evolving and in some instances life or death challenges.
Denying the opportunity to continuously learn is self-destructive
More importantly, the canceling of an opportunity to understand and the insecurity that drives this mentality means that we lose “critical and relevant” perspectives on history and the subsequent ability to learn from that history, why events occurred, and why people did what they did based on the beliefs that led to the decisions they made and the outcomes that then transpired. We know tragically that failing to understand history, failing to learn lessons from this history, failing to understand those conversations and decision chains ends badly when we do not afford ourselves, and cancel, the opportunity to do this. It is narrow-minded, self-centered, destructive, and counterproductive to the concepts and practices of good knowledge management, and fundamentally, human interaction. I always have to consider that when differing views cannot be supported with evidence or logic and the result is to cancel or silence the perspectives of those that do not agree, there is a modicum of insecurity that calls into the question the validity, logic, and agenda of the other’s perspective(s).
We have an opportunity to change
In 2021 we have the opportunity to “flip the pages of pending history” and to create greater opportunity to learn from what others believe. We can choose to work to understand what others believe and why they believe that, to inform ourselves of their understanding, to enable our better decisions, and to develop our better solutions to the challenges brought on by necessary change and the new knowledge and understanding we need, can and should gain from others, especially when we do not agree with them.
In 2021, we will require organizational and personal humility to recognize that we can’t know all there is to know … that there is always an opportunity to continuously learn more, that there are tools and mechanisms to do this, and therefore, there may be better, other outcomes that we cannot see. That these alternatives may lead to alternate success.
Really, shouldn’t we demand of ourselves as a rational person, or demand of a decision-maker in any sector of life whom we entrust with decision making power and subsequent accountability for those decisions on our behalf, to “want” to know as much as possible to make those better decisions and develop better solutions to new and extraordinary challenges? I vote yes.
Note: This version is edited from the original published.
Working KnowledgeCSP was once again recognized by CIOReview Magazine in November 2020 as one of the annual “10 Most Promising Knowledge Management Solution Providers” this time for 2020.” According to CIOReview Magazine, this is an annual listing of 10 companies that are at the forefront of providing knowledge management solutions and impacting the industry. Working KnowledgeCSP also earned this recognition in 2018.
Working KnowledgeCSP continues to focus in 2020 on delivering effective and sustainable KM solutions to our clients. Working KnowledgeCSP will continue to work with clients to demonstrate that investing time in KM concepts, strategy, and practices while changing the organization’s behavior to better support KM outcomes, helps create a measurable return in performance and value both for the organization, its teams, and the individual employee.
Bill Kaplan and Working KnowledgeCSP were featured in CIOReview Magazine’s special knowledge management issue and recognized as one of the “10 Most Promising Knowledge Solution Providers for 2018.” This is an annual listing of 10 companies that are at the forefront of providing knowledge management solutions and impacting the industry.”
As the next administration transitions into power in January 2021, it will face many domestic and foreign policy and national security challenges. How will it be a knowledge-based decision-making process?
How much and how often will learned lessons objectively support decision making, even if learned across previous administrations? How will the next administration create value from its accessible knowledge, regardless of the source of that knowledge?
A Major Challenge Area – Iran Nuclear Deal of 2015
For example, a major challenge area will be a decision about re-engagement in the Iran nuclear deal of 2015. This raises three questions for me:
The first question is common to many:
“What can we expect will be the national security and foreign policy towards re-engaging Iran in this deal from which the US withdrew in May 2018?”
The second and third questions may not be common to many and must be asked:
“What lessons have we learned over the course of years of engagement with Iran (and other participants) in the creation, negotiation, and realized and unrealized outcomes of this deal?
“ What value can and will we create from our learned lessons in the creation, negotiation, and realized and unrealized outcomes of this deal?”
The answer to the first question, based on President-elect Biden’s statements, seems to be re-engagement since the President-elect has stated he wants to return to the deal, and further develop a follow-on agreement if Tehran begins to honor its commitments. How will this be decided? [Note: To be clear, I am not advocating any specific political or national policy outcome.]
A Performing and Learning Approach to Decision Making
As a long-time knowledge management practitioner, what I am advocating is a focus on “performing and learning” as a basic foundation for any decision-making.
For the Biden administration to:
Look objectively and unemotionally at the learned lessons from the decisions made during the preceding period of performance across two administrations.
Understand the reasoning for the decisions made and the evidence and insight relied upon to make those decisions. And based on this approach, incorporate the varied subject matter expertise from demonstrated subject matter experts regardless of political affiliation. Multiple lenses on the same subject increase the probability of a higher quality “best value” decision and outcomes incorporating any necessary tradeoffs.
Analyze the current outcomes of those previous decisions and what new insights have been revealed, what projections or expectations have been borne out, and how can they be relied upon to make future, better, and higher quality decisions regarding re-engagement “why” and “how.”
These are the tenets of a knowledge management approach to decision making that should be front and center not only in this particular challenge area but also in the many other policy and governance challenge areas that the new administration will face.
Unemotional, evidence-based, analytical, understanding history and learned lessons — it is about “performing and learning.” It shouldn’t be hard…but I know it will be.
Bill Kaplan is recognized as one of the early thought leaders and knowledge management consultants in the application of Knowledge Management (KM) in the government sector and a long-time practitioner in the private sector. Bill has been consulting on the leadership and practical application of Knowledge Management as a business discipline to address business operations and workforce performance challenges since the 1990s.
2020 Industry Era Magazines 2020 List Best Entrepreneurs
Industry Era Magazines named Bill Kaplan, Founder of Working KnowledgeCSP as one of the “10 Best Entrepreneurs of 2020.” According to Industry Era, selection criteria and recognition are based on entrepreneurs who are “… set to transform this new era with their innovative ideologies, technological outlook and steadfast leadership.”
Bill stated “I’m proud to be recognized by Industry Era Magazine. Working KnowledgeCSP invests significantly in developing our Knowledge Management (KM) consulting capabilities and providing unique and effective solutions for our client’s KM challenges.” Industry Era Magazine published more from Bill in their “Creating Value from Knowledge” article.
About Working KnowledgeCSP
Working KnowledgeCSP (WK) is an internationally recognized source for practical and innovative knowledge management (KM) solutions that focus on facilitating the organization and personal behavior changes needed to make sustainable KM implementation a success. Most importantly, we see ourselves as our client’s partner, bringing new and meaningful insights to help them to create “value from their knowledge.”
About Industry Era
Industry Era is one of the leading media brands offering technology-based magazines about the latest occurrences in various verticals. The magazine has a keen editorial focus on variation in technology, management, world-changing ideas, creativity, and perspective of established leaders.
Taking KM from “theory to practice” in your organization and searching for KM “how” and only finding KM “what” can be very frustrating! In this presentation, delivered at KM Showcase 2020 March in Arlington VA, we discussed a select series of real KM challenges, the concepts to address these challenges, and how to practically apply these concepts as solutions.
Two Questions
How do you effectively transition from theory to concept to practice aligning context relevant KM concepts and practices through a sustainable KM implementation that not only supports, but also aligns your business and operational environment and your KM environment?
How do you continue to balance theory, concepts, and practice to continue to create and deliver value from your knowledge in support of your mission and your stakeholders?”
Have a look at the presentation and contact us if you have questions on what you read here.
“When discussing digital transformation and the technology supporting it, the discussion often ignores the source of the content (data-information-knowledge) and the practical application of KM concepts and practices as part of a strategy that must exist to create the content.” Bill Kaplan
So, here is my takeaway — technology – digital transformation – AI evolution – are not the main event but are all part of a larger KM universe with solutions focused on continuous (business and operational) performance improvement.
Here are some definitions to ground the discussion.
Knowledge Management (KM): The ability to capture, adapt, transfer, and reuse the “critical and relevant” knowledge of the organization to continuously improve performance at the individual, team, and organization level
Digital Transformation (DT): A work environment in which digital tools – information, applications, processes — create a business or performance advantage and enhance customer and stakeholder value
KM Technology: Technology that assists with the creation, identification, findability, access, use/reuse, transferability and organization of an organization’s knowledge
Tech Selling KM
A platform vendor recently asked me to review “KM technology” and provide my perspective about their “complete” “knowledge management system,” which the salesperson characterized as “a software-based architecture that applies and utilizes knowledge management principles.” The marketing presentation went on to identify “the principles” which included:
business intelligence analysis
data-driven objectives around business productivity, and
a competitive business model …
and … “A knowledge management system uses a user interface, sometimes in a dashboard, to manage several different software modules that make up the system.”
I asked “How would one know if the technology would be “fit for purpose” for their organization?” I also asked “Where does the content came from that would provide evolution (knowledge) of the knowledge base?”
Can you tell what is missing here? The answer is “Technology is a Tool, Part of a KM Strategy Solution.”
Consider:
AI and Machine learning are not fully mainstream yet
Technology can’t (yet) take knowledge from your head and
put into another person’s head
Technology can’t capture tacit knowledge (experience and insight) and make sense (context) out of the captured knowledge
Technology focuses on leveraging explicit knowledge, not tacit knowledge
Technology effectiveness = f (culture) + requirements
KM solutions are about the most effective “Use and Flow” of Knowledge within and across an organization
Recognize:
Information sharing isn’t good enough – people need to make sense of it, adapt it and use it to make the right decision at the right time
Create a framework for sharing knowledge, supported by appropriate technology, that enables people at all levels in an organization to improve their performance from its use and reuse
The entry point for the KM Technology solution discussion is after you understand the context for its use and the user requirements are defined in that context
Recent and current writing and speaking promotes a broad belief that transforming teams and companies into a “knowledge-centric organization” or “high performing, knowledge enabled organization” is about acquiring the latest collaboration tool or search technology. Technology is only one part of an overall KM Strategy with five focus areas:
People/culture
Process
Technology
Content
KM Structure/Governance
We will be discussing this more at the 2019 DoD and Federal Knowledge Management Symposium in Baltimore on 14-16 May.
Great Falls, VA, May 10, 2019 – Working KnowledgeCSP Founder, Bill Kaplan, will be a featured presenter at the 2019 DoD and Federal Knowledge Management Symposium in Baltimore, Maryland. Kaplan will discuss how people, not technology, will always be the foundation for KM and digital transformation success.
The event, hosted by the Defense Information Systems Agency, takes place May 14-16 at the Baltimore Convention Center. This year’s conference will focus on digital transformation and a range of innovations…from cloud platforms and robotic process automation to predictive algorithms, natural language processing, chatbots, and cognitive systems…and how they are revolutionizing how employees share, discover, and access enterprise knowledge. DOD and federal government decision-makers will join knowledge management (KM) subject matter experts and thought leaders from around the world who will provide briefings and presentations based on their experiences assessing, adopting, and implementing new technology to improve KM practices.
Session Details:
Title:
Technology is Not the Key to KM Success
Date/Time:
Wed., May 15th, 2019, 11:00 – 12:00
Description: “When discussing digital transformation and the technology supporting it, the discussion often ignores the source of the content (data-information-knowledge) and the practical application of KM concepts and practices as part of a broader KM strategy that must exist to create the content.” Bill Kaplan
This session will discuss why — technology – digital transformation – AI evolution – are not the main event but are all part of a larger KM universe with solutions focused on continuous (business and operational) performance improvement.
About Working KnowledgeCSP
Working KnowledgeCSP is a CVE-verified service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB). Working KnowledgeCSP provides knowledge management (KM) consulting, coaching and training solutions to our clients in federal and state government, the private sector and international organizations.. For more information, visit https://workingknowledge-csp.com .
Creating Value from Shared Knowledge to Deliver Better Mission Outcomes
CoPs can be the foundation for high performing IFI networks of experts working on clearly identified policy and business & operational subject matter areas where (1) multi-disciplinary expertise is needed and (2) where strong synergies can be derived from a community approach using appropriate coordination tools to achieve better mission outcomes. This presentation surveys briefly the history of KM and CoPs in IFIs. It focuses on how IFIs can leverage the value and power of their CoPs and the Concept of Shared Value in sustaining the effectiveness of their COPs.
Check out the audio recording from the online presentation and discussions.
Disclosure: Thinking out loud…better than where we are now.
What if …
“collaboration” and “reaching across the aisle” replaced “ego” and “intransigence?” What if there was reliance only on evidence and facts?
First, there is a high probability, I believe, that this will likely not soon happen because the positions that are held by opposing parties include, not only “fact free” driven perspectives masquerading as “truth,” but also “opinion” driving individual and shared “beliefs.”
A Knowledge Management Solution to the US Gov’t Shutdown
What if a centrist, moderate focused group of representatives (leadership and rank-and-file) from opposing views collaborated in a room with an independent facilitator and they did the following:
First, each sides key stakeholder’s conduct an internal After Action Review (AARs) where the following questions are asked with regard to the Shutdown:
What objectives are we trying to achieve in maintaining the shutdown?
Did we/are we achieving those objectives?
If we are not achieving those objectives, why are the results turning out different than planned?
What can we learn from this and change immediately (to end the shutdown)?
Next, with the results of the AARs, both sides meet together in the same room with a facilitator and share their learnings. Each side commits to closure of this process together until a solution is reached.
Based on the shared learnings and insights gained from this session, invite relevant subject matter experts (SMEs) and “operators” and accept only “evidence-based” facts from those responsible for the practical development and application of government operational policies and procedures that can talk to, for example, the measurable impacts of border barriers observed over a reasonable period of time to know what works, what doesn’t, and why. The sources could be from within or from outside the US. The requirement is being able to clearly explain the “context” for the conclusions to be drawn from the shared information (e.g. success measures), expertise and experience (i.e. knowledge) of the SMEs and the “operators.”
We understand that facts and measures can be interpreted in many ways to drive many ends. Consider something as simple as aligning the facts, the interpretations, and the measures of success and their interpretation, next to each other, and examining where the “fact based” differences are that are subject to multiple interpretations, and then finding evidence to further resolve these differences in understanding. Kind of like a literature review for a PhD thesis, eventually you are going to come to closure.
Worth consideration, this framework may be an approach to a solution and decision that relies on “facts” and truth” rather than only “belief” and “opinion” … or at least fact-based beliefs that can be driven to consensus…and progress forward.
About Working KnowledgeCSP
Working KnowledgeCSP is a knowledge management consulting company and internationally recognized source for practical and innovative knowledge management (KM) solutions that solve our clients’ toughest knowledge challenges.
Working KnowledgeCSP is proud to announce that the International Trade Council (‘ITC’) has awarded Working KnowledgeCSP the Quality in Business Certification. As a global peak-body Chamber of Commerce, the ITC offers independent certifications that show an organization’s adherence to global best business practices as benchmarked against the ITC’s Quality in Business Standard.
To receive certification, Working KnowledgeCSPpassed a comprehensive audit covering 16 key sectors, 96 core criteria and 249 compliance indicators.
To maintain the Quality in Business Certification and to ensure the public of the continued quality of our brand, Working KnowledgeCSP has agreed to the ITC certification requirements, which include audits of our facilities and services at any stage. This certification is not mandated by any regulatory agency but was sought out voluntarily because of Working KnowledgeCSP ‘s commitment to continued quality and the satisfaction of our clients.
About Working KnowledgeCSP
Working KnowledgeCSP is an international knowledge management consulting company and recognized source for practical and innovative knowledge management (KM) solutions that solve our clients’ toughest knowledge challenges. We co-deliver with our clients comprehensive consulting services for knowledge management assessments, co-delivering “fit for purpose” knowledge management strategies and frameworks; developing targeted knowledge management training and workshops; delivering KM tools and templates, and connecting you, when it makes sense, with “fit for purpose” enabling knowledge management technology. This includes understanding and facilitating the organization and personal behavior changes needed to make sustainable KM implementation a success.
About the International Trade Council
The International Trade Council is a 64-year-old peak body Chamber of Commerce representing
government export agencies, chambers of commerce, industry associations and businesses from 176 countries. To learn more about the International Trade Council please visit www.tradecouncil.org. To learn more about the Quality in Business Certification please visit www.qibcertification.org.
This is an annual listing of 10 companies that are at the forefront of providing knowledge management solutions and impacting the industry.” Bill Kaplan, Working KnowledgeCSP Founder, discussed Working KnowledgeCSP‘s approach to “Creating Value from Knowledge” to deliver effective and sustainable KM solutions to their clients.
Bill Kaplan discusses the value of a KM Strategy and how Working KnowledgeCSP works with their clients to co-develop and co-deliver a “fit for purpose” KM Strategy and Implementation Plan.
“…co-delivery has helped Working KnowledgeCSP gain greater success by ensuring that our client’s key people are embedded our the consulting team that delivers the KM solutions, helping to ensure that our client develops and retains an organic capability to sustain their investment in the newly developed KM environment based on what they learned as a member of the consulting solution delivery team.”
Additionally, Working KnowledgeCSP developed an agile approach to KM strategy development—KMAgile. For clients able to invest the upfront time and resources, this approach quickly co-develops and co-delivers sustainable client knowledge retention and sharing capability in approximately 14 weeks through the upfront use of KM pilot projects built into the workflow. This informs the KM strategy real-time by involving the client teams in solving business or operational challenges using KM concepts and practices as part of getting the work done. “It’s kind of like flying the airplane while you build it,” quips Kaplan. Results and lessons learned from this agile approach are then used to more effectively deploy KM across the organization.
Working KnowledgeCSP continues to stay focused on delivering effective and sustainable KM solutions to their clients. We envision continuing to work with clients to demonstrate that investing time in KM concepts and practices, while changing the organization’s behavior to better support KM outcomes, helps create a measurable return in performance and value both for the organization, its teams, and the individual employee.
One of the outcomes of the evolving “ISO 30401:2018 – Knowledge Management Systems” standard should be meaningful progress towards accredited, professional knowledge management (KM) certification with training and preparation based on an agreed to “standard.” This is in contrast to the vendor marketed “KM certification” offered across the KM community globally which does not meet key criteria to be considered “accredited” certification. I believe they are more about selling training classes but which one may find useful in furthering one’s understanding of KM.
Previous discussions on accredited KM certification can be found here (Part 1) and here (Part 2) and can be summarized as:
Professional certification is a designation earned by an individual identifying that they have demonstrated a standard level of skills, experience, and expertise within their field.
Certifications are generally earned from a professional society with a certifying body, and are granted based on a combination of education, experience, and knowledge, rather than solely by passing an exam or just completing training.
The ongoing process of developing, administering, and maintaining the certification is done to international or other recognized standards and requires ongoing continuing education.
There is an established Body of Knowledge for the subject matter area that is nationally and/or internationally recognized.
Sitting for the certification examination does not require that you take training from the certifying organization.
I encourage the ongoing conversations about “ISO 30401:2018 – Knowledge Management Systems” to timely include how to evolve meaningful and accredited certification for the KM profession.
Recognize that “assumptions” can be “fact free” — this can lead you to make some poor judgements, develop incomplete conclusions, and then make bad decisions in trying to move KM forward in your organization — all decisions have consequences.
Here are some thoughts.
Assuming that your organization understands what you mean when you say “knowledge management.”
Do you understand what the organization “sees” when they hear “knowledge management?” … technology, collaboration platform, search, information management…?
Assuming you know how knowledge management should best be implemented because you have prior experience in implementing KM.
Ensure you clearly understand both the business and operational environment and the KM environment in your current organization. Concepts and practices previously employed may be similar—but context is everything…as are timing and available resources.
Assuming that your organization does not understand the value of knowledge management like you (think you) do because the organization is not jumping on the “obvious” value of KM.
Part 1: Not everything you believe is valuable or important has the same sense of urgency you believe you see. Your view may be narrowly focused on a specific problem or challenge, but in fact, what you see as a problem or challenge may be part of a larger more complex challenge with other moving parts of which KM is one part.
Part 2: Is there an evidence-based business case for KM with measurable outcomes to gauge success? Engage-engage-engage at all levels of your organization.
For more information about our KM solutions – click here
We work with you to facilitate your understanding of your business processes and to understand what knowledge is needed to more effectively and efficiently execute these processes. You will not only understand what knowledge is needed to execute each step of the process or workflow, but also what knowledge you have that you need and what knowledge you need that you don’t have. This insight will help you to more effectively target and integrate KM concepts and practices into your processes or workflow to “create value from your knowledge.” The outcome will provide insight to:
What is “critical and relevant knowledge”
Where this knowledge exists (repository/people)
Who needs this knowledge to get the job done
In what form this knowledge exists and its currency
Challenges in finding, accessing, and using/reusing this knowledge.
Where Communities of Practice (CoPs) can be valuable in researching challenges and creating new knowledge to support planning and operations.
Be prepared to invest time, people, and resources to effectively deliver these outcomes.
The CSP Model Workshop — KM in Practice will provide your leadership and workforce the ability to create a clear road map for developing, integrating, and sustaining a KM Framework for your organization, regardless of size. It is presented in understandable and practical language supported by “ready-to-implement” ideas that will facilitate your ability to think about and then to build a smarter, knowledge enabled, more agile organization by capturing, adapting, and retaining the knowledge that is already inside your organization before it is lost through turnover or other attrition.
The Workshop can be structured to support both half-day and full day sessions depending on the level at which you wish to begin and the time you are willing to invest. This is neither a so called “certification” course that promises to “certify” you in KM, nor is it an academic exercise in KM concepts lacking practical outcomes or outputs.
The Half Day Workshop discusses in depth each of the three phases of the model — Concept, Strategy, Practice — and introduces you to the approach and the thinking that you will need to implement the CSP model.
The Full Day Workshop also facilitates a discussion relevant to your organization’s details. We collaborate with you to develop specific details of your roadmap and help you to understand what it will take for you to develop and implement a sustainable high performing, knowledge enabled organization.
The workshop, conducted at your location, includes:
A Half Day or Full Day Workshop
The CSP Workbook for each attendee
For the full day workshop, eight (8) hours of electronically supported post-workshop follow up and coaching to answer any questions you have about the CSP Model and its implementation in your organization.
Managing the Risk of Workforce Turnover and Knowledge Loss: We work with you to understand your workforce turnover challenges and then provide you with strategies and implementing practices to mitigate the risks of knowledge loss and retention within your organizational context. You not only will gain the insight necessary to immediately address your knowledge loss and retention challenges, but also lay the foundation for establishing a disciplined and sustainable KM strategy and implementing framework to mitigate the loss of knowledge and improve knowledge retention in the long term. Click here to learn how we can help you to keep you from “Losing Your Minds.”
Outcomes based on requirements = Know where you’re going and why before you start!
One could maintain that KM is about “creating value from your knowledge to improve performance at the individual, team, and organization level to drive mission success.”
For any major project or process, common sense and sound buisness judgement dictate the necessity to plan — to think through the “who, why, what, how, and when.” This is especially true involving knowledge management projects. Planning, developing, and implementing a sustainable KM Strategy and developing a KM Framework to implement that strategy requires you understand why you are undertaking a KM project and what outcome(s) you want when the KM project is completed.
The practice-based Concept-Strategy-Practice (CSP) Model shown above was developed from lessons learned from 20 years of consulting engagements and KM projects as (1) a Chief Knowledge Officer for a mid-cap consulting company and (2) from consulting engagements supporting private sector, federal and state governments, and international clients.
The CSP model is a proven and logical methodology not only for thinking through KM planning and implentation, but also sustaining the outcome. The Working KnowledgeCSP CSP Model helps you to focus on:
easily stated and easily understood outcomes
tied to select measures of (KM) success
tracked to existing strategic initiatives and measures of value.
Each phase focuses on a critical component for success.
Knowledge Concepts: Developing a concept for KM in your organization based on your desired outcomes, identification of what is critical and relevant knowledge, the culture of your organization, and an assessment of your KM maturity, your readiness to take on a KM investment.
Knowledge Strategy: Understanding the strategic plan of the greater organization of which you are part and the ensuring that the business case for KM investment over the longer term can be made. This includes developing a KM strategic plan that is linked to the overall strategic plan of the organization to ensure that there is funding and resources to sustain the investment. Most importantly, we help you to identify meaningful measure of success that you use not only to measure the progress of your KM program, but also the value (return) it provides to help to ensure continued funding and resource support.
Implementing Practices: Your KM implementation should be based on your unique environment and desired outcomes…what makes sense in your context. Previous insight gained from Phase 1 and Phase 2 provides the necessary baseline to develop a framework that fits your organization and its unique goals and desired outcomes.
Download an explanation of the CSP Model
Concept | Strategy | Practice | (CSP) Model
Knowledge Concepts
KM Outcomes: What do you want to happen as a result of investing in and resourcing KM? What changes are you focused upon achieving, near term and longer term? Why are you seeking change?
KM Audit: What are your organization’s knowledge needs, gaps and opportunities in four key areas?
Current levels of knowledge usage and communication
Current state of corporate knowledge management
Identification and clarification of knowledge management opportunities
Identification and clarification of potential knowledge problem areas
Workforce Culture and Dynamics: What is the underlying workforce culture and dynamics of your organization? Will it have a positive or negative impact on the success of any investment in KM or KM project?
KM Assessment: How “ready” is your organization to “make the changes” necessary to implement a performing and learning approach to knowledge capture, retention, and reuse that is part of the way you work? There are six elements in the Working KnowledgeCSP assessment model.
The KM Business Case – Link between Concept and Strategy: Your KM effort can have a significant and positive impact on the performance and success of the entire organization if you can get the larger organization to see the value in your proposed efforts. Your business case must tie a knowledge management investment to business, operational, or mission outcomes.
Knowledge Strategy
Align with the Organization’s Strategic Planning: How do you align and make your KM Strategy an integral part of the strategic planning of the organization? An investment in knowledge management must have a strategic orientation in that all KM activities tie directly into and support overall organization goals.
KM Strategic Plan: What are the objectives of the KM strategy and what are the goals which are necessary to achieve these objectives? How do you tie this to a business benefit or outcome?
Measures of Success: What are the most meaningful measures of success for your KM efforts and how are they tied to your KM Strategic Plan, and ultimately, the strategy for your organization? Measures of success can take many forms and serve many purposes.
Communication Strategy: Since all KM projects are also change management efforts, how are you going to communicate the value of the change driven by the KM effort. In delivering change, how are you going to effect change in individual, team, and organization behavior? What is the messaging? What are the tools that will be available to communicate change and value?
Implementing Practices
Pilot Projects: Validating, through carefully selected pilot projects, the relevant KM practices, tools, and techniques that you will embed in your organization as “part of the way you work;” Demonstrating that the strategy you developed and are implementing will be a fit for your organization and be sustainable over time.
Critical and Relevant Knowledge: What is the critical and relevant knowledge (information + experience) that is necessary and fundamental to achieving the desired mission outcome?
Process Management: What are your processes and can you “see” them? Before you can improve what you are doing, you need to see what it is that “you are doing”… a knowledge enabled process map.
Change Management (Behavior Change): What approach to introducing KM and implementing practices fits your organization due to the unique workforce dynamics and culture of your organization? How will you integrate the communication strategy? How you will enable the environment that facilitates change?
KM Outcomes: Are you achieving your desired outcomes? How do you know?
It’s difficult to build a sustainable KM program in the federal government. Some thoughts on why.
1. The Planning, Budgeting, Appropriation Cycle time is not responsive to immediate requirements. Other than end of year fallout money, planning for KM implementation spans multiple fiscal years.
2. Temporary Nature of Political (Leadership) Appointments can drive ambiguity in the agency’s mission priorities including a strong focus on that political appointee’s individual agenda and resource priorities to support that agenda. KM is rarely on it.
3. Appreciation for the Necessary Investment in KM that must span multiple fiscal years. End of fiscal year fallout monies may support an initial effort for a KM initiative but there are very often no funds for follow up or follow through. If the KM initiative delivers some value, momentum and buzz can build, value can be seen, but then there is workforce frustration because the effort and its ensuing value is not further supported. Is this just another management initiative?
4. Knowledge Leadership and Accountability is viewed as a position, not a role. The agency leadership is not communicating the value of KM as a solution to a business or operational problem faced by the agency where the ability to capture and reuse knowledge can make a measurable difference in the outcome.
5. Sense of Urgency does not exist. It’s been my experience that KM gains momentum when there is sense of urgency where the inability to effectively capture and share knowledge can have tragic or catastrophic consequences. This sense of urgency does not generally present itself in the civilian agencies where it should with a few exceptions (e.g. Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center). Compare to the military where knowledge sharing and collaboration is fundamental to mission success and embedded in operational workflow.
6. Unclear KM Link to Mission goes hand in hand with Sense of Urgency.
7. Viewing technology as the KM Solution and focusing only on the technology. We know that technology is an important enabler for KM success, but it is not the total solution which also includes focus on people/culture, process, content, and KM structure and governance.
8. KM is Not Embedded and Supported as Part of Workflow which means that it is very likely viewed as extra work, and not as a fundamental part of the way work is done. (Translation: I have too much work to do so asking me to do anything “extra” is not something for which I have time.)
9. KM — There is no one giant step that does it, it’s a lot of little steps that drives sustainability.
The Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), Office of the Senior Procurement Executive (OSPE), competitively awarded a one year plus option year contract to the team of Working Knowledge CSP, Vysnova Partners, and Cadre Acquisition Group, for Acquisition Strategy Support. The successful team comprises three CVE verified Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSB). Cadre Acquisition Group is also a woman owned small business (WOSB).
The primary effort is focused on reviewing, analyzing, and assessing the Department of Transportation’s acquisition strategy process and making recommendations that will improve the value that this critical process delivers to the Department.
Two additional tasks include: (1) developing context relevant training and (2) maintaining the currency of policies, procedures, and supporting guidance both on line and in print.
As part of this support solution, DOT will be using the “Operationalizing Learning” concept developed by the Founder of Working Knowledge CSP, Bill Kaplan, to align the acquisition strategy review process, and the ongoing execution of that process, with the training associated with the process.
The “Operationalizing Learning” concept depicted in the accompanying picture helps to ensure that the process, its execution, and any training on the process are aligned not only to deliver a more effective acquisition strategy review process, but also to deliver a process that focuses on ensuring that the most current practices from actual execution of the acquisition strategy review process are part of the published and taught process baseline. These effective practices will continue to form the core of the published acquisition strategy review (standard operating) procedures.
As I watched CNN’s New Day this week, I am struck by the focus of the anchors that seem to singularly report on the negatives of a particular story or event, rarely if ever trying to discover or to focus on any of the effective processes or practices that are being executed or have taken place during this tragedy.
I watched this morning as Chris Cuomo (CNN New Day) “interviewed” the Mayor of Baltimore, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake. He struggled mightily to force the mayor into stating that the real answers to the Grey arrest and subsequent outcome in Baltimore would not be publicly forthcoming and to cast this from a perspective of a lack of transparency and a cover up. The Mayor was focused on trying to explain that there is a process that is being followed by the City and that the City would continue to follow the investigative process. Over the past few days, over a previous set of interviews, there appeared to be a clear recognition to leverage the lessons to be learned from Ferguson, New York, and other cities about how to handle the release of investigation results and outcomes. In my mind, an effective use of learned lessons applied to current processes and practices, which in this case, related to release of investigation results, should be recognized. But this was not going to be the focus of Mr Cuomo’s reporting.
On scene or studio interviews are most often introduced and facilitated from the perspective of only what went wrong and who is accountable, rarely creating a news discovery and reporting environment where the interview subjects feel safe to be able to truly think through to what can be explained and learned from what happened.
We know that when bad things happen and the focus is consistently on who is to blame, rarely do people believe it is safe to truly talk about what they know, and consequently, it takes much, much longer to understand what happened and what could be done differently in the future. Interviews like the one above, and the reporting model demonstrated, are often a contributor to this environment of mistrust because the role as an independent and necessary voice for the public is often overcome by ratings and revenues.
The “facilitation “of the news story that the anchors conduct on air is as stated above, often more of an inquisition, than an inquiry, further ensuring that the outcome of the segment not only won’t get to a true and objective understanding of the news event and its related background and causes, but also helps to ensure that the news story is more about the anchor and their ratings, rather than the understanding and lesson learning that is required for lasting solutions.
Finally, a quick interview on the street or in the studio is not a replacement for a carefully planned and facilitated conversation to capture knowledge, make sense out of it, and then to reinvest it in improving performance or solving problems, but it is a place to start if that is truly what the outcome is that you want.
Some questions to consider?
What if the focus was focused on inquiry, rather than the inquisition? And… Would the positive leverage that news media can create help to find the necessary learnings to solve challenges and address situations like this in Baltimore more effectively and more quickly?
What if the anchors were truly to focus on “inquiry, rather than inquisition,” would the audience gain a better, more objective understanding of what happened, why, and what could be done differently?
Would the ability, then, to understand what exactly is the “critical and relevant knowledge” needed to begin to understand the causes of these types of civic and personal catastrophes, and then to use this understanding to thoughtfully craft solutions to begin to address what are longstanding and unresolved issues, be improved?
We know that when learning lessons is only about finger pointing, rarely are there any real lessons learned. However, when the environment to safely share the “know why” and “know how” is enabled, and thoughtfully facilitated, the probability of successfully learning lessons and reinvesting that learning in improved process and practices, can make measurable difference in positive performance and the necessary outcomes.
The Competencies, Roles and Responsibilities of a Knowledge Manager
Introduction
Knowledge is one of the primary assets of an organization. The flow of knowledge, into, within, and out of an organization, and the embedding of critical knowledge into the organization, is a process that can be optimized through resourcing a Knowledge Manager as a full-time (preferred) or part-time role. The following competencies and attributes are derived from years of experience with working with clients and organization knowledge managers. Many will evolve as experience is gained.
Competencies
The Knowledge Manager candidate should possess the following competencies:
Confident and effective communicator using various media
A skillful listener with an open style; good at facilitating discussion
Excellent influencing skills
Good networking and sharing of ideas and success
Clear and up-to-date understanding of business situation and processes and good working knowledge of organizational strategy
Ability to think strategically in terms of culture and behavior, business processes and technology and tools
Good appreciation of customer needs at both operational and strategic levels
An understanding of the principles of knowledge management
Role
The Knowledge Manager will perform the following roles:
Promote knowledge capture and reuse through operational and business processes
Capture and distill experience and insight for reuse to improve performance
Provide internal training and consulting on KM concepts and methodologies
Plan, develop, stand up, support, and promote collaborative tools and techniques such as communities of practice to facilitate sharing of ideas and work among internal teams and external partners
Help disseminate information about the organization’s knowledge sharing program to internal and external audiences, maintaining communications on knowledge sharing across the organization, participation in orientation and training sessions, and preparation of brochures/presentations
Specific Responsibilities
The responsibilities of the Knowledge Manager will evolve as KM is developed within the organization. The responsibilities are grouped according to the three stages of KM application.
Getting the Organization Ready
The Knowledge Manager should perform the following functions to facilitate KM readiness for the organization:
Create awareness in the organization of the principles of knowledge management and how they can impact the performance of the organization.
Work with leadership to establish KM as a priority business lever for the organization and develop means to legitimize and motivate the seeking and sharing of knowledge
Create an awareness of the behaviors and culture needed to promote knowledge management and guide and support both individuals and teams in embracing a change in behavioral style, moving from data/information push to knowledge pull and sharing
Work to ensure appropriate IT enablers for knowledge management
Managing the Knowledge Base
The Knowledge Manager should have the following responsibilities in managing the knowledge base:
Identify the knowledge critical to the organization; looking beyond technical knowledge (‘know-how) to strategic, business-environmental, people and other knowledge categories (‘know-why’, ‘know-who’ etc.)
Identify the individuals in the organization with knowledge in specific areas which are critical to the performance of the organization and enroll them in the process of managing that knowledge
As necessary, develop a suite of process tools for learning before, during and after and a means of integrating these within the normal working practices of the organization
As necessary, develop processes for capture, storage, validation and retrieval of knowledge; both within the organization and externally with others.
Prompt for, and facilitate, the capture of learning after all significant projects
Ensure the knowledge generated within the organization is made easily visible, available and useful to seekers
Monitor the effectiveness, maintenance and use of the IT tools and systems as they apply to KM, and implement improvements
Coach the organization in the use of KM processes and tools
Leveraging Expertise
The Knowledge Manager should have the following responsibilities in leveraging expertise:
Prompt for, and facilitate, ‘Learning Before Doing’ for all significant projects
Prompt for, and facilitate, the sharing of knowledge while doing the work
Help new ideas from the workforce survive and thrive inside and outside the team
Identify the individuals within the team or organization with critical knowledge for the organization and enroll them in the process of applying that knowledge within the organization
Monitor the behaviors and culture within the organization as they impact KM and prompt for recognition when and where necessary.
NOTE: These competencies and attributes are representative of the competencies and attributes found in roles and responsibilities of Knowledge Managers, Champions or similar descriptions of this type of role in organizations recognized as high performing knowledge enabled organizations. They are provided as a guide to success for the sponsoring organization.
In my consulting experience, the organizations that are willing to provide a Knowledge Manager to work with the consulting team from the beginning of a project are demonstrating a real commitment to leveraging their investment in KM and sustaining it over the longer term
Program Management is a multidimensional discipline. It can involve a “cradle to grave” multiphase timeline that can include concept development, concept demonstration, design, product/system development, execution, sustainment, and closeout – all of these phases are part of program operations. A characteristic of effective and high performing programs is the attention to continually learning lessons that applied and reapplied as part of program operations.
Effectively capturing and reusing the critical and relevant knowledge of program operations by making knowledge capture, sense making, and reuse a fundamental operating principle, a part of the way the program operates, can substantially reduce operational risk. Said differently, it is about creating, and then sustaining the knowledge capability of the program being executed.
Knowledge Use and Flow
Only when a program can keep its knowledge current, and enable the movement of institutional knowledge across the program so it is searchable, findable, downloadable, and reusable, will the program be able to reduce risks associated with the evolutionary and operational challenges that the program must continually face. An effective and sustainable capability to “perform and learn” will improve program mission performance and mission effectiveness which can then be demonstrated and measured.
Operating Faster Than the Speed of Change
Not all program risks are insurable or preventable. By leveraging experience and insight (knowledge) across internal boundaries within the program, the Program Manager can make higher quality and more timely decisions about the challenges and problems they face based on the learned lessons within their evolving institutional knowledge base.
The Program Manager and their supporting organizations cannot know the answers to all of the risk questions nor how to address all of the risk challenges. But with a solid and sustainable knowledge management framework for institutional knowledge transfer that is part of the fabric of the program, the Program manager can immediately begin to more effectively ask the right questions to address these risks and do this much more quickly.
This is particularly true when dealing with significant change (risk) events that will continually and inevitably impact a program (Figure 1, Change Drives Knowledge Needs). The type of change will drive the knowledge needed. Why is this?
Programs that routinely and consistently capture and retain knowledge about “the know-how and know-why” of their operations, the decisions they have made about how they have addressed challenges and opportunities in the past, and have enabled an ability for its workforce and leadership to “connect, collect , and collaborate” in addressing these challenges and opportunities will possess the ability to respond quickly to “right the ship “or take advantage of an opportunity for driving a better outcome…to more successfully mitigate and manage the risks facing the program.
When the program faces new or unfamiliar factors that can impact program performance or outside program perceptions, the ability to quickly leverage the program’s institutional knowledge base will improve the ability to more effectively deal with change, increasing the probability that performance will return to a more normal state more quickly…operating faster than the speed of change.
Based on the level of innovation driven by the decisions made and solutions implemented, the program can possibly exceed previous performance levels because the new knowledge created in addressing this change event enables improvements that helped the program execute more effectively.
Knowledge Based Decision Making Can Be The Basis of Operational Risk Reduction
By making sense of successes and failures, about what is effective and what can be done differently next time, and sharing learned lessons and advice across the program , the Program Manager can begin to eliminate risk through more than just trial and error. Going forward, the Program Manager can develop and integrate more effective practices to mitigate the risks faced, now and in the future, rather than just transferring the risk. This also requires the Program Manager to begin to recognize that a lack of a consistent and disciplined framework for knowledge capture, sharing, and reuse is a fundamental risk in and of itself.
“Knowledge” in a program consists of “all of the information” in the program and “all of the experience” in the program. The Program Manager’s ability to successfully solve problems, make effective decisions, and improve program performance is directly related to the ability to effectively and efficiently integrate and apply both information (explicit knowledge) and insight and experience (tacit knowledge). Figure 2, Concept of Knowledge, illustrates this concept of knowledge.
The Program Manager’s ability to effectively integrate both explicit and tacit knowledge within the program so that it is relevant, accessible, and immediately reusable to solve problems, make decisions, and improve performance is critical for the program to effectively deal not only with change, but also with risk.
What is Operational Risk?
Operational Risk is a broad category affecting many aspects of any program. Several groups describe operational risk as “the risk of loss resulting from inadequate or failed internal processes, people, and systems or from external events (Culp, 2001).
Risk, in general, is defined by the ISO 31000 (2009) / ISO Guide 73:2002 as the “effect of uncertainty on objectives.” In this definition, uncertainties include events (which may or may not happen) and uncertainties caused by ambiguity or a lack of information. According to the 5th Edition of the PMBOK® Guide, project risk is “an uncertain event or condition that, if it occurs, has a positive or negative effect on one or more project objectives such as scope, schedule, cost, or quality.”
Operational risk can be further divided into six categories (Note: I saw this somewhere a while ago and always kept it and have no idea where I found it):
People Risk is the risk of loss associated with the loss of critical knowledge due to retirement or other attrition within a program. Examples include retirement, transfer, or disaster.
Process Risk is the risk of loss associated with failure to accurately represent and then consistently execute core business or operational processes. Examples include undefined or undocumented processes that differ from common baselines.
Technology Risk is the risk of loss associated with the failure to effectively use and leverage enabling technology In support of a program’s strategic or mission objectives. Examples include failure to effectively use tools and methods that can efficiently and timely connect members of the program to make effective decisions.
Strategic risk is the risk of loss associated with failures to achieve strategic objectives outlined in a program’s strategic plan. Loss of critical knowledge (people risk) can also be a strategic risk.
Disaster risk is the risk of loss associated with disaster. Examples include fire, earthquake, flood, or war.
Reputational risk is the risk of loss associated with a program’s actions that can devalue its brand name and image. Examples include corporate or executive actions or decisions that bring legal action or public disenfranchisement with the program.
All of these categories of operational risk can contribute to significant loss, partial, or complete failure within a program. Figure 1, Change Drives Knowledge Needs, above, reflects these and other concepts of change, and therefore, risk.
Operational risk can be difficult to mitigate since it involves calculated decisions to assume risk. In many circumstances, programs with an ability to effectively capture and reuse their critical and relevant knowledge will be better able to mitigate the broad spectrum of operational risk they face. In addition, the program will be better able to set necessary and meaningful operational performance standards by using effective or leading practices associated with necessary proven processes or techniques.
Attributes of Effective Operational Risk Mitigation
It is possible to articulate several of the critical knowledge management practices of programs that effectively capture and reuse knowledge (flow of knowledge) to reduce operational risk. They include:
Use of “Fast Learning” Processes
Support for Communities of Practice Around Core Business Processes or Other Relevant Program Target Areas
Knowledge Assets (repositories or knowledge base) Supporting the Communities of Practice and the Broader Program Execution
Enabling technology to facilitate connection, knowledge capture, collaboration and knowledge sharing as part of workflow
Leadership supported culture that is acceptable of change as a component of business execution, views change as part of successful business evolution, and makes capturing and reusing knowledge a fundamental part of the core business processes.
Assessing a Program’s Knowledge Capability to More Effectively Mitigate Risk Through an Integrated Framework for Institutional Knowledge Transfer
There are some common characteristics of programs that effectively capture and reuse knowledge to mitigate operational risk. They have:
Processes in place for assessing and tracking operational risk.
An ability to monitor incidents and situations that have created operational problems and to link them back to causes that may have been related to lack of knowledge.
A system for monitoring and reporting operational risk exposures.
Processes and methodologies in place for the timely and effective application of knowledge (information and experience) to address operational risk exposures.
An ability to capture and reuse knowledge (to move knowledge effectively across internal boundaries) with respect to mitigating or eliminating operational risk that is established and proven.
Additionally, a program’s knowledge capability can be classified by how effectively knowledge Is being captured and reused. Consider the following simple maturity model:
Level O: Nonexistent. The program does not demonstrate action that can be observed to capture and reuse knowledge.
Level 1: Casual. Knowledge is captured and reused on an ad hoc basis.
Level 2: Evolving. Knowledge is captured and reused but the capture, distillation, and institutional transfer of knowledge is neither consistent nor disciplined across the program. Some trust is evident but collaboration does not occur consistently.
Level 3: Integrated. A knowledge capture and reuse framework is part of the fabric of the program. People trust each other and collaboration occurs because people find value sharing and reusing knowledge as part of the business and operational processes of the program. Institutional knowledge transfer is not viewed as extra task and is part of project planning and measurement.
The increasing complexity and speed with which a program will be required to operate requires that the Program Manager rely on the total breadth of available knowledge, all its information and all its existing and evolving experience and insight, in order to effectively manage operational risk.
Only through a systematic, integrated, and leadership supported approach to capturing, transferring and reusing knowledge can a program effectively mitigate or eliminate the operational risk it must address in order to improve its performance, efficiency and effectiveness, and deliver the desired outcomes to its customers and stakeholders.
Quite often the Knowledge Management related posts that flow through online forums focus on how KM can be effective, how to “do it,” as well as focusing on the concepts, strategies, and implementing practices that comprise the discipline. By itself, these discussions are often inadequate beyond answering specific questions related to these focus areas. The conversation MUST include shared learnings around Knowledge Leadership. Knowledge Leadership is a key determinant of sustainable success in Knowledge Management (concepts strategies, implementing practices).
I want to be clear about what I mean when I use the term “Knowledge Leadership.” Knowledge Leadership is much more about getting things accomplished through peers and colleagues because they see value in what you are offering or demonstrating rather than directing specific actions (though some of that is necessary). I suggest the following:
“Leadership” is:
“…a process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task”
“…the ability to successfully integrate and maximize available resources within the internal and external environment for the attainment of organizational … goals.”
“Knowledge Leadership” is the ability of an individual or group of individuals:
“to create value from knowledge held by an organization within an environment that recognizes and rewards knowledge capture, knowledge retention, knowledge reuse and collaboration
“to make this behavior a part of the organization’s processes, practices, and culture so that it is not viewed as an extra task…it is “part of the way work gets done”
“to address the challenges of creating a high performing and knowledge enabled organization.
Bottom Line: Knowledge leadership is not a specific job description or position, and it most definitely is not confined to management or leadership positions. Rather, it is a “shared accountability and responsibility” in any organization that can and should be seen in practice or exercised at all levels of the organization. I also can understand how people often argue that “one cannot manage the knowledge of the organization.” What one can do is to help move knowledge across and organization and enable or facilitate the ability of individual, teams, and the organization to “connect, collect, and collaborate” in order to achieve both mission and personal performance goals.
Success requires a guiding strategy to enable individuals, teams, and the organization, to become more knowledge enabled by complementing and supporting both operational and infrastructure components in their everyday work, providing tools and techniques that make work easier, the leadership and workforce more productive and effective, all resulting in improved overall organizational performance. As organizations develop and scale, there is an increasing urgency to intelligently leverage what they know about what they do. This enables the agility that an organization must have to remain competitive, adapt to change quickly, and to sustain its momentum. For organizations that recognize this value, creating an enabling a Chief Knowledge Officer (CKO) position, and assigning a senior leader who is responsible for ensuring that the organization maximizes the value it achieves through one of its most important assets, its knowledge, is critical. The CKO is not a relabeling of existing positions like a Chief Information Officer or a variation of another position. The CKO is a unique, integrated, hybrid manager possessing skills and attributes that include an ability to think conceptually, manage people and projects, communicate effectively both internally and externally, and very importantly, an ability to persuade and advocate. The CKO is very often a principal “agent of change.”
What is the Organizational Context for the CKO?
It is helpful to think of the CKO in the context of other organizational leadership and the functions and responsibilities they have with respect to developing and managing the organization’s assets. The Chief Financial Officer (CFO), for example, manages the financial assets of the organization; the Human Capital Officer (HCO) manages the workforce, and the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) managers the technology assets of the organization. It makes sense to have an organizational leader that is responsible for and focused upon developing and leveraging the intellectual assets of the organization. This individual is the CKO.
Where Should the CKO Fit in the Organization?
Successful advocacy of the tools and techniques that leadership and the workforce must use to successfully capture, adapt transfer, and reuse knowledge is better enabled by the right positioning for the communication of the message. This includes a reporting structure where the CKO reports to the senior leader in the organization. This sends a clear message that the organization views leveraging the intellectual assets from the same value perspective, for example, as leveraging the financial assets of the organization.
What Attributes Should the CKO Possess?
Since KM involves integrating people, processes, and enabling technology, the Chief Knowledge Officer (CKO) requires a specific skill set – a person who can understand the organization and its big picture and tie all of this to the strategic plan and measures of success for the organization. The CKO must be someone who not only can be cheerleader and a teacher, but also has a vision of knowledge sharing with the authority and experience to enable the corporate culture and processes achieve the KM goals. The skill set for the CKO is a range of skills including the following:
Interpersonal communication skills to convince employees to adopt cultural changes
Leadership skills to convey the KM vision and passion for it to leadership and the cross-functional teams supporting KM in the company
Business acumen to relate KM efforts to efficiency and profitability
Strategic thinking skills to relate KM efforts to larger goals
Collaboration and facilitation skills to work with various departments and facilitate their ability to work with each other
Understanding of the relationship of information technology and its role in enabling success through KM
The right organizational positioning and reporting structure is only a start. Actual success also depends on how well the CKO takes advantage of the skill set they possess. In fact, one of the most powerful attributes, and the one I believe is most required for success, is the CKO’s ability to achieve results through their peers. Seeing the value of leveraging knowledge and then adapting business and operational processes to make this happen “as part of the way the organization does business” will only occur if the peer leadership and the organization really understand and believe there is value in doing do so.
What are the CKO’s Key Messages?
Organizations that can move knowledge effectively across the organization to improve their performance recognize the following concepts:
Leadership has enabled a framework for “performing and learning” — sharing experience and insight from doing, supported by appropriate enabling technology, that enables people at all levels in the to improve their performance
They recognize and understand that helping people and teams learn before, during, and after the work they do is the single, most effective way to improve performance in the short term and establish the value of capturing, transferring, and reusing knowledge in the long term
Experience and learnings are captured, stored, and made accessible after each project in a format designed to meet the needs of the re-user of the knowledge
A process is in place to integrate captured knowledge with what the rest of the organization knows and to make it visible and usable for others
Responsibilities are defined for maintaining all knowledge processes and activities.
What Support Does A CKO Really Need for Success?
Success also really depends on providing the CKO with sufficient resources to take the organization from KM concept to strategy to practice.” This means resourcing the CKO team with sufficient budget and people. While it’s important to place the CKO in a position that visibly reflects the organization’s view of the CKO’s value, without a budget, the CKO skill set and that of the CKO team will be marginalized at best.
How Will You Know that You Are Successful as a CKO?
CKO success can be measured in many ways and depends on the context of the organization, its culture, and its leadership. I offer the following general measures, which if achieved, reflect success for a CKO and their organization:
A consistent and disciplined process for the explicit or formal leveraging of knowledge is a part of ongoing operations
There is an ongoing effort to improve the ability to leverage the hidden value of corporate knowledge in business development and organizational growth
There is an ongoing focus on improving the ability to learn from past challenges and successes in strategic decision making
There is an ongoing focus creating value from knowledge (information, experience, and insight) held by employees
Capturing and reusing knowledge is woven into the organization’s business and operational processes as part of the way work is done to provide real value to the individual and the team in their day-to-day activities.
Questions, comments, insight..please share your thoughts, especially if you are or have been a CKO. @billkaplankm
Organizational Strategy and Planning: Clarify your acquisition organization’s identity – who are you, whom do you serve, what is your unique strength, relevance and value proposition? Develop an organizational strategy and a plan to achieve short- and longer-term goals. We help you to understand your organization’s Acquisition Management Strategy and Implementing Practices from multiple perspectives.
Process analysis and mapping helps you to visualize and communicate the foundational building blocks of your organization showing: (1) how and where value is created, (2) where the organization’s resources are consumed, and (3) which are your primary connections with customers, constituents and other organizations. Unfortunately, business processes in many organizations are undefined, not representative of how work actually gets done, and inefficient. Organizations that are unable to consistently learn before, during, and after process execution deliver marginalized performance and poor quality. If you can’t see it, it is harder to improve it through the reinvestment of learning associated with the process.
High performing, knowledge enabled organizations (1) align process, execution of the process, and training on the process, (2) through proven techniques for quickly capturing the knowledge about the process and then (3) integrate and align this new learning with the training necessary to execute the process as it is actually being performed.
This ensures that the most current “know how” and “know why” of process execution is always part of the process training so new staff enter an operational environment aligned with and knowledgeable about the way work actually gets done. This is known as ‘Operationalizing Learning.’
Specifically, we work with you to create alignment between codified process, the execution of the process, and the training about the process, to ensure that:
Changes in operational field knowledge, based on new learnings elicited from those who have the responsibility for delivering the work, is reinvested in the process to ensure that the codified process always reflects that most current practitioner knowledge and practices,
The most current operational (practitioner) knowledge is captured and then made immediately available for reinvestment to make corresponding and concurrent changes in the training supporting the process.
What is taught in the “schoolhouse” reflects the way that work is actually being accomplished so that graduates of the training are able to operationalize that learning and deliver the expected outcomes and output immediately.
Leading and Aligning the Organization: Organizational alignment is the appropriate placement of the acquisition function in the organization, with stakeholders having clearly defined roles and responsibilities that are consistent with meeting the organization’s mission. Leadership is the ability to obtain and maintain organizational support for executing the acquisition function and determines the relationship between the various functional departments and employees. The desired outcome is to ensure your acquisition function operates strategically, with well-defined roles and responsibilities, to benefit the organization as a whole instead of only the individual requirement generating offices.
Leadership and Team Transition Knowledge Transfer delivers effective and efficient transfer of critical knowledge and experience from the outgoing leadership or team to a successor leadership team or individual replacements. The knowledge of the transitioning leadership and its team members has immense value regarding planning, operations, projects, initiatives, and challenge that will likely face the incoming leadership. This is especially relevant in roles where the leadership team or team members have accumulated a significant amount of knowledge in addressing major challenges and initiatives that will transcend that leadership and the organization.
The Knowledge Management (KM) Maturity Assessment examines five critical success elements characteristic of high performing, knowledge enabled organizations. You will understand your organization’s readiness to develop and deploy a sustainable capability to capture, adapt, transfer, and reuse your knowledge. The greater your capability is to leverage your knowledge, the greater your ability to make the most effective decisions, develop the most effective solutions to the challenges you face, and more readily adapt to change.
Knowledge Management “Side-by-Side” Coaching provides you with targeted insight and advice about your existing knowledge management framework and implementation where you have challenges or questions. We work with you on a “one to one” level leveraging our insight and experience to provide you with recommendations to improve or sustain the value of your KM investment.
The Knowledge Loss Impact Assessment provides you with understanding of the dynamics of your workforce and culture with respect not only to your unique turnover factors, but also about how your organization captures, transfers, adapts, and reuses its critical knowledge in supporting your clients or customers and delivering the mission.
Knowledge Enabled Process Analysis and Mapping helps you to visualize and communicate the operational building blocks of your organization (1) where you create value, (2) where many of your organization’s resources (dollars, hours, etc.) are consumed, and (3) which is your primary connection with clients/customers, suppliers and business partners. Unfortunately, business processes in many organizations are undefined, not representative of how work actually gets done, and inefficient. Organizations that don’t consistently learn before, during, and after process execution deliver marginalized performance, poor quality, and a less than optimum client/customer experience. We provide you with a practical and effective set of skills, techniques and methods for identifying, mapping, measuring, objectively analyzing and continuously improving business processes and performance within your organization and across boundaries with clients/customers, suppliers and business partners.
Knowledge Based Business Continuity Planning: We work with you to focus on the human capital or tacit knowledge dimension of continuity planning. Complementary to the focus on the protection of the physical resources of a critical infrastructure necessary to operate, Knowledge Based Continuity Planning provides you with strategies, implementing practices, and tools you need to mitigate and then to recover from a catastrophic loss of your intellectual resources.
Improving Acquisition Policies and Processes – Knowledge Enabled Policy Development and Implementation: Policies and processes embody the basic principles that govern the way an acquisition organization executes its mission. Ideally, policies and processes clearly define staff roles and responsibilities, encourage acquisition teams to work together effectively to procure desired goods and services, and establish expectations for stakeholders to strategically plan acquisitions and proactively manage the acquisition process.
Knowledge Management (KM) involves the development of tools, processes, systems, and behaviors to improve the creation, sharing and use of knowledge critical for decision-making. A fundamental component of effective decision making is having informed policies that can effectively guide decision making or process execution… particularly true in the acquisition profession.
Our KM solution for policy analysis and development focuses on creating a knowledge sharing framework to enable policy-makers to engage in candid discussion, debate, story-telling and scenario building in order to understand the net strengths and opportunities that new or changed policy can provide.
It is essential that policy development or policy change is” knowledge based” in that it involves direct and collective input from those that have the responsibility for executing the policy and who are most impacted by the outcome of the execution of that policy. These practitioners likely have critical knowledge in the form of learnings or insight that can identify gaps that can be guides to more effectively shaping or defining policy so that the outcome desired is more easily achieved, and in the end, more effective.
Therefore, it makes sense to capture the knowledge from process or operations execution, make sense of the captured knowledge, and then use this knowledge to make changes in how the process is executed. What follows not only can be the development of new policy or a change in the policy based on learned lessons, but also can be a change in the training associated with that process that is necessary to embed the policy into how the work gets done. Learnings from execution can drive policy development or change, and, policy development or change can drive changes in execution.
It is also important to identify, in context, measures which can be used to improve the quality of policy dialogue and debate and which in turn contribute to more effective policy formulation.
This innovative and repeatable approach to policy development not only reduces the time it takes to craft, define, and execute new or changed policies, but also is a necessary mechanism or improving the effectiveness of policy management based on what can be quickly learned from execution of policy in the field.
Acquisition Organizational Assessment: Build a shared understanding of your acquisition organization’s strengths and challenges and agree on priorities for a plan to strengthen your organization. We have experience in the design, development, and implementation of Needs Assessments to understand organizational needs, Gap Analyses to identify where gaps exist in a process, Knowledge Assessments to identify how to build or improve knowledge management in your organization, Training Needs Assessments to identify where employees are and where they need to be, and Training Effectiveness Evaluations to determine if your training is having an impact not only on behavior, but on required execution skills.
Acquisition Solutions Knowledge Management (KM) Framework and Corporate Operating Model
As Chief Knowledge officer (CKO), Bill Kaplan, Working KnowledgeCSP Founder, developed and socialized an enterprise KM concept, corporate KM strategy, embedding KM implementing practices to enable a multidimensional corporate and workforce driven sustainable KM framework and operating model.
Uniquely, the corporate KM framework also integrated a comprehensive quality management concept, strategy, and implementing practices ensuring that all projects consistently leveraged maximum learning from inception to client delivery to project closeout. ASI’s clients formed a critical part of this quality management framework.
A cornerstone of the company’s success was its communities of practice that tied all levels of the company together across both horizontal and vertical boundaries. ASI, because of this KM framework and operating model, was recognized as a 2007, 2008, and 2009 North American Most Admired Knowledge Enterprise (MAKE) finalist ranking 18th, 16th, and 13th respectively across an annual pool of 50+ companies considered, including several Fortune 100 companies.
We work with you to facilitate your understanding of your business processes and to understand what knowledge is needed to more effectively and efficiently execute these processes. You will not…
Managing the Risk of Workforce Turnover and Knowledge Loss: We work with you to understand your workforce turnover challenges and then provide you with strategies and implementing practices to mitigate…
Knowledge Based Business Continuity Planning: We work with you to focus on the human capital or tacit knowledge dimension of continuity planning. Complementary to the focus on the protection of…
Knowledge Enabled Process Analysis and Mapping helps you to visualize and communicate the operational building blocks of your organization (1) where you create value, (2) where many of your organization’s…
The Knowledge Loss Impact Assessment provides you with understanding of the dynamics of your workforce and culture with respect not only to your unique turnover factors, but also about how…
Knowledge Management “Side-by-Side” Coaching provides you with targeted insight and advice about your existing knowledge management framework and implementation where you have challenges or questions. We work with you on…
The Knowledge Management (KM) Maturity Assessment examines five critical success elements characteristic of high performing, knowledge enabled organizations. You will understand your organization’s readiness to develop and deploy a sustainable…
Leadership and Team Transition Knowledge Transfer delivers effective and efficient transfer of critical knowledge and experience from the outgoing leadership or team to a successor leadership team or individual replacements….
Blueprint for Creating a Sustainable Knowledge Management Framework (CSP Model)
Blueprint for Creating a Sustainable Knowledge Management Framework (CSP Model): We work with you to (1) understand your readiness for implementing a sustainable knowledge management program, (2) develop a life cycle knowledge concept, tied to your strategic plan and leadership intent, for leveraging knowledge across your organization in support of your mission and vision, (3) analyze, map, and publish your critical processes, (4) develop an integrated, sustainable, and context-based knowledge management strategy that aligns with your culture, processes and technology, and (4) develop relevant KM implementing practices and techniques to deliver the strategy and meet established measures of performance success.
Managing the Risk of Workforce Turnover and Knowledge Loss: We work with you to understand your workforce turnover challenges and then provide you with strategies and implementing practices to mitigate the risks of knowledge loss and retention within your organizational context. You not only will gain the insight necessary to immediately address your knowledge loss and retention challenges, but also lay the foundation for establishing a disciplined and sustainable KM strategy and implementing frmework to mitigate the loss of knowledge and improve knowledge retention in the long term.
Click here to learn how we can help you to keep you from “Losing Your Minds.”
Knowledge Based Continuity Planning
Knowledge Based Business Continuity Planning: We work with you to focus on the human capital or tacit knowledge dimension of continuity planning. Complementary to the focus on the protection of the physical resources of a critical infrastructure necessary to operate, Knowledge Based Continuity Planning provides you with strategies, implementing practices, and tools you need to mitigate and then to recover from a catastrophic loss of your intellectual resources.(Also called Continuity of Operations Planning – COOP)
Operationalizing Learning—Align Process, Execution, and Training for Improved Performance
Operationalizing Learning—Align Process, Execution, and Training for Improved Performance: We work with you to (1) assess and map your key processes, then align process, execution of the process, and training on the process, (2) through proven techniques for quickly capturing the knowledge about the process and then (3) integrating and aligning this new learning with the training necessary to execute the process as it is actually being performed. This ensures that the most current “know-how and know-why” of process execution is always part of the training so those completing the training enter an operational environment aligned with and knowledgeable about the way you actually do the work.
Click here to understand how this can work for you.
Knowledge Enabled Strategic Planning
Knowledge Enabled Strategic Planning: Successful implementation of an organization’s strategic plan requires the support of everyone in the organization, all with different and sometimes conflicting roles in pursuit of the mission. Our approach to strategic planning success leverages experience, insight, and learned lessons from across the organization, incorporating the operational autonomy and specialization (experience and expertise) that are the foundation of evolving knowledge based organizations.
Strategy development is progression based beginning with establishing “situational awareness” around the key strategy development team, their diverse backgrounds and expertise, their indiviudal and business unit goals and objectives, in order to gain faster understanding and acceptance of the difficult strategy choices that have to be made, especially in today’s resource constrained operating environment.
We then facilitate shared understanding around your mission (why you exist), your vision (what do you want to be), your guidng principles (your compass), and then facilitate a discussion to define strategic objectives based on what you want to achieve (outcomes), and how you will achieve your strategic objectives (operations) and your mission. Importantly, we also facilitate a discussion about your organzational structure and if it is aligned to support your strategic plan to achieve your objectives. This results in a flexibly developed strategy, with shared underastanding and ownership of the strategy, that aligns your operational/command and control structure with your strategy to deliver your mission.
Knowledge Enabled Process Analysis and Mapping
Knowledge Enabled Process Analysis and Mapping helps you to visualize and communicate the operational building blocks of your organization (1) where you create value, (2) where many of your organization’s resources (dollars, hours, etc.) are consumed, and (3) which is your primary connection with clients/customers, suppliers and business partners. Unfortunately, business processes in many organizations are undefined, not representative of how work actually gets done, and inefficient. Organizations that don’t consistently learn before, during, and after process execution deliver marginalized performance, poor quality, and a less than optimum client/customer experience. We provide you with a practical and effective set of skills, techniques and methods for identifying, mapping, measuring, objectively analyzing and continuously improving business processes and performance within your organization and across boundaries with clients/customers, suppliers and business partners.
The Knowledge Management (KM) Maturity Assessment
The Knowledge Management (KM) Maturity Assessment examines five critical success elements characteristic of high performing, knowledge enabled organizations. You will understand your organization’s readiness to develop and deploy a sustainable capability to capture, adapt, transfer, and reuse your knowledge. The greater your capability is to leverage your knowledge, the greater your ability to make the most effective decisions, develop the most effective solutions to the challenges you face, and more readily adapt to change.
The Knowledge Loss Impact Assessment
The Knowledge Loss Impact Assessment provides you with understanding of the dynamics of your workforce and culture with respect not only to your unique turnover factors, but also about how your organization captures, transfers, adapts, and reuses its critical knowledge in supporting your clients or customers and delivering the mission.
Leadership and Team Transition Knowledge Transfer
Leadership and Team Transition Knowledge Transfer delivers effective and efficient transfer of critical knowledge and experience from the outgoing leadership or team to a successor leadership team or individual replacements. The knowledge of the transitioning leadership and its team members has immense value regarding planning, operations, projects, initiatives, and challenge that will likely face the incoming leadership. This is especially relevant in roles where the leadership team or team members have accumulated a significant amount of knowledge in addressing major challenges and initiatives that will transcend that leadership and the organization.
Knowledge Management “Side-by-Side” Coaching
Knowledge Management “Side-by-Side” Coaching provides you with targeted insight and advice about your existing knowledge management framework and implementation where you have challenges or questions. We work with you on a “one to one” level leveraging our insight and experience to provide you with recommendations to improve or sustain the value of your KM investment.