What would you rename "Knowledge Management"?
In response to Art Schlussel's question in the LinkedIN Knowledge Management Experts form: "If the term "KM" could get a do-over what would you call the discipline?"
Response:
I might call it very simply "Business Transformation".
The greatest challenge for me with Knowledge Management has always been that the easy part is coming up with a million things you can do in the space. The hard part is selecting the types of targeted initiatives that can have a meaningful impact on the business. While searchable content repositories are useful, there is clearly higher ROI on KM initiatives that impact new business discovery, client delivery and time to market, and identifying cross-selling opportunities.
When Web 2.0 came along, it suffered from the same challenge as KM. There's lots of things you can do in the space, but the different between companies successful at it versus those not, tends to be in the types of initiatives targeted and the execution. For Web 2.0, as an example, you could deploy a wiki or blog platform as a grassroots effort and see where it goes in 2-3 years, or alternatively, identify existing processes and informal networks in your organization that already exist, and use web 2.0 technology to enhance and facilitiate those processes and networks.
You'll note, I have stayed away from the world "information" in my name above, because I do not think KM is all about information or content. Tacit knowledge is as important as explicit knowledge, and while it is possible to try to codify tacit knowledge, probabyl the best way to leverage it is developing reference knowledge in your organization around "who knows who" and "who knows what", and getting people to the right resources quickly. For this reason, I think the Talent Management aspect of KM is important - and it's as much about finding people as it is explicit content.
Lastly, for KM to be really successful, I believe KM platforms should not be stand-alone. I recall an old APQC Conference where the discussion lead to "how you create 'slack' time" in your organization for workers to use your KM tools. Well, in a billable law or consulting firm there is no such thing as 'slack time', but regardless, having to go someplace else outside your daily processes to find KM-related information seems to create work versus efficiency. Another key underpinning of KM success is a very tight integration of KM content and tools into existing business process; deliverying the knowledge that is needed in a contextual, real-time way, and making processes more efficient or tranforming them (aka BPR).
Thus, for me, it's all about managing content, people and processes in a way to improve operating efficiency or drive revenue growth. And at least for now, "Business Transformation" is the best I can come up with - though BPR or IBT would work as well.
What do you think?
See here for rest of thread and other responses.
Response:
I might call it very simply "Business Transformation".
The greatest challenge for me with Knowledge Management has always been that the easy part is coming up with a million things you can do in the space. The hard part is selecting the types of targeted initiatives that can have a meaningful impact on the business. While searchable content repositories are useful, there is clearly higher ROI on KM initiatives that impact new business discovery, client delivery and time to market, and identifying cross-selling opportunities.
When Web 2.0 came along, it suffered from the same challenge as KM. There's lots of things you can do in the space, but the different between companies successful at it versus those not, tends to be in the types of initiatives targeted and the execution. For Web 2.0, as an example, you could deploy a wiki or blog platform as a grassroots effort and see where it goes in 2-3 years, or alternatively, identify existing processes and informal networks in your organization that already exist, and use web 2.0 technology to enhance and facilitiate those processes and networks.
You'll note, I have stayed away from the world "information" in my name above, because I do not think KM is all about information or content. Tacit knowledge is as important as explicit knowledge, and while it is possible to try to codify tacit knowledge, probabyl the best way to leverage it is developing reference knowledge in your organization around "who knows who" and "who knows what", and getting people to the right resources quickly. For this reason, I think the Talent Management aspect of KM is important - and it's as much about finding people as it is explicit content.
Lastly, for KM to be really successful, I believe KM platforms should not be stand-alone. I recall an old APQC Conference where the discussion lead to "how you create 'slack' time" in your organization for workers to use your KM tools. Well, in a billable law or consulting firm there is no such thing as 'slack time', but regardless, having to go someplace else outside your daily processes to find KM-related information seems to create work versus efficiency. Another key underpinning of KM success is a very tight integration of KM content and tools into existing business process; deliverying the knowledge that is needed in a contextual, real-time way, and making processes more efficient or tranforming them (aka BPR).
Thus, for me, it's all about managing content, people and processes in a way to improve operating efficiency or drive revenue growth. And at least for now, "Business Transformation" is the best I can come up with - though BPR or IBT would work as well.
What do you think?
See here for rest of thread and other responses.
posted by Alan Baren at
8:11 AM
1 Comments:
interesting read. I would love to follow you on twitter.
By
Anonymous, at 12:25 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home