Challenges of today’s knowledge management: providing the tools is just not enough

knowledge share fair 2009 - fishbowl demonstration
Image by Petr Kosina via Flickr

Genuine business value comes on one hand from managing knowledge acquired from external sources and, on the other hand, from creating and exchanging it internally. Keeping knowledge in the heads of your most experienced talent lowers your return on investment to its minimum. How can other colleagues from the same unit or even other territories replicate and improve it? Well, there are two stages of this point:

Stage 1: Your experienced talent has to invest time and energy to transform their knowledge into a form in which it can be exchanged. I should also say that the value of knowledge should be high enough to cover the cost of sharing.

Stage 2: Team members from similar projects invest time in searching for knowledge, replicating and improving it. They might as well become “Stage 1” experts as the improved knowledge may be shared if there is significant added value. I should mention again that at this stage, in order to be cost-effective, knowledge should worth the price of seeking it.

You can call it a market and in some companies it literally is. Maybe at a later time I’ll come back with a story of a company that pays employees with its own currency for sharing knowledge and charges knowledge consumption – a way to determine talent to share at least as much knowledge as they benefit of.

You may observe that there is a strong technological background for knowledge sharing but I’m not going to refer to this side for the time being. I’d rather have a look at one of the most common management mistakes we face on the process today. The trap is to assume that with some big investments in technology solutions such as document management systems, shared repositories, and intranets, employees will become eager to put their knowledge in the internal marketplace.

Investments in technology alone are useless because of two basic reasons:

Firstly, your talent may not be so eager to share what they know. In many cases that is merely because they know their knowledge is their strongest asset in the corporate hierarchy. You have to motivate them to share. They have to realize that the value of sharing is worth their own investment.

Secondly, most of shared knowledge may not be some of the best quality it can be. Volume of irrelevant documents may become overwhelming, and you may find many of them of poor quality and hard to replicate. Controlling both the quality of shared knowledge and the usefulness of the search systems is an imperative to ensure that shared knowledge is worth the price of seeking it.

Both centralised and decentralised approached to knowledge management can bring value to your business; it really depends on what your business is about and how knowledge is created or where it is most relevant. Distributing top-down messages about previously filtered knowledge has its limitations but can work in a process-focused risk averse company.  At the opposite, letting local units solve their own knowledge problems may bring enthusiasm and motivation to highly creative businesses with a focus on local markets rather than on the global one. Approaches have pluses and minuses and, most likely, a company may be in the position of having a mix of both.


7 thoughts on “Challenges of today’s knowledge management: providing the tools is just not enough”

  1. Great article Liviu!
    I will contribute to what you say with the following perspective from my experience:
    -the company is buying expensive tools, teach few employees how to “fish” but they don’t use the “fishing rod”.
    So, providing the tools is a good idea, teaching them to “fish” is good idea and this will have a return when the management will implement a learning & sharing culture/environment within the system/company.
    The big picture is to assume as objective to have a learning organization and then to provide the tools for achieving that objective.

  2. Thank you for your comment. Indeed the knowledge sharing culture is a “must” if you want to achieve some resoults in managing knowledge. Otherwise, there will only be a small group of contributors and a larger variable number of consumers.

  3. Unfortunately access to information is (still) used as “bargaining chips”. For some structures have knowledge means (still) have the power ….
    I have already encountered cases of prioritization the flow of information sold as corporate culture.
    The problem of this kind of structures that promote this type of model is that it may be within the margin of innovation and near the business margin.
    Because that the exchange of information is a source of creativity, we live in the era of “2.0” (there is already talk of 3.0, imagine innovation in real time), we can not ignore the free flow of information as source of innovation and THE element at origin of the next challenges.

  4. Thanks Liviu for the blog entry. I very much agree with your point with the danger of being too technology focussed and that missing other elements like culture (I also would name initiative support and marketing as key factors) as I have pointed out in my recent book.
    One caution to danatoader: Be very careful with using information and knowledge as synonyms. They are not. That is often one of the issues, that they are treated alike, though. Knowledge is connected to humans, information isn’t necessarily.

    1. Hi Frank, thanks for the comment. I would emphasise a little bit on the difference between information and knowledge as that’s out of the basis of our topic. In brief, I’d say that interpreting data provides information; using information to provide an outcome generates knowledge. In other words, we may know that there are different fruits in the world, we may even have details of their composition but how to make a tasteful juice, well, this is knowledge.

      1. Hi
        I appreciate your simple and rich explanation. I’ve been reading quite a lot about perception, illusions, neuroscience and just stumbled on KM a couple of months ago. I am surprised to see no mention to imagination in knowledge emergence / creation, in the texts I read so far. It seems to me that knowledge could be defined as a mental model built via imagination, adjusted by sucessive comparisons with objective reality. Information would be just the parameters you feed into the model. The decisions you make, based on your knowledge (internal model, after processing the input information) are again in information form.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s