It was about SOA all along! Chapter 5

[Continuation of my commented reading of Andy Mulholland’s book: “Mashup Corporations. The End of Business as Usual”].

With the family reunion of the Christmas break, I have only managed to complete Chapter 5. In my defence, it is probably the most important chapter of the book judging from the powerful messages it conveys. The following chapters seem to be only about some of the consequences of taking on the challenge defined in this chapter: “Creating a Program of Service Enablement”. The authors describe such a program in terms of three levels or steps:

1. Designing a Single Service.
2. Designing Systems of Services.
3. Service-Enabling your Enterprise Applications.

According to the authors, no company has yet (at the time of writing) reached level 3! This is probably still true but I wonder if a company like Google that seems to have been implementing step 2 for years now, is not already well into service-enabling its core applications (and maybe they were designed as such from the beginning). In any case, what is implied here is that the first companies to successfully reach (and complete) step 3 are likely to be the success stories in the coming years.

The chapter starts with a wonderful email sent by the CEO of the fictitious company Vorpal. She writes to all the staff to involve them in building a new service-focused culture. The goal is to foster technological innovation throughout the company and “take shadow IT out of the shadows”. Once again, I’m not aware of many CxOs (let alone CEOs) with such an open-mind on new technologies and the courage to initiate and lead the drastic cultural change that a SOA demands. Such forward-looking leadership is indeed a must for a successful SOA implementation.

Chapter 5 describes 5 rules for successful SOA implementation. I want to comment only on the first two:

This chapter’s first rule is about promoting Shadow IT. The authors are quick to note that it is not a new phenomenon. Probably since IT was provided to people to do their work, most of them would work out their own “tools, procedures and workarounds” to increase efficiency at doing their job. Most importantly, this personal or team innovation is done without the IT department (official) involvement and in most cases even without it’s knowledge. This unofficial but productive IT is what the authors define as Shadow IT. I will quote their conclusion on this topic: “Failure to embrace and support Shadow IT in the long run means wasted resources, and inability to maximize the value of your company’s collective candlepower, and lost opportunities”.

The second rule is “Institute a Service Culture”. This is for me the cornerstone of an SOA implementation. The author only give this rule half a page but a lot more is implied. Service-enabling an Organization means adapting its internal culture. “Creating a lifecycle process in which services are made, reported, judged, and finally supported by IT, is essential to maximizing the potential of your homegrown and ecosystem-developed services.” I would add that all this creativity and innovation resulting in productive services must be formally recognized and rewarded. New pay, rewards and even promotion mechanisms will be needed to foster Shadow IT.

Going back to the second level of a Service Enablement Program introduced above, the authors give a brief but useful explanation of how to build a good set of services. In a nutshell, [each service must be] “sufficiently granular to allow for easy reuse; good design is decomposing process steps into a suite of services that can be orchestrated to solve the business need in question, while allowing for recombination.” This implies a potentially large number of services that will then need to be cleverly referenced, tracked and maintained.

The last comment I will make on this chapter refers to its last section (before a set of real life examples) titled “Rethinking Your Architecture”. SOA implementation will eventually (when reaching the level 3) mean a completely new organisational physical structure, and not just limited to IT but hierarchies and departments as well. When embarking seriously on the SOA adventure, you must be ready for significant no-turning-back – sometimes painful - changes that will transform your Organization.

It was about SOA all along! Chapter 4

[Continuation of my commented reading of Andy Mulholland’s book: “Mashup Corporations. The End of Business as Usual”]. Chapter 4 is about how SOA can transform the relationships with your suppliers. I will quote from the book how a Vorpal supplier defines these SOA-driven relationships it has built with it’s customers (p.57). He is responding to one of Vorpal’s manager who noted that the collaborative meeting they just had was unusual in style: “Yes, we’ve noticed [this change] as soon as we created our new services and started doing mass customization for our customers, the relationship changed pretty quickly from a Darwinian struggle to a win-win situation – from conflict to collaboration, if you will – because we’re both going to make a lot of money that way. I like to think of it as negotiation jujitsu – it’s now my job to use your strength to create new business for us instead of just holding the line on price while you pummel me.” With an SOA, suppliers and customers work hand-in-hand to generate value. They help each other out. Another useful quote on the next page is: “[…] don’t just define your suppliers as services – define your own operations as services to them”. You could say that you are helping your suppliers to serve you better. It is then in fact suggested that we should think of our partners and suppliers as members of ‘our’ dynamic ecosystem, where each member contributes directly or indirectly to the growth of all the others. Another good concept given is to see your suppliers as a channel. Your supplier’s customers are potentially new customers for you.

It was about SOA all along! Chapters 2 & 3

[cont. from previous post about my commented reading of Andy Mulholland’s book: “Mashup Corporations. The End of Business as Usual”]. After reading chapters 2 & 3, I realised that I should clarify something important. When I state that my writings on this blog were about SOA all along, I mean that SOA is probably the best value-adding, customer-facing, tangible web-based implementation (that I know) of a knowledge leveraging strategy. What I do not mean is that SOA is the only way to leverage organizational knowledge, nor do I mean that a company-wide change process to establish a knowledge sharing culture must incorporate some degree of SOA in order to be beneficial. Also, SOA is primarily concerned with online services on the Web but of course, not all transactions are online! Having said that, if the technological aspect of SOA might probably not apply in a meaningful sense to all businesses; its associated cultural implications should be relevant to all. SOA first advantage [over most other knowledge leveraging initiatives] is to be directly concerned with increasing/generating sales and this should help catching the attention of CxOs. In chapter 2, a fundamental principle of a SOA is explained: extending IT to the edges of the company. This does not only mean involving the customer-facing collaborators in the creation/evolution of the services to the customers, it means to involve outsiders as well. That is collaborators outside the firewall (to use a technical view) and not on the payroll (well, they could get paid but not with a salary). So, do get this straight: the suggestion is to enable outsiders to “add their own services that create new revenue stream”. The cultural change required to support this is to have your whole company at the service of the people at the edge: the front-line/client-facing collaborators and any trustworthy outsiders with an interest to grow your business (see my knowledge-driven and customer focused organization diagram ) From chapter 3, I will retain in particular the advantages of services (Web 2.0) over traditional Enterprise Applications, with the guiding principle of releasing control to communities of users. The importance of a legal framework also must be noted, in order to secure a service-enabled commercial environment that heavily involve outsiders.

It was about SOA all along! (Chapter 1)

[cont. from previous post about my commented reading of Andy Mulholland’s book: “Mashup Corporations. The End of Business as Usual”].

Here are my thoughts after reading chapter 1 of the book “Mashup Corporations. The End of Business as Usual”.

This book illustrates its arguments with the help of a tale of a fictitious company Vorpal going through the process of implementing SOA. The authors do stress that it is a rather idealistic scenario, but I couldn’t help thinking that the way in which the realization of the need for a more flexible infrastructure came about, was unrealistic for most organizations today. You have this young clever marketing manager who explains to the CEO how he uncovered a new unsuspected source of income. In order for Vorpal to benefit from it, it had to find ways to allow online ordering flexibility.

The thing is, if you currently work in a (relatively large) organization where a n-2 manager can simply request for a meeting with the CEO to talk about an exciting personal experience that may be of interest to the company, already consider yourself lucky. Then if you are among the lucky ones, if the CEO does listen to your entire story in details, then calls in on the spot the CIO or any other senior directors to listen to it too and give their opinion, consider yourself to be privileged to work with an exciting CEO with a modern management style. Now, if your story is likely to end up initiating a formal project in which you will have a leading role, please tell me the name of your company to add it to my shortlist of preferred employers!

Anyway, the authors’ intentions were not initially to consider all the likely resistance to SOA adoption. Instead, the Vorpal scenario helps us understand typical reasons for needing SOA and a typical implementation process with its cultural, organizational and technical impacts. In this second edition of their book, the authors have added chapter 7 “Overcoming barriers”, after realising how important the challenge to convince decision-makers of the need for SOA was in many companies. So, I’ll come back to this issue after reading this chapter.

The key concept I will retain from this first chapter is the difference between “Hub IT” and “Edge IT” and that “SOA flourishes at the edges”, just inside the firewall or literally outside of it.
I will quote a very useful definition of Web Services: “[they] are standard approaches to exposing the capabilities of a company’s web site or internal systems to other web sites or systems by bypassing the user interface and connecting directly to the underlying technology”.

To be continued…

It was about SOA all along!

I was recently introduced to Andy Mulholland by a mutual friend. After reading some recent articles on his blog I quickly realized I had to read his latest book about Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) titled: “Mashup Corporations. The End of Business as Usual”. I ordered it on the famous mashup-rich website Amazon and started reading it yesterday. After only reading up to the end of the Introduction chapter, it suddenly stroke me: All my thoughts and ideas that initiated the articles on this blog since its creation in 2005 were calling for, relating to or assuming SOA! And the most amazing is that I never even mentioned SOA. My understanding of SOA was that it was a modern method to organize the IT infrastructure for a more flexible applications delivery. So, I had the technologist view (sorry but I’m an IT guy after all) and was missing completely the point. SOA is not just about delivering services and the IT infrastructure, it is first about the adoption of new business models and a conducive corporate culture. Business models! Corporate culture! To those of you who have been in touch with my blog for a while, aren’t these recurring topics in my writings? Oh boy, how this realization got me excited! So, I decided that I will keep posting about my reading of Andy’s book, and how it will surely make my understanding of the leveraging of organizational knowledge evolve to another level. I will stick here to this enlightening Introduction. It gives “five kinds of relationships upon which SOA will make the most impact” and the associated questions it will attempt to answer are: << How can you harness the ideas and energy of [innovators] eager to help [from inside or outside the company]? How can you bring your customers closer to your core business processes? How can you create a win-win relationship with your suppliers instead of an adversarial one? How can [IT enable] innovation to break new ground while protecting critical data? How can you best structure your IT resources to reflect the needs and new capabilities of SOA? >> The virtuous process of Human Capital Formation is concerned with the first question. My article on this process was focusing on the employees, but it could be adapted to cater for the contribution of people outside the company (I might do this when I have time). The second question relates to one of the most important concept I have written about on my blog: Organize the whole company around the customer-facing functions in order to be closer to the customers and therefore satisfy them better. See “knowledge-driven not simply customer-driven”, and “becoming a knowledge-driven organization in response to more knowledgeable customers in the luxury market” and also a more specific case “knowledge-sharing for a Retail Manager”. The third question is about the collaborative playing field of the Knowledge Economy where companies must collaborate with in fact not only their suppliers and customers, but even increasingly with their competitors. I will leave the last two questions more concerned with the company’s IT function/department for now. Of course, with my experience there is a lot I could say about it, but this blog was initially avoiding this subject and no doubt I will be drawn into it in later chapters. Let's read on...

Mesh working rather than Matrix working

Read this very good post by Andy Mulholland (Cap Gemini CTO) about the impact of Web 2.0 collaboration on organizational structure and working practice. Andy identifies the new working practice as Mesh working: http://www.capgemini.com/ctoblog/2007/11/this_is_going_to_be.php Here is how Andy defines Mesh working: <<[…] The change in how people work is focused on Web 2.0, and I have chosen to label this as Mesh Working to differentiate it from Matrix Working. Matrix working is broadly the capability for individuals to work at the specific tasks in which they specialise for a variety of managers, and is made possible by using client-server to allow the separation of the client activity from the data consolidation on the server. However it is at heart a data centric transaction based working method where relationships both between people and systems are ‘managed’ through a close coupled environment. Put simply the relationships in Matrix working are always pre determined, fully defined and use known data. Put equally simply Mesh working is loose coupled, for both the people and systems, relying on forming the relationships required through the ‘interactions’ leading to the definitions of who, and what, should be found and used. The Mesh of people and systems is potentially a never ending huge open environment extending externally as well as internally rather than the closed internal world of Matrix working. […]>> A Mesh of people is really what I also have in mind when I think of a Web 2.0 collaborative environment. It is organized chaos. Andy ends his post with this good assessment of what this means from a competitiveness point of view: <<[…] Competitive advantage is shifting from the cost management of transactions in the back office to business optimisation in the front office and the external market. Globalisation is forcing all enterprises to compete in this space so ultimately Mesh working is being driven as a necessary response to a changing Business world. It’s a World that takes us way beyond internal agility, and flexibility, through Matrix working, and into external responsiveness through Mesh working. >> I totally agree with this conclusion. However, leaders need to be careful about what they first need to do about it. Essentially, it first depends on their organization’s current culture. Mesh working is not compatible with an environment with a heavy hierarchical structure, where horizontal communication – let along team working - other than for prescribed “routine” processes is scarce. You cannot declare mesh working, you cannot impose it. You need to nurture it, gradually implement a conducive organizational environment, starting with a clear and unconditional support from all the CxOs. A “do what I say but not what I do” behaviour will surely not succeed. If as a leader you want your collaborators to willingly share their knowledge outside routine business processes, you must lead by example. Maybe start a corporate personal blog accessed by all and use it to tell your vision. Mesh working is not a concept that can be applied only to the grass roots of your organization and leave the upper echelons unchanged. Mesh working implies a fundamental change structurally, culturally and technologically. All organizational values, processes and methods must be reviewed and progressively adapted to the new way of working. For example, the pay and reward mechanisms must cater for the new importance given to knowledge-sharing, idea generation and innovation. Now, Andy implies in his article that Mesh Working is in fact not an option and that it is happening whether you like it or not. Thinking that as a leader you have today a choice to ignore it would be like if in the late 80’s/early 90’s, you would have been thinking the same of the Matrix working brought by the networked PC and the Information Age that followed. “Symptoms” of Mesh working can very probably be detected in your organization. One obvious reason is that millions of people have already socially embraced this concept largely thanks to the Web 2.0 and, seeing the benefits, it is only natural that they try to extend this behaviour in the workplace. Another reason is that some of your customer or supplier organizations will have already made the transition to Mesh working, and their collaborators will expect the same behaviours from your collaborators. The pressure will therefore mount on all organizations to fully embrace the Knowledge Economy. Traditional Intellectual Property (e.g. Brand name, patent and trademark) will no longer suffice to build and maintain competitive advantages: Intellectual Capital leveraging through effective and efficient Mesh working is to become the key to successful business. Peter-Anthony Glick

The Age of Collaboration

Read the following article in CIO Today: http://www.cio-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=0020006F2KP6&page=1 It starts with this unfortunately correct quote from an Accenture executive:

  << When it comes to collaboration, many companies have a long way to go. "We are early in the cycle, maybe the second inning," says David Smith, head of the human performance practice in North America for Accenture, a global consulting and technology services firm. "Companies are beginning to attack it. Very few are getting it right." >>

The Age of Collaboration as the article defines it below is a direct consequence of the Knowledge Economy, considering Knowledge as the most important asset: 

  <<[…] The 21st century is likely to be the age of collaboration because many of today's problems are complex, often demanding cross-disciplinary expertise. Collaborative technologies are also in demand by companies that have global staffs and greater numbers of employees who telecommute. Supply chains demand collaboration among dozens of companies. Some technical problems are so expensive to tackle that even competitors collaborate. For example, IBM, Samsung Electronics and Chartered Semiconductor Manufacturing cooperatively develop semiconductor manufacturing processes. ST Microelectronics and others recently joined them. Finally, there's evidence of a societal shift toward collaboration as more workers network around the clock via cell phone and computer. In the July-August 2007 issue of Harvard Business Review, authors Neil Howe and William Strauss discuss the effects of generational differences on this trend. Those born between 1982 and 2005 -- the first generation to grow up with mobile digital technology -- expect nonstop interaction and cooperation with peers. "They will tend to treat co-workers as partners rather than rivals ... and use information to empower groups rather than individuals," the authors write. […] >> 

And the article concludes with this short but to the point warning: 

  <<[…] In the years ahead, the winning organizations will be those that learn to be collaborative and share employees' knowledge. >> 

How many of these articles will be needed for the majority of leaders to finally understand the importance of a knowledge-sharing culture for their organizations? The ones who wait for their competitors to try it first will regret it. 

 Peter-Anthony Glick http://leveragingknowledge.blogspot.com/

European organizations are failing to effectively create and manage their intellectual capital

[Post written in 2007 about an article on the 2006 gobal MAKE winners (link no longer available) ]

The 2006 Global MAKE Winners have been recognized as leaders in: 

 • creating a corporate knowledge-driven culture 

• developing knowledge workers through senior management leadership 

• delivering knowledge-based products/solutions 

• maximizing enterprise intellectual capital

 • creating an environment for collaborative knowledge sharing 

• creating a learning organization 

• delivering value based on customer knowledge

 • transforming enterprise knowledge into shareholder value 

[..] Successfully managing enterprise knowledge yields big dividends. The 2006 Global MAKE Winners trading on the NYSE/NASDAQ showed a Total Return to Shareholders (TRS) for the tenyear period 1995-2005 of 24.2 % – over twice the average Fortune 500 company median. 

[...] The most visible trends over the past nine annual Global MAKE studies are:

 • A growing number of organizations are taking on ‘Global’ characteristics – especially consulting and professional services firms, financial services, energy and media companies. These ‘Global’ organizations tend to operate as ‘independent’ companies within a Federal structure and without the traditional corporate head office. 

• The capability to innovate and create new products is seen as the competitive edge across a wide range of business sectors. 

• Asian knowledge-driven organizations are competing on an equal knowledge ‘footing’ with their European and North American counterparts. 

• European organizations are failing to effectively create and manage their intellectual capital. Although US companies maintain a lead in this area, Asian businesses are rapidly narrowing the gap and may surpass American firms as regional wealth generators within the next five years. 

I let you draw your own conclusions. If you're a leader of a European Company, I hope you got the message loud and clear. 

Knowledge is only in our minds or not?

Nimala recently asked on her blog to suggest KM topics for her to write on. I suggested the following:

 "Recently, I have been confronted with "KMers" (not sure I agree that they are) that consider that you can only manage information and not knowledge because "knowledge" is only in people's minds, and that what can be communicated is only "information". What would be your arguments to support the view that knowledge can be "managed" and is not only found in our minds?" 

 Read her interesting response and my subsequent comment here: http://nirmala-km.blogspot.com/2007/06/can-we-manage-knowledge.html#links 

 http://leveragingknowledge.blogspot.com/

Asking the right questions to assess an Organization’s culture.

Nirmala Palaniappan (or Nimmy as she seems to like to be called) an experienced KM professional with Wipro based in India, wrote a post on Bob Sutton’s blog comments, and spotted a very good comment by one of Bob’s readers (in fact it is one of the best comment to a blog post I’ve seen) Wally Bock, a leadership consultant (http://www.threestarleadership.com/ ). His comment was in response to a question asking what are the questions to ask employees of an organization to get a feel of the dominating internal culture. Wally suggests the following 3 questions:

• What kind of people gets promoted around here? The behavior and performance you reward is what you'll get more of.
• What "bad" behaviors are tolerated here? This is good for patterns of behavior.
• What kinds of stories do people tell each other? Stories are the carriers of culture. Beware if all they tell are "dumb boss" stories. Understand that service is a value if what you hear are "heroic service" stories.

Reading these excellent questions, I realised that answering them would give you a hint whether the culture is conducive to knowledge sharing or not. In other words, whether the 16 syndromes are present or not. 

 For instance, when promotion depends more on whom you know above you in the hierarchy rather than on your achievements, experience and competences; this would indicate a lack of trust, constant political games and most probably a highly hierarchical structure. 

When the tolerated bad behaviours include selfishness to meet personal objectives, it would indicate strict Job Description framing, lack of availability of experts, rewards only for individual achievements, and only short-term objectives. 

When the stories often speaks of ‘them’ versus or against ‘us’ for example, highlighting the differences between groups/departments/teams within the organization; this would tend to indicate a culture of information silos with poor communication/collaboration between them. A general lack of awareness of useful internal knowledge that people could benefit from is also very likely in such a context; and probably the groupthink effect is frequent as well. Also recently, an APQC newsletter directed me to an article written by Susan Elliott Blashka about a presentation Nimmy gave during the APQC’s May 2006 KM conference. Nimmy’s KM toolkit is very interesting and I might write about it in another post. However, I will here highlight the list of questions she suggested for helping a company assess its capacity to leverage knowledge though capture and dissemination:

 <<… Asking the following questions, Palaniappan said, can help a company gauge its capacity for explicit knowledge capture:

• Do we know what we know?
• Are our practices, structure, processes, and systems well known and easily accessible?
• Do we look toward the past and capture our learning?
• Do we know who’s who?
• Are we able to recognize patterns in our business?
• Do new employees get into the groove quickly?
• Does our workflow consider knowledge needs?
• Do we have processes and tools to manage our knowledge artefacts on a continuous basis?

She posed other questions that relate to explicit knowledge dissemination and utilization:

• Do our systems work together? Are they integrated?
• Do we find ourselves reinventing the wheel?
• Do we use the knowledge that we capture? Do we leverage technology to retrieve and access knowledge?
• Does the organization get together and learn? Does the organization work together—sharing and collaborating?
• Are there sharing mechanisms in all our knowledge-intensive processes?
• Does the workflow consider knowledge needs?
• How easy is it to find and utilize information?
• Is there consistency in the performance of functions across the organization?

[…] To determine the state of an organization’s tacit knowledge capture, Palaniappan said, individuals must ask themselves:

• Do our people policies and practices emphasize learning, sharing, and teaching?
• Does the organization spare the time to stop, think, and learn?
• Is it easy to find and access people (experts)?
• Does the organization have listening and questioning habits embedded in its culture?
• Is “retiring work force” a serious challenge?
• Does the organization operate primarily in the area of consulting and knowledge-intensive services?

And for the last category, tacit knowledge dissemination and utilization, Palaniappan presented the following questions:

• Does the organizational culture emphasize trust, win-win, and excellence and innovation through collaboration?
• Are like-minded people or people with similar interests able to locate and work with each other?
• How fast is the organization learning?
• Do people make time for mentoring and thinking and learning together?
• Does the organization know who needs whom?
• Are roles defined based on knowledge needs? Is succession planning knowledge-focused?
• Does the organization understand its knowledge requirements to a significant level of detail?
• Is the captured explicit knowledge under-utilized?

Using Nimmy and Wally’s questions, we should be able to assess fairly well how conducive to knowledge-sharing an organization’s culture is. This strengthens my view that in order to successfully make an organization become knowledge-driven, one must start by addressing the internal culture. The early introduction of new tools and technologies should only be to support this necessary cultural transformation. Furthermore, the less conducive to knowledge-sharing an organizational culture is, the more the drive for change must come from the Organization’s leadership. 

http://leveragingknowledge.blogspot.com

Sarkozy’s goal-driven government structure

Nicolas Sarkozy, the newly elected French President, is completely rearranging the Cabinet as it has never been done before. He is grouping departments together under the same boss (minister) that never worked together. He is also breaking up departments for the first time. The central principle is a very clever one: The Cabinet’s departments are formed on the basis of their main goal and purpose, no longer on the basis of their functional relationships. For example, the goal of transforming France into a “Green” country requires departments such as “Environment” and “Energy” to be joined together (the “Energy” would have usually been managed by the Economy and Finance” dept). Another example is to remove the management of visas from the Interior department, and associate it with the dept responsible for “Integration” and “National Identity” to form a new dept for Immigration. The goal here is clearly to have a more holistic approach to the issues related to immigration. Whether or not we agree on these political goals is not my interest here. I am however intrigued by the implications of these drastic departmental changes for the civil servants affected. The media have already reported a lot of mostly worried comments from some managers, and the point in common I could identify was anticipated problems due to cultural differences! Here we go again with the importance of Organizational Culture but this time in the Public sector. Another significant impact due to some redundancy in activities will be a reduction in the workforce. The most telling case is the one affecting the separation of the “Labor” dept from the “Economy & Finance”, and its association with the “Social Relations” dept. In the Labor dept, you typically find the ones who came out of the French civil servants schools with the top marks. They are usually very good in math, very rigorous and methodical. In the Social Relations dept, it could hardly be more the opposite! They usually graduated with the lowest marks, have more “artistic” mindsets (rather than scientific) and have better communication skills. Both sides clearly have no idea how they are going to work together! Nicolas Sarkozy’s idea here is to give them a common goal of improving labor issues, with the realisation that it will require a combination of economic and social changes. For example, one of the objectives announced is to level the salaries between men and women within two years (today in France, men can be paid up to 40% more than women for the same job)! It will be very interesting to see how all these departments learn how to work together. These collaborations will need to be rapidly effective and efficient for the new Government to meet its objectives and convince the French people that it is on the right track. I wonder if someone will think of calling on the services of Knowledge Management consultants. I now come to the point I really wanted to make here: does this goal-based organizational approach make sense for a private company? We could start with an example: consider the strategic goal to “set a rate of annual increase of say +20% for retail customer loyalty”. For simplification, that is the number of existing customers purchasing at least once each year (I am assuming a luxury goods industry here). Typically, such an objective would be given to the Retail department. Some other departments such as Marketing might also be made aware of it and asked to assist. Now, what would it mean to adopt Sarkozy’s approach? You would need to think out of the box and regroup together under the same leader various departments or teams (parts of departments). I can suggest the following list for this example (but this exercise is very context-dependant, so each situation can demand a different organization) :

• The Retail department
• The part of the Customer Service department (After-sales services) specifically dealing with Retail customers (as opposed to wholesale).
• The part of the marketing department focusing on the retail market.
• The Public Relations department.
• The Press department.

Possibly, you could even include individuals or teams from some of the shared services departments that usually devote most of their time for Retail matters. I can think possibly of:

• Information Systems (IS) support professionals. For example, the team supporting the CRM application, a key tool for such a customer-focused objective.

For the shared services, the question to ask is: “will the individuals or teams concerned add more value by being integrated into this new “Super Retail dept” or by remaining closely linked with all the other teams within their respective department?” You should really consider this from a Knowledge sharing point of view. For an IS support Analyst to report to the Retail Director would undoubtedly facilitate his/her understanding of the business needs and deliver tailored support. However, from this point on, he/she ceases to be a shared resource and the cooperation with the rest of the IS department is then seen as secondary. In other words, this makes sense if the workload generated by the Retail department’s IS requests justify this IS Analyst to be full-time focusing on them. So then, supposing a Company implements this goal-driven organization, isn’t there a risk to have to re-organize too often when the strategy changes? Yes, but I don’t see this as a risk if this process of reorganization becomes engrained in the Company’s culture. The whole Organization must be built on principles of flexibility: flexible structure, flexible processes, flexible roles. This implies in turn a knowledge-sharing culture. Employees need to be used to share knowledge across departmental boundaries. In fact, there should be no internal boundaries when it comes to knowledge sharing (except for what needs to remain confidential). Such flexibility of course wouldn't typically suit more an Organization operating in a fast-moving/fast-changing market, but it could be argued that all markets are changing increasingly faster in this flatter World. Peter-Anthony Glick

http://leveragingknowledge.blogspot.com

The search for the unified definition of Knowledge...

I could not resist! 

Knowledge has nearly as many definitions as the number of authors who wrote about it or about a related subject such as Knowledge Management (by the way, you can find quite a few definitions of KM as well and maybe this explains that). Well, guess what, I had to give “my” own definition! 

On the ActKM listserve (http://www.actkm.com/ ) a still on-going debate on the definition of knowledge generated very valuable insights. I have extracted a few extracts and composed a definition attempting to synthesize the thinking of all these bright individuals: 

Dave Snowden (http://www.cognitive-edge.com/ ) quoting Prusak and Davenport in their book “Working Knowledge”: "Knowledge is a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information. It originates and is applied in the minds of knowers. In organizations, it often becomes embedded not only in documents or repositories but also in organizational routines, processes, practices, and norms" 

Joe Firestone’s definition (http://www.kmci.org/media/Whatknowledgeis%20(non-fiction%20version).pdf ): “Knowledge is a tested, evaluated and surviving structure of information (e.g., DNA instructions, synaptic structures, beliefs, or claims) that is developed by a living system to help itself solve problems and which may help it to adapt.” 

Han Van Loon’s version of Joe’s definition (http://www.lc-stars.com/ ): "Knowledge is a learned and analysed structure of awareness based upon information (e.g., DNA instructions, synaptic structures, beliefs, or claims) that is developed by a living system." 

A suggestion of a synthesis: Knowledge is a learned and evaluated fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information and expert insight; that is developed by a living system. In organizations, knowledge often becomes embedded not only in documents or repositories but also in organizational routines, processes, practices, and norms. Living systems use knowledge either instinctively or in a state of awareness (typically the latter first then the former through acquisition of reflexes for repetitive actions) to compete for resources and survival, through solving problems, adapting to challenges and setting objectives. 

Still on the ActKM listserver, Kaye Vivian (http://dove-lane.com/ ) writes: “The abstraction we call "Knowledge" has three aspects (I propose): (1) what is acquired by learning (2) the sum of everything known (3) a state of awareness and perhaps a fourth for those who argue that knowledge can exist in neural, hormonal or sensory systems: (4) instincts." Kaye goes on then asking us all if we can think of an instance of knowledge that does not fit into any of these four aspects. 

Assuming for a moment that none can be found, I think that my suggested definition above does try to cater for all 4 of these aspects. But hold on! Don’t get over excited! I surely have not suddenly stumbled on the unified definition of knowledge. I will post it on ActKM as well and I anticipate quite a bit of constructive criticism. I will keep you informed and will amend the definition accordingly. So watch this space... 

 http://leveragingknowledge.blogpsot.com

Questions to Verna Allee on how to start a Value Networks analysis

This week I attended a (tel. conf.) presentation by Verna Allee on Value Networks. I then sent her 3 questions (in blue) and here are her answers below: Can a VN approach be used to initiate a cultural change in an organizational context where hierarchy is prominent, departmental boundaries are strong and guarded and knowledge tends to be protected rather than shared? Or is it an approach only effective when the value of collaboration and knowledge-sharing is already recognized? Absolutely it can be helpful in culture change. Value network analysis (VNA) zeros in on the most mission critical and essential intangible exchanges that support the work. This is not just "nice to do" stuff and it is not some vague encouragment to "share your knowledge." What people spell out, through conversations, are the specific deliverables and behaviors that they need and expect from each other in order to work effectively and build good relationshps. "Knowledge" is not a deliverable - it is an asset - but you must convert that asset to some negotiable form of value in order to put it into play to create value. You extend your knowledge in very specific forms: a report, professional advice, market intelligence, referrals, etc. VNA forces people to negotiate around intangibles such as various forms of knowledge in a very clear,specific direct way. Forget "knowledge sharing" - that doesn't meananything. "Timely input of market intelligence," is a specific knowledge output that can be delivered, can have performancestandards, and that someone can be held accountable for. The very process of this negotiation "loosens up" the knowledge flows because there is an intuitive sense of fairness and reciprocity that kicks inonce people talk about knowledge sharing in this way. It is a very interesting dynamic. You aren't beating on this big concept of "culture" but are focusing on the very specific behaviors that are essential for people to successfully work together. Making those "visible" in this way is very powerful, not only for affirming how important they are but also for making it much more likely thatthey will happen. For more tips on naming intangibles see ValueNetwork Mapping Tips at http://www.value-networks.com/howToGuides/ValueNetworkMappingTips.pdf 2."What is the most effective method for collecting the informationneeded to build a VN diagram? Is it assumed that a relatively highproportion of subjectivity will be captured?" There are two different approaches for different purposes. If you are using VNA as a collaborative sense making tool then facilitating the mapping as a group process is absolutely the way to go. You WANT the subjective nature of value to become clear to the group - this is a major "ah ha" and learning that can help a group of people dramatically reframe what they are doing and start thinking about value in a whole new way. It also is a beautiful way to surface unspoken expectations and the "mental models" of how people are really thinking it all works and about different issues. I have used it this way for years with great success. In this case most of what people need to discover happens in the mapping process, not in the deeper analytics. In other cases you absolutely do not want the value network analysis to be skewed by subjective input - and you will want to run the more advanced analytics in order to see patterns and opportunities. This is especially true when you are doing something like a market space analysis or a large scale analysis like we are doing for the European Commission. There we are evaluating innovation networks across all 255 regions and 25 nation states. We now have the technical capability to use real corporate data sets to generate the value network visualization. For example we took a month of call data for all the calls handled by Cisco's Customer Interaction Network and used the data to generate the value network visualization. These kinds of data sets can be coded for tangible and intangible exchanges and the "real" network patterns are revealed. In the case of the European Commission we have identified 4 network archetypes within these large scale innovation networks depending on the real purpose of the network. In some cases the stated intent ofthe funded project was to do one thing, but the data shows that they actually created something different. Very interesting. The application I am referring to is the open source GenIsis application developed by my brilliant colleague Oliver Schwabe. The open source version uses an Excel-based workbook to capture and organize the data. If you are interested in the enterprise level database version you will need to contact me off-line, but the open resource version is readily available and you can learn about it, and download it. Some of you may also be interested in the value network data model that is being supported by the Value Networks Consortium, which is sponsored by companies like Cisco and is leading standards and open source tools for value network analysis. http://www.vncluster.com . Value network language and models are popping up everywhere and someof it is very good work, but there is also a lot of "junk" or old wine in new bottles masquerading as value network analysis. The consortium is a good way to stay grounded in the quality work and avoid some of the pitfalls. 3. "What is the typical scale and scope of the very first "proof> of concept" VN implementation for an organization? Scale meaning> how large is the section of the organization to consider. Scope> meaning how many processes to consider. Where do we start? I suggest you start by focusing on a particular activity where you can easily identify somewhere between 4-8 roles that are required for that activity. The Mapping tips above have some tips on scope, scale and boundaries and there are other tip sheets in the How To Guides at http://www.value-networks.com/ . They are designed to address FAQs such as this one. That said, I just want to share that at the beginning of a workshop in the Netherlands a clearly skeptical partipant asked, "I want to know where I would actually use something like this." At the end of the day he said, "I get it - you use it with whatever is on the table." You can use VNA at virtually every level from shop floor (example Mayo Clinic looking at how to reduce scheduling time for a procedure) to business unit level (exampel AT&T getting ready for a product launch) to business webs (the eBay value network) or at the macro economic level as we already mentioned. Youdo need to decide what level you want to look at - ground floor, rooftop, helicopter, jetliner or satellite and not mix your level. Doread the "how to guides," sit down with a couple of friendlies and try it out. It doesn't do any good to just read about it - just do it. One of our practitioners suggests that people start by simply mapping their own most important role and their everyday key interactions. There are also a number of case studies on the http://www.value-networks.com/ site that will give you a good sampling of how people are using it. The community goal for that site is to really give people an on-ramp to learn all the trade secrets to the method and provide enough tools and examples that they can get started. Hope this is helpful. I am glad you enjoyed the presentation and encourage you to jump in and get your feet wet. Like anything there is a learning curve but it can be a very fast track to some good results. An executive with Openwave came to one three hour workshop on VNA, went back home and completely reorganized a company of three thousand people over the next two months using the method. He said it was the smoothest reorg they ever had with zero productivity loss the entire time. There is a slide deck on that in the case studies tab on the resource site, too. I appreciate that you asked your questions in a forum as they really are FAQs and this gets the word out to more people on where to find the support. Oh, yes, I always forget to mention we do have a commercial "deep dive" ValueNet Works Practitioner Qualification for a fee. You can learn about that at http://www.alleevaluenetworks.com/ . You can tell I am a maniac on a mission because most of the time I forget to even mention the commercial offerings, but I have a cat (insert dog, child, partner) to feed just like everyone else. Our qualified practitioner community stretches literally from Iceland to Tasmania and lucky for you Peter there is a nice little "hotbed" of practitioners on the UK who are also very supportive of new folks. Good luck. Verna Allee >> I will get my feet wet now and try out VN. I particularly like the idea that VN can be used to bypass the culture issue by focusing on the value-adding interactions. Knowledge-sharing is a byproduct of the process, not the objective. Knowledge is the asset, added-value the output. Peter-Anthony Glick http://leveragingknowledge.blogspot.com/

“Knowledge management strategies that create value”

I found a very good article with the same name as this post on the Accenture site. It was written in 1999 by Leigh P. Donoghue, Jeanne G. Harris and Bruce E. Weitzman.
(Accenture.com article) It presents a rather visionary KM approach considering it is now about 8 years old.

The article starts with this statement I totally agree with: “There is no one-size-fits-all way to effectively tap a firm's intellectual capital. To create value, companies must focus on how knowledge is used to build critical capabilities”. I would add that the more pervasive a Company’s organizational culture is, the more this is true. So many technological solutions have been presented as THE knowledge-sharing solution, and nearly as many have failed.

“[…] Knowledge management is complex and multifaceted; it encompasses everything the organization does to make knowledge available to the business, such as embedding key information in systems and processes, applying incentives to motivate employees and forging alliances to infuse the business with new knowledge. Effective knowledge management requires a combination of many organizational elements—technology, human resource practices, organizational structure and culture—in order to ensure that the right knowledge is brought to bear at the right time”. Well, this is what I (and many other KMers) have been writing for some time now. You cannot count on technology alone, or on a structural change alone, or on a new reward and recognition mechanism alone, to instigate a deep, long-lasting and effective leveraging of an Organization’s Knowledge. You need a holistic approach with both top-down leadership and bottom-up initiatives, being aware along the way that different core processes will require different KM solutions. The authors then present a framework created and used by the Accenture Institute for Strategic Change. Its aim is to associate “specific knowledge-management strategies with specific challenges that companies face”.





Well, my first impression of this framework presented this way was: whow! That looks simple (if not simplistic). I was reassured a bit when reading two paragraphs down that “[..]It is important to note that there are no hard-and-fast connections between a certain core process and a work model, because the same process can be performed in different ways”. In other words, you cannot actually plot core processes on the table above to build a model to fit all companies. This would also contradict the initial statement that there is no one-size-fit-all solution. So this is where the Accenture consultant comes in. The way the work is performed in the organization must be defined in order to select the right KM approach.



In the above diagram, the authors show how an Organization’s work processes can be aligned with a specific KM model.

I think this framework is approaching the issue in the correct manner, i.e. holistically and with a good deal of flexibility in order to adapt to any organizational context. However, there is a level of flexibility that I believe is missing. It could be that it was omitted by the authors in this rather short presentation. Nevertheless, I can only judge on what is given here. The flexibility that seems to be lacking is the consideration that within a specific work process, say Retail operations, you can be faced with a rather more complex context than what is assumed with the different diagrams given in this article. In the example above, the authors have assumed that Retail operations would be aligned to the Transactional Model. The authors define this model as the one “in which there is a low degree of both interdependence and complexity. Work is typically routine, highly reliant on formal rules, procedures and training, and depends on a workforce that exercises little discretion”.

Indeed, Retail relies on direct transactions with the end-customer. However, the definition above is valid in a mass-market context with low value, low margin, high quantity and relatively low product differentiation. Take instead the luxury market context (and I choose this example because I have 14 years of experience in it) with high value, high margin, low quantity and very high product differentiation. Within the Retail operations of a luxury products (and/or services) organization, you will find:

* A rather low degree of interdependence, so the Transaction model still fits for this dimension.

* There is relatively high degree of complexity. In the jewellery business for example, the expertise in gemmology of the sales-associate can represent the key added-value for the customer in search of a diamond necklace. Experience in how to satisfy very demanding and difficult customers is typically what can make a good sales-associate very good.

* Work is not “routine” to the same degree as in a mass market since each transactions can differ greatly due to the uniqueness of the product sold, the customer’s varying requirements and behaviours and the sales-associate varying level of expertise and experience.

* Work relies on formal rules and procedures but not exclusively. There is also a significant degree of informal relationships between sales-associates or between them and their customers, with whom they build strong relationships over time. Often, a sale is made as a result of this informality.

* Work does initially rely on training - especially for Brand and product knowledge as well as sale-techniques – but the best performers among sales-associates rely even more on their intuitions and experience.

* Work does depend on a workforce capable of making decision on their own, such as proactively contacting customers, deciding on which products to suggest to a customer, or offering/accepting a discount in a responsible manner.

The Expert model would therefore come to the rescue in this context but not as a replacement of the Transaction model. I am suggesting here that a combination of both models is needed to map a luxury business’ Retail operations. In this Retail context, there is still a degree of “routinization” and automation, and there is a definite “productization”. However, there is also a significant need for experienced hiring and capability protection. Capability/skill development is also a concern. (Apprenticeships used to be commonplace in luxury retail businesses some 20/30 years ago, but was replaced by a more individualistic and internal competition-oriented approach. I foresee that it will come back as a result of more knowledge-conscious management – read my earlier post on the subject: http://leveragingknowledge.blogspot.com/2007/03/knowledge-sharing-for-retail-manager.html).

Now what would such a mix of these two models mean in terms of practical solutions? The authors do not provide (for obvious reasons) the list of KM solutions they would implement for each model. However, I can guess one here.

The degree of “routinization” involved in luxury retail operations would demand solutions delivering just-in-time information (as opposed to just-in-case) to the sales staff. This could be in the form of a CRM tool providing a sales-associate specific information about an unfamiliar but regular customer sitting in front of him/her. It could provide the list of all the products the customer purchased so as to enable the sales-associate to suggest matching products among new or older collections. It could also have the anniversary dates such as the customer’s or his/her partner’s birthday, or their wedding date; for the sales-associate to wish him/her and suggest suitable gift ideas. All this customer-specific information is valuable but it can really create significant value when it is associated with context-sensitive information – in effect, offering expert knowledge. This is where our authors’ Expert model comes in: In the situation above, our sales-associate would benefit from the relevant knowledge of a more experienced colleague. More experienced here does not necessarily mean more seniority; it can mean better specific knowledge about the customer being served, or even about the customer’s cultural background. What is needed is therefore an apprenticeship-like solution associated (or better integrated) with the CRM tool. For example, the sales-associate could be informed that the customer is of Indian origin and Hindu, with the “warning” that between August and October, all Hindus purchase gifts (and in particular luxury products) to offer on Diwali (their annual “festival of lights”). The sales-associate could happily then suggest: “Oh Diwali is coming soon isn’t it? Please let me show you this brand new collection of jewellery that should look stunning when worn with a sari” (typical Indian dress).

I have here mixed the Expert and Transaction models but I am sure similar combinations will be needed in other contexts, sometimes involving 3 or even all 4 models. Graphically, this means to allow a work process to be plotted in the middle so as to overlap 2 or more models. The Process mapping diagram shown above seems to allow this (“customer service” work process overlaps the Integration and Transaction models) but it is not clear if it was really intentional (probably they worked it out themselves since then). In any case, it was a promising framework and I would love to learn of its implementation successes.

Peter-Anthony Glick
http://leveragingknowledge.blogspot.com

Dave Pollard's "KM quick wins" against my "organizational cultures not conducive to knowledge-sharing"

Dave Pollard recently posted the following on his still amazing weblog: Knowledge Management: Finding Quick Wins and Long Term Value. First, do read it. Then, consider the association I have made below between his list of quick wins and longer-term programs, and my list of cultural traits hindering knowledge-sharing (http://leveragingknowledge.blogspot.com/2007/03/organizational-cultures-not-conducive_20.html#links ): Six 'Quick Win, Low Hanging Fruit' KM Projects. 1. Make it easy for your people to identify and connect with subject matter experts. This deals with: 7. Lack of Awareness of internal knowledge. And even maybe in a more medium-term with: 4. Organizational silos that do not (or poorly) communicate/collaborate. 2. Help people manage the content and organization of their desktop. 3. Help people identify and use the most appropriate communication tool. 4. Make it easy for people to publish their knowledge and subscribe to the information they want. These three quick-wins help people be more efficient so could help with: 8. Lack of Availability of internal knowledge. The quick-win no.4 also deals with the cultural traits 4 and 7 above. 5. Create a facility for just-in-time canvassing for information. 6. Teach people how to do research, not just search. These last two quick-wins again deal with the same three traits above (nos 4, 7 and 8). Six Longer-Term Big Payoff KM Programs. a. Make your information professionals anthropologists. This program will have a similar impact to most of the quick-win above. It will further help in making people more effective and efficient and at connecting with one another, so will help with: 7. Lack of Awareness of internal knowledge. 8. Lack of Availability of internal knowledge. 4. Organizational silos that do not (or poorly) communicate/collaborate. b. Embed intelligence in systems, processes and tools. I think the only trait this effectiveness/efficiency improvement program helps with is: 8. Lack of Availability of internal knowledge. c. Teach your information professionals to be sense-making specialists. This program focuses on the information professionals and for them will help with: 15. Modesty resulting from lack of encouragement. 11. Job Description framing. 8. Lack of Availability of internal knowledge. d. Use knowledge to drive innovation. With open-minded top-executives, this program could maybe help with: 16. Top-executives misunderstanding KM challenges. If innovation is rewarded then this program would also indirectly help with: 3. Reward achievements of each individual based solely on personal objectives. And it could also drive the insertion of "being innovative" through "collaboration/knowledge-sharing" in job definitions so helping with: 11. Job Description framing. e. Canvass the wisdom of crowds. This programs helps with the following traits: 8. Lack of Availability of internal knowledge. 1. A strictly hierarchical top-down structure. 13. Only money talks. f. Collect, and attract people to use, stories and anecdotes. At first, I thought this one would not relate to any of my traits but it does. This program would help making people feel more comfortable in sharing their knowledge; in fact, some would share knowledge without realizing how valuable it can be to others. Therefore this one helps with the following two traits: 14. Perfectionism resulting from fear of being wrong. 15. Modesty resulting from lack of encouragement. I have managed to associate 10 of the 16 cultural traits to Dave’s 12 quick-wins and longer-term programs. It’s good and I would certainly agree that all these initiatives would move an organization, or more precisely some of its collaborators, in the right direction. However, the six “anti-knowledge-sharing” cultural traits left-out are significant in my view. Dave’s approach is based on the principles of Personal KM and, as I already wrote (http://leveragingknowledge.blogspot.com/2006/11/personal-knowledge-management.html#links) I do not believe you can sufficiently change an organizational culture with only a bottom-up approach. The only initiative in Dave’s list that attempts to initiate a top-down change is the program (d) about using knowledge to drive innovation. I did loosely associate it to the trait relating to top-executives misunderstanding KM. This is because within a culture not conducive to knowledge-sharing, you will need more than that to have your top-executives truly understand and support KM. You could be told: “We are innovative already and we must be using knowledge in the process, so we’re fine, no need of KM”. Using Dave’s quick-wins and some of his programs can surely help drawing the attention of top-executives. With a few influential sponsors on-board, you could then hope to tackle all the non-conducive cultural traits including the other six such as 5. Lack of trust, 6. Internal politics, 9. Too much pride or 2. Reward achievements of each individual based solely on personal objectives. So PKM will help but will not succeed on its’ own if the goal is a deep and lasting cultural change.

Peter-Anthony Glick

http://leveragingknowledge.blogspot.com

Knowledge-sharing for a Retail Manager

In a retail company, who is at the centre of value generation? Undoubtedly the person making the sale: the sales associate (I am talking about markets relying on differentiation, not cost advantages). You would then expect these organizations to focus on facilitating each of these key value generators in generating more and more value. Yesterday, I had a very interesting conversation with a retail boutique (store) Manager. She started on the issue of retention (or the lack of) of knowledge when an experienced member of her team leaves the company. It’s not only that no set formal hand-over process exist, it is more about the lack of a knowledge-transfer process well before an individual decides (or is made to) to leave. I told her that this issue is still encountered by most managers in most organizations (not many executive Boards have given much thought on this HR issue yet). In her case, this lack of knowledge sharing resulted in the loss of valuable customer relationships knowledge and contextual selling experience (selling effectively specific types of product to a particular customer group, in a specific geographical location, her boutique). Our discussion then went on about another aspect of knowledge sharing needs for her team and the retail department. She was concerned that - due to a 6-day rota giving a day off in the week to compensate for a Saturday duty - too often one member of her team misses her weekly review meeting. She then has to remember to whom she has to repeat some important information. We both agreed the solution would be an online intranet where meeting summaries and other departmental information could be posted for all sales-associates to read. Not rocket science you might say (indeed many organisations provide such tools) but most Knowledge leveraging solutions do not have to be technically complex at all in order to deliver noticeable benefits. In the context of this retail Manager, this simple intranet would be the solution. She then realised that this shared tool could also be used by sales-associates from different boutiques to exchange experiences, ask each other questions, debate on some common topics. Such interaction between sales teams is needed to learn from each other. In differentiation-focused markets, internal competition is entertained between sales-associates, between sales teams, between distribution subsidiaries and this even for the same Brand. This is fine and usually generates value. However, the fine line not to cross is that this competition should not be at the expense of the customer, and therefore at the expense of the company’s overall performance and the Brand’s image. Internal competition is typically a key reason for lack of knowledge sharing within a sales force. What are the potential costs of an experienced sales-associate leaving the company without a formalized and extensive transfer of his/her specific & valuable knowledge? Some of his/her best “loyal” customers will automatically follow him/her to the competition. Other customers might notice a significant difference in the service they receive from his/her colleagues and decide to at best, go to another sales team within the same company, or at worse, finally go to the competition. We could also face a drop in turnover on subsequent sales made to some of his/her usual customers remaining loyal to the Brand. This is because their usual sales-associate would have better known how to satisfy these customers and often entice them into buying more as a result. What are the potential costs of sales-associates not informed on time or misinformed? This is now related to the other knowledge-sharing issue the retail manager told me about. The possible consequences of sales-associates not informed properly are numerous. Some examples are: Not knowing about the arrival of a VIP, not knowing of the arrival in stock of a new collection, not knowing of an important security concern, or not knowing about a local event that should draw more traffic in the shop. I have already identified above a relatively simple and “cheap” solution to this problem. What about a solution to the “lack of knowledge-transfer between sales-associates” problem? An idea is that managers could establish “mentor/apprentice” relationships between pairs of sales-associates. The mentors’ performance (and recognition, and reward) would be dependant on their apprentice’s achievements nearly as much as on their own. In this way, the experienced sales-associate is encouraged to share his/her knowledge and customers with a “junior” sales-associate, so that if he leaves the company, there is a natural and effective hand-over. Other operational benefits can be identified such as the apprentice “covering” for the mentor when the latter is away (day off, holidays, sick leave, etc…). The mentor benefits by having his/her apprentice handling the sales for his/her customers during that time. The apprentice benefits by “holding the fort” and being put to the test. The company benefits: · By maximizing the chances to satisfy the mentor’s customers in his absence, therefore offering continuity in level of service. · By speeding up the learning of junior staff, therefore resulting in a more experienced sales-force overall. · By increasing revenue at relatively low cost, therefore increasing profits as well. In other words, a win/win solution. Peter-Anthony Glick http://leveragingknowledge.blogspot.com

Organizational cultures not conducive to effective leveraging of knowledge (updated)

I have added 6 cultural traits to the initial list. This list is probably still not exhaustive so anyone spotting a missing factor hindering knowledge sharing, please post a comment with your suggestion.

 1. A strictly hierarchical top-down structure: The “you should not share knowledge outside your department without your manager’s approval” syndrome. 

 2. Focus on short-term objectives: the “no need to share knowledge since once objectives are met, it wont be needed anymore” syndrome. 

 3. Reward achievements of each individual based solely on personal objectives: the “you are judged on what you achieved, not on what others have achieved with your help” syndrome.

4. Organizational silos that do not (or poorly) communicate/collaborate: the “we cannot possibly need help from anyone outside our very experienced and specialized group” syndrome. 

 5. Lack of trust: the “why should I take the risk to help whom I compete with, I wouldn’t get the recognition for it anyway” syndrome. 

 6. Internal politics: “Knowledge is Power so I retain it” syndrome. 

 7. Lack of Awareness of internal knowledge: The “I do not expect anyone in the company to have the experience/skills I need” syndrome. 

 8. Lack of Availability of internal knowledge: The “others probably could benefit from my experience but I’m too busy to check, let alone actually help” syndrome. 

 9. Too much Pride: The now too famous "not invented here" syndrome. 

 10. The confidentiality issue: The “we fear that some vital competitive knowledge can get into the wrong hands, so the least we share it, the smaller the risk” syndrome. 

 11. Job Description framing: The 'No-one's paying us to have a wider vision' syndrome. 

 12. Groupthink effect: The 'We'll define our stakeholders as the people we already know' syndrome. 

 13. Only money talks: The 'those so-called stakeholders aren't actually funding anything directly, so they're not real customers' syndrome. 

 14. Perfectionism resulting from fear of being wrong: the "I won't share until I'm certain it's perfect" syndrome. 

 15. Modesty resulting from lack of encouragement: the "who am I to teach others, of course they know" syndrome. 

 16. Top-executives misunderstanding KM challenges: The "this knowledge sharing sounds great! Can you order everyone to do it tomorrow please?" syndrome!!! 

 You can test your organization against these 16 cultural traits. The more of them fits your workplace, the more of a challenge you will have to promote knowledge sharing. Some are more difficult to deal with such as internal politics, but I would conjecture that you will need to address all the relevant traits at some point in the process. They all have their importance and only one of them - deep rooted in the organizational culture - can jeopardize leveraging knowledge efforts. 

I have recently (Feb. 08) added 4 more traits, check this post. 

http://leveragingknowledge.blogspot.com/

Organizational cultures not conducive to effective leveraging of knowledge (cont.2)

In his comments, Jean Pommier (ILOG) suggested the following two cultural traits (which I have adapted a bit): 14. Perfectionism resulting from fear of being wrong: the "I won't share until I'm certain it's perfect" syndrome. 15. Modesty resulting from lack of encouragement: the "who am I to teach others, of course they know" syndrome. Peter http://leveragingknowledge.blogspot.com

Organizational cultures not conducive to effective leveraging of knowledge (cont.)

Courtesy Hilary Burrage (http://www.hilaryburrage.com/ ) I have 3 additional cultural traits to suggest: 11. Job Description framing: The 'No-one's paying us to have a wider vision' syndrome. The next two are more relevant to the public sector: 12. Groupthink effect: The 'We'll define our stakeholders as the people we already know' syndrome. 13. Only money talks: The 'those so-called stakeholders aren't actually funding anything directly, so they're not real customers' syndrome. Peter-Anthony Glick http://leveragingknowledge.blogspot.com

Organizational cultures not conducive to effective leveraging of knowledge.

The list of 10 “syndromes” listed below is not exhaustive so anyone spotting a missing factor hindering knowledge sharing, please post a comment with your suggestion. 1. A strictly hierarchical top-down structure: The “you should not share knowledge outside your department without your manager’s approval” syndrome. 2. Focus on short-term objectives: the “no need to share knowledge since once objectives are met, it wont be needed anymore” syndrome. 3. Reward achievements of each individual based solely on personal objectives: the “you are judged on what you achieved, not on what others have achieved with your help” syndrome. 4. Organisational silos that do not (or poorly) communicate/collaborate: the “we cannot possibly need help from anyone outside our very experienced and specialized group” syndrome. 5. Lack of trust: the “why should I take the risk to help whom I compete with, I wouldn’t get the recognition for it anyway” syndrome. 6. Internal politics: “Knowledge is Power so I retain it” syndrome. 7. Lack of Awareness of internal knowledge: The “I do not expect anyone in the company to have the experience/skills I need” syndrome. 8. Lack of Availability of internal knowledge: The “others probably could benefit from my experience but I’m too busy to check, let alone actually help” syndrome. 9. Too much Pride: The now too famous "not invented here" syndrome. 10. The confidentiality issue: The “we fear that some vital competitive knowledge can get into the wrong hands, so the least we share it, the smaller the risk” syndrome. You can test your organization against these 10 cultural traits. The more of them fits your workplace, the more of a challenge you will have to promote knowledge sharing. Some are more difficult to deal with such as internal politics, but I would conjecture that you will need to address all the relevant traits at some point in the process. They all have their importance and only one of them - deep rooted in the organizational culture - can jeopardize leveraging knowledge efforts. Check my updated list with 6 more syndromes: http://leveragingknowledge.blogspot.com/2007/03/organizational-cultures-not-conducive_20.html#links Peter-Anthony Glick http://leveragingknowledge.blogspot.com

will Web 2.0 social tools have a major transformational positive impact in the workplace?

Yesterday, I attended in London a David Gurteen’s Knowledge Café with the topic of the Web 2.0 social tools and what they will mean for organizations. The question to answer was: will these tools have a major transformational positive impact in the workplace? This K Café had an unusual format this time, starting with two speakers given 10mn to either answer positively or negatively. Then the 50+ attendance divided in groups of 5 to discuss/debate, followed with a speaker for each group addressing everyone with the conclusions reached by their group. The event ended with an informal vote on the question. Let’s start with the result of the vote: about 35 people chose to answer positively. It’s a majority but that still left 15 to 20 people (so about 1/3) either unsure, or believing that these new social tools will either have a negative impact or no significant impact at all. I felt that was still quite a lot. Being a supporter of any tools that can help to foster knowledge-sharing and innovation, I will focus here on the arguments given against them having a large impact. A key “negative” argument mentioned was that these social tools are over-hyped since the bulk of effective conversation can only be spoken, not written. Face-to-face conversation would always be required. I would agree with the over-hyped status but not for this reason. The Web 2.0 social tools are not designed to replace face-to-face conversation at all! They are to enable conversations and knowledge sharing that would for the most part otherwise simply not take place. You don’t start a blog and join online forums to discuss with your neighbors and the colleagues you see every day. Yes they might also take part but you intend to reach many many more people you will never speak to directly, let alone meet face-to-face. The reason these tools are over-hyped is that the issue is not about the technology but about the people and the organizational culture. As it was correctly highlighted yesterday, these tools are to be used for a purpose that make business sense to the people using then and to the organization they work in. In other words, they must contribute directly or indirectly to the bottom line: higher profits (or value for money in the public sector). Another “negative” argument I noted was the fear of information overload. More collaborative tools meant for many the risk of increasingly less control over the amount of incoming information. I believe this risk is real but so it was with the telephone a century ago, with email 15 yrs ago or with mobile phones 10 yrs ago. It didn’t stop our ancestors to install a phone in their home or for us to now receive emails on ou mobile phone(s)! It is a potential problem yes but not one that would prevent the Web 2.0 social tools from flourishing. This fear will influence more how we use them individually or collectively such as within an organization. On the whole, the majority agreed that the spread of Web 2.0 tools inside the organization was inevitable. It was only a matter of time. What was less clear was what would be their true benefits, what transformation they would generate. What is happening on the public web can give us some clues but it is indeed difficult to foresee exactly their impact on the workplace. Nevertheless, this is not a reason for not starting to use them, maybe just one to be cautious and not move too fast. But that’s ok, that was also the case with email back in the 90’s. Peter-Anthony Glick http://leveragingknowledge.blogspot.com

“Break the Mould”

Check out this useful article in a Computing Business issue: http:// www.computingbusiness.co.uk link no longer available   .

I agree with most of what it says but I would like to highlight the following extracts: ‘Stop benchmarking the competition,’ says John Riker at the Value Innovation Network. ‘Instead, pursue a quantum leap in value to dominate the market.’ […] ‘To create a quantum leap in value, companies need to direct all their talent to explore the market. The key to this process is to open up the entire organisation to seek growth opportunities. Most firms sit on a gold mine of talented and capable people, yet few tap into them in developing strategy. By bringing together a diverse team of employees from across functions, levels and geographies, an organisation can foster new ways of thinking and a wider business perspective,’ says Riker. 

Now the only efficient way you can direct all an organisation’s talents to any task such as exploring the market for opportunities, is by implementing a corporate culture, internal processes and an infrastructure compatible with knowledge-sharing. Collaborators will actively participate only if: · They feel safe in spending time on such task (instead of focusing only on their job description). In fact, they should be encouraged by their line manager. · They are formally recognized and rewarded when producing good ideas. · They have access to tools facilitating collaboration and sharing of experience/knowledge (this enables cross-functional team efforts and helps to prevent duplication of efforts).

“Strategy formulation must consider both a company’s traditional market, and all alternative markets. Until you expand your definition of your market you will not be able to expand the possibilities of your offer.”[…] ‘Through a qualitative process of market exploration, companies can begin to look at their industry and business through a new set of lenses. They learn about their customers’ dreams and hates, their aspirations and irritations. This rich image of the wider market translates into breakthrough ideas for new market space,’ he says. Re-inventing the wheel. ‘It requires immense leadership and courage to abandon the ritual comfort of traditional strategy development and embark on this process,’ says Riker. ‘But given the unrelenting pressure of competition, the need to introduce unconventional thinking will become imperative for all firms seeking to create successful growth strategies. 

In developing an innovative strategy, it is worth looking externally and reviewing competitors’ ideas. Each year, millions of pounds are wasted on research into technologies that has already been disclosed. There is a multitude of intellectual property being generated internationally, according to technology broker John Allies, most of which is never used and most of which is relatively easy to gain access to, provided you know where to look and who to talk to. ‘If you are looking for a solution, why pour money into research when someone might already have cracked the problem?’ he asks. >>

Yes, yes and yes! Even more so when that “someone” is likely to be a colleague of yours somewhere in your organization! It is really amazing how much all these arguments that sound so common sense are still not considered in most organizations. For the right individual(s) with the right knowledge to be involved at the right time for a particular issue/project/idea, what is first required is an organizational culture encouraging knowledge sharing. It is not a problem of technology since collaboration tools exist in the many now, and some are even virtually free. 

 In fact, even without specific knowledge-sharing tools, it is still possible (but time-consuming) to find a colleague with appropriate knowledge using “standard” tools such as organizational charts, corporate intranets and address books, and projects documentation. However, too often you don’t even bother searching. Why? Because you work in an organization where it is not natural to ask for such ad-hoc cross-hierarchical/cross-departmental/cross-border assistance. Even if you find someone willing to transfer his/her knowledge, he/she will probably feel the need to request management permission to invest time on your request. This would then immediately formalize and complicate a process that should really remain casual, flexible and simple: sharing knowledge and experience. 

 http://leveragingknowledge.blogspot.com

Knowledge-driven, not simply customer-driven

There are numerous hurdles/blocks for converting an organization to become “knowledge-driven”; but if we look at the fundamentals for commercial success, we see that it is the right way to go to efficiently leverage organizational resources (mostly the human part) and sustain competitive advantage through creativity and innovation.

Ok some of you might be thinking: surely “customer-driven” is the way to go, knowledge being “only” a mean to an end. There is some truth in this view. Indeed the customer’s satisfaction is often considered as the ultimate objective for all corporate projects and operational activities. It is also correct that organizational knowledge is to be used to facilitate this endeavour. However, is satisfying the customers really the drive for share-holders? No, they are driven by increased market share, increased profits and revenue and increased growth potential/forecast. 

Now, you might say: hold on, if you don’t satisfy your customers you wont get these increases! Yes and No. This view actually supports my first point: that a satisfied customer is a mean to an end, not the end of the means (if I can put it this way). 

Furthermore, being customer-driven often leads to a short-term view: it is about “pleasing them enough to enable us to make our sales target for the month [or the year]”. The long-term repeat business isn’t necessarily cared for. 

For long-term competitive advantage and growth, what is instead needed is to view the customers not “simply” as purchasers of goods and services but as “collaborators”. 

The customer participates (directly or indirectly) in as many stages of the product cycle as possible. The idea is to build a long-term partnership between the organization and its customers. The message to the customer becomes “we are partners/collaborators in this on-going endeavour to please you while at the same time growing our business”. This approach aims at more than satisfying the customer, therefore at delivering above his/her expectations. To achieve this, the organization needs to know well its customers (who they are, their cultural/social background, what they like/want, where/how they live, where/how they travel, etc…). 

Similarly (and this is where it gets really interesting) the customer needs to know well the organization (its products/services – past, present and future; its mission/goals; its history; its point of sales network – incl. of course its website; its successes and - yes why not – its failures; and lastly but certainly not least, its people). Knowledge is then at the centre of this collaborative relationship, hence the knowledge-driven approach.

Now, before enabling your customers to “know” your organization well, the organization must first know itself well. An organizational culture valuing knowledge-sharing is needed. Then, in order to sustain such a collaborative relationship with your customers, your organization will require continuous innovation, and not just in the product design department! Innovation must be encouraged in all functions. Everyone without exception can be creative/innovative. Innovation is fuelled by sharing knowledge/experience and by effective collaboration across departments and borders. This is where Knowledge Leveraging (or the so-called Knowledge Management) comes in... 

Peter-Anthony Glick http://leveragingknowledge.blogspot.com