Knowledge management is the process of leveraging organizational knowledge

In their paper "Strategic planning for knowledge management implementation in engineering firms",

Ravi Shankar, (Ravi Shankar is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Management Studies, IIT Delhi, New Delhi, India.), M.D. Singh, (M.D. Singh is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad, India.), Amol Gupta, (Amol Gupta is a Student in the Department of Computer Science, TIT&S Bhiwani, Haryana, India.) and Rakesh Narain, (Rakesh Narain is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad, India.) seem (have not yet read it) to define Knowledge Management the way I have done since 2005 (hence the title of this blog!):

<<Knowledge management (KM) is the process of leveraging organizational knowledge to deliver long-term advantage to a business and is based on a business strategy that involves engineering various knowledge-centric business processes and developing organization structures to support these. These, in turn, require technology to capture, codify, store, disseminate and reuse the knowledge. Successful deployment of KM is not a simple process. This paper suggests that a major reason for the failure of many KM projects is the absence of a well-defined strategic plan to guide implementation. This paper discusses the strategic planning needs of the KM deployment process, and develops a framework that could be used specifically by engineering firms to guide the KM implementation process.>>

I have also argued in several posts that KM cannot truly succeed if it is not adressed strategically.

Scaling up with social media: luxury brands have a natural advantage.

Jeremiah Owyang recently did a presentation on how companies can scale up with social media technologies.  Do read it.  His starting observation is that customers (let alone prospects) will always outnumber a company's total workforce (let alone the ones formally responsible for customer relationships).  Since social media puts companies in "direct" contact with a growing number of people, they are in danger of counter-productive social media initiatives leaving most customers or prospects frustrated for lack of response from the company to their queries/issues/concerns.

Jeremiah suggest 3 good strategic solutions to this problem:
<<

• Using all the voices in your ecosystem (the Rings of Influence) not just being the only ones to talk.
• Develop more customer to customer technologies that leverage your customers to do your marketing, sales, and support.
• Invest in Social CRM systems, while immature now, they will eventually help companies respond in real time –and maybe even anticipate customer need.

>>

 Reading this, I realised it was confirming my position that luxury goods and services companies are the best suited for an effective social media strategy: their ratio "number of customers/number of employees" is by nature the lowest!  So, they can realistically connect with a large number of customers by involving all their employees for instance.  Luxury brands can be more in control of what is being said about them in the socialsphere than FMCG brands. 

A hint that Burberry is on the right track about social media integration

 In my last post, I wrote that I didn't know of a retailer that is yet offering a fully integrated multi-channels experience.  I have however just discovered that Burberry's own social media site www.artofthetrench.com might indicate that they are on the right track towards this full integration.  The site allows a Facebook account connection (in fact imposes it) before uploading your own trench coat pictures.  This of course does not mean that Burberry will implement this type of integration on its ecommerce site but it's a start.

PS. I am not suggesting that a Facebook account should necessarily give you access to all ecommerce sites! Social media is not just about Facebook for a start, and a social media strategy should not be application dependent anyway.  If the technology might still need to be defined, the goal is clear however: offering an integrated and consistent multi-channels customer experience and follow each customer as a unique individual through all channels.

Loyalty cards are about customer knowledge, next step: integration with social media

Despite its recent loss of market share, Asda continues to argue that its lowest price policy is a better strategy than its main rivals’ loyalty card schemes.  I think they are wrong but not with respect to prices but because of the valuable customer data they are not collecting.  Asda simply does not “know” its loyal customers.

In Retail Week May 28^th 2010 edition, there is an interesting article about customer loyalty: “Loyalty cards: the bedrock of future success?” 

 <<[David Roth (former B&Q marketing director, now chief executive of the Store WPP)] observes: “The world is going to divide between those who can organise and make use of their customer data and the others, who will wake up in five or six years’ time, outmanoeuvred. The person who owns the data, owns the customer.”
But he maintains that loyalty schemes are primarily a means to an end and will not on their own make a retailer successful.  He says: “Gaining customer loyalty is about a lot more than a scheme. The value proposition will be important.”
For all the interest in loyalty and the success of some programmes, they will never be a panacea for retail’s ills and typically cannot answer one vital question. As [James] McCoy (Yougov SixthSense research director) says: “Loyalty schemes can tell you what people are buying - but not what they’re not buying. As well as whatever they are spending at one retailer, they might be spending another £40 a week at Lidl, which you have no idea about. The challenge is to find the data you don’t have.” >>

David Roth and McCoy are absolutely correct.  In the FMCG sector, loyalty schemes will increasingly be a necessity for commercial success but will not be sufficient by themselves to ensure competitive advantage.  Competitive advantage will first come with what is done with the information collected at the till.  Tesco Clubcard is a perfect illustration of this: I am a Tesco customer and I receive at home personalised mail including discount coupons for products that I am likely to buy based on my purchase history.

However, the true Holy Grail of competitive advantage is not in the customers’ purchase history data, it is with the knowledge of what they want but cannot find or afford, what they might buy if they were made aware of it or if it was conditioned differently, what they buy with the competition, etc…  The most valuable customer knowledge will not come from transactions at the till but from engaging with customers to get them to tell what their needs and wants are.  Luxury goods retailers have known this for centuries and have always valued and leveraged the in-store customer knowledge obtained by the salesperson through the conversations with his/her “loyal” customers.

So FMCG retailers will need to engage with the customers registered in their loyalty scheme.  Since they will have to do this through all channels, it will require a holistic approach to customer identification: So this means one account per customer for all channels.  This might seem obvious but I have not yet come across a single retailer (from FMCG to luxury) with such a pervasive integration strategy.  For instance, all retailers with a Facebook page do not integrate the Facebook account with the ecommerce customer account: This means no systematic way of tying up a customer’s comments on Facebook with his/her online (let alone offline) purchase history.

<<Tesco is one of the most advanced of retailers in its ability to mine customer data and use it effectively and, notes Shore Capital analyst Clive Black, has put its scheme at the heart of its business, rather than run it as an add-on.>>

Similarly, in the next few years, retailers will gain competitive advantage from putting social media and all customer interactions at the heart of its business, rather than run it as a an add-on.

There should be no box to begin with!

I was recently reading the profiles of the Association of MBAs regional committee and this phrase attracted my attention:
"[Derek Chesire believes] that 'out of the box' thinking does not exist: there simply should be no box to begin with".

Yes absolutely! I like this simple way to put it.  I suppose what he really meant is that out of the box in fact does exist but is mostly ineffective at generating innovation and competitive advantage.

An organisation with a culture not conducive to creativity where knowledge sharing and spontaneous collaboration is not encouraged and rewarded, will eventually feel the need to ask from its employees to "think outside the box" in the hope that some good ideas will come out of the exercise.  Out of the few good ideas that might come out, only very few of them (if any) will lead to an innovative implementation.  This is because this process (idea through to implementation) requires an environment where mistakes are not only permitted but encouraged, where work outside initial job description and spontaneous collaboration is natural and rewarded.

When an organisation with an organisational culture not conducive to knowledge-sharing and creativity ask its employees to be creative, it is a bit like asking a group of junior mechanics to build a racing car from a pile of spare-parts, without the authorisation to collaborate with one another! You might obtain a car eventually but very unlikely competitive.
It's much more effective to let the group of mechanics organise themselves as a team and let them work out what they can build together.  That way, they could come up with the next F1 concept car!

How will luxury Brands be creatively different with ecommerce?

Read Fadi Shuman’s (Pod1) very informative article about ecommerce in the luxury market. 

Fadi might be correct that “2010 will be the year that the majority of [the luxury] brands jump on the e-Commerce bandwagon”.  The latest purchase of Net-a-Porter.com by Richemont supports this statement.  But I have yet to be convinced that these same brands have worked out a way to reproduce on the web what made them different on the high street: uniqueness, exclusivity,  high quality, dream-making image, personalized customer services, refined and luxurious stores, best store locations, etc… As Marci Ikeler (Publicis) puts it in her excellent slideshow I referred to in a previous post :

“How do we use the web to tell a luxury story?” Or “How do we recreate the sensorial experience of the brand online?”

 Fadi refers to Faberge and its site with a very exclusive access or the ecommerce pioneer Burberry’s use of social media for an interactive approach around its catwalk shows.   Marci does provide other examples or innovative online initiatives from several luxury brands but we have yet to see the same level of creativity and innovation with their ecommerce. 

I have checked out several (ok not all of them, but let me know if I missed one that contradicts my point and that will be the exception that confirms the rule as we say in France) of the oldest or more recent luxury brands’ ecommerce sites (Cartier, Burberry, Prada, Louis Vuitton, Dior, Dunhill, Gieves and Hawkes ) and all of them failed for me at the first main hurdle, well before making the first purchase!  And this is a key feature of a luxury brand store: the special experience starts with the shop windows and continues throughout your visit of the store through primarily excellent customer service, even if you end up buying nothing.  Before leaving you might have exchanged a lot of valuable information with one (or more) sales staff.  You might have given for example your contact details, your preferences, your sizes (for clothes).   You might have been told specific details about products of interest, what is in stock, what is about to arrive or about to run out, what is very popular, etc…  I am assuming here that you are a new visitor to the store, not yet a customer of the brand. 

Now, what did I mean by stating that the luxury brands failed this first hurdle related to the pre-sale experience?  Well, let’s start with the fact that for most of the sites I visited and browsed the products available to purchase online, my visit has only contributed to the website analytics but the brand does not know I – as a specific person – visited its site.  This is simply because my credentials were to be requested only at the purchasing stage.  Worse, in most cases even though I was willing to provide my details, there was no way to do this without buying something!  Gieves and Hawkes, Dunhill and Louis Vuitton did cater for a pre-sale registration.  However, in both cases the benefits of doing so are limited and lack creativity.  Typical facilities available once registered are:

• Create and share your personal wishlist
• Expedite the check-out process
• Receive special updates and promotions
• Modify your account details at anytime 
• Check the status of orders
• Recording alternative addresses
• View past orders

These are basic services that most non-luxury sector ecommerce sites have been offering for years.  Luxury brands should do much better to create a more personalised and special online experience. 
For instance, once logged in I would expect a personalised experience wherever my web browsing takes me within the brand’s online world.  So my account should follow me around so that I do not need to log in/register again on different pages.  Of course, another benefit could be a personalisation of the content on each page based on my preferences (I have other ideas but wont give them out for free!).

For example, Gieves and Hawkes has a Corporate Blog on its site.  This is good but unfortunately, even though I was logged in on the main site, I would have had to enter my credentials again in order to leave a comment.   This lack of integration is not just about a lack of user friendliness, it does also highlight a lack of or poor multi-channels and multi-media CRM strategy.  In the luxury business, knowing your customers well and your customers to know you well is so vital for competitive advantage that it is starting to defy belief why luxury brands are following on the FMCG brands footsteps rather than lead the way.

Brands need an online social media strategy

Jeremiah Owyang  is right, a Brand should not “throw away” traffic on its corporate site by inviting visitors to join the Brand profile on Twitter or Facebook or other social site without a well thought strategy.  It is a bit like sales associates of a high street shop telling visitors on their way out: “We invite you to visit us at our small corners inside most department stores”.  This might seem to be sending the positive message “we’re present in these locations” but it might lead to the visitors buying at other Brands also located there as well as not coming back to the original store!  The same as sending a visitor of your Brand website to twitter where he/she will receive twits from many other Brands, is likely to lead to another Brand attracting more of his/her attention, and not have him/her visit your site again!

A Brand does typically spend much much more on its own website than on its social networks presence (if it has one) so if not careful, doing so might mean actually losing these visitors as potential active fan of the Brand, to become at best simple passive observers of some Brand-related activity.


However,  I am not convinced by Jeremiah’s matrix on the Evolution of Social Media Integration and Corporate Websites.  Or rather, I do not see it as a “must follow this path” for all Brands.  Let’s just take the last stage for example: “Complete integration between corporate site and social sites”.  I can think of most of the Brands in the luxury goods sector that would not benefit from such an integration.  This would lower the Brand name status too much to the level of just another network relation such as a friend on Facebook.  The Brand would risk losing its exclusive image, its capacity to generate and fulfill dreams.  Luxury Brands would need to maintain this image online and a complete integration with social media would make this difficult. 

Marci Ikeler from Publicis has a very good presentation on slideshare  “Digital strategies for luxury Brands”. 

Digital Strategies for Luxury Brands

View more presentations from Marci Ikeler.

She mentions the successful examples of Gucci on Facebook and MAC on twitter, both of which support the Brand image instead of “cheapening it”.  I noted this statement supporting Jeremiah’s first point: “The most successful luxury digital campaigns are fully integrated with a larger digital strategy and align with the brand’s values”.  But do not confuse this with a complete integration of the Brand’s website and social media!

You must read the chapter 10. Use digital to convey exclusivity (slides 43 to 45).  It shows 2 examples of exclusive social networking, illustrating why complete social mass media integration will not be beneficial for all Brands.

Enterprise 2.0 is not a game anymore, it's serious business

Another good post from Bertrand Duperrin following the Enterprise 2.0 Forum in Paris on March 17th/18th.

His bullet point list of conclusions is good news for everyone (like me) promoting the uptake of E.2.0.

I will highlight the following 4 points:

• It’s not a game anymore. Now projects are global and carried by the top management. That’s the end of social bubbles disconnected from reality. Companies think global and pilots are not made to test but are the learning stage before global rollout. I really appreciated Claire Flanagan’s approach that set a time limit (5 month) instead of limiting the number of users what allowed her to quickly get a critical mass (nearly 30 000 users) with an opt-in policy.
  
• Tools come second. We talked a lot about management, culture, governance. 90% speakers did not even mention the name of the platform they used and, in fact, the question is elsewhere (even than there’s always the same usual drudge in every conference). The best example comes from Danone where the “networking attitude” program was launched in 2003. It’s all about management and behaviors. Management 2.0 without web 2.0 tools. Tools came only when the behavioral dimension was natural in people every life in the workplace.
  
• There’s no “one size fits all” adoption model. Each company has to define its own way depending on its culture and on local cultures.
  
•  Support from top management. That’s been known for ages but it’s clear that a bottleneck appears when top managers are not active sponsors. I don’t mean being benevolent from a distance (”ok…let’s go guys…I’m watching you play..”) but being able to understand the change, make it theirs and imagine them, their staff and their behaviors in the future, be comfortable with it to be an active sponsor.

I (and many others) have been writing for years now about the importance of a strategic consideration, visible top management leadership, conducive corporate culture, adapted management behaviours and internal processes for the successful introduction of knowledge-sharing tools in an Organisation.  Looks like business leaders are finally getting the message. 

TCS KM maturity model and implementation methodology

Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) have defined a simple KM maturity model and a KM implementation methodology (SIGMARG)
Their maturity model for an Organization is as follows:

1. Initial - Organization has no formal processes for using organizational knowledge effectively for business delivery.
2. Intent - Organization realizes the potential in harnessing its organizational knowledge for business benefits.
3. Initiative - Organization have knowledge-enabled their business processes and are oberving its benefits and business impacts.
4 - Intelligent - Organization has matured collaboration and sharing throughout the business processes that results into collective and collaborative organisational intelligence.
5. Innovative - Organizational knowledge leads to consistent and continuous process optimisation giving it a business edge.

If the speed at which an Organization go through the stages will vary greatly, the authors do stress that an Organization must go through these stages in this order and they are "no shortcut" to the innovative level, and they are absolutely right.  A young company with the right leaders might start at level 3 but would need to go through level 4 before reaching 5. 

Having said that, what is important to understand here is less the number of levels and their definitions, but more the fact that a KM strategy cannot be underestimated and will involve a difficult journey requiring strong leadership, committed resources and patience.

The authors are also correct in identifying the 3 main building blocks (or "pillars") of Knowledge Management:

• People and Culture (the "soft" pillar)
• Technology (the "hard" pillar)
• Process (the "glue" pillar) 

A KM strategy must be concerned in taking these 3 pillars through the 5 stages of maturity. 

Minimal information is given about the SIGMARG implemenation strategy (for obvious reasons) but you would expect it to rely on a set of benchmarking tools to assess the current state of the 3 pillars, followed by a roadmap of how to take them through the maturity levels.  For the most important (in my view) pillar "People & Cutlure", my list of cultural traits not conducive to knowledge-sharing could be such a tool to assess the corporate culture for instance: the more of the 20 traits relate to your Organization, the deeper it is stuck at level 1.  I would expect a level-5 Organization not to have a single of these traits.
The next pillar in importance is the Process pillar.  This is primarily to ensure that KM is embedded in all business processes and not considered as an additional activity on top of the regular daily activities.  This is not a simple endeavour and will require process re-ingeneering.  Ideally, the Organization needs to become process-based instead of function-based.
Then only comes the technology pillar to facilitate the cultural and process changes by making them pervasive and time-resistant.

W.L. Gore & Associates: A workplace that epitomize the corporate culture conducive to knowledge-sharing I keep bragging about

Check the full news article on the W.L. Gore & Associates website but here is the extract that made my day:

[..]
In addition to its diverse innovations, Gore is known for its unique, team-based culture and flat management style. President and CEO Terri Kelly said Gore remains true to its core values, even in the face of challenging business conditions.
"We recognize the importance of fostering a work environment where people feel motivated, engaged and passionate about the work they do," she said. "In difficult economic times, the true values of an organization are tested, and I am proud to say that our associates have rallied together to make the company stronger than ever. Our culture promotes an incredible level of ownership and entrepreneurship. It encourages associates to channel their talents and interests to produce a continuous stream of innovative, high-value products for our customers."

[..]

How many more successful example like this one do most leaders need to be convinced that this is the right type of corporate culture in the Knowledge Economy?

Are the consulting firms partly to blame for the fact that only a relatively small minority of companies have adapted their internal culture to the knowledge intensive economy?

Last month (Dec 09) I posted this question on Linkedin:

Are the consulting firms partly to blame for the fact that only a relatively small minority of companies have adapted their internal culture to the knowledge intensive economy?

In so few companies are collaborators incentivize to internally share freely their valuable knowledge (and rewarded for it). I would think that if consultants were to start advising "en masse" their clients about the benefits of such cultural change, "knowledge focused companies" could become the norm, not the exception.  This question concerns only the companies that do call in consultants (however, the others do get to learn of successful cases so could benefit indirectly). I am assuming also that most consultants would be aware and agree about the knowledge sharing benefits but maybe this is being optimistic. As for the competitive advantage of a knowledge focus culture, I believe it is not an assumption but a fact.

This question received 16 answers.  About 5 disagreed with the suggestion that consultants have to share the blame for the lack of organizational knowledge-sharing.  A couple seemed “neutral” on this point.  So, a majority seemed to agree.

I particularly liked how Nerida Hart put it: <<I think that what is happening is that the 'big' consulting companies only tell their clients what they think they want to hear - rather than - guess what guys you have a massive cultural problem and it won't matter what I write in the final 'report' - unless you want to address these issues nothing will change.>>

As the best answer, I chose Nicole Marchand’s:

<<Thanks for raising a subject that I really believe organization should all practice. Here is my take!

There are a few issues here that I believe contribute to the lack of buy-in, to adapt a knowledge focus culture. Are consultants responsible? As mentioned above, I believe it is a partnership between the consultant and the CEO but most importantly success is proportional to the leadership commitment to implement such an initiative. The lack of involvement at the senior level has proven to be a barrier in building a knowledge focus culture. Commitment from Senior Management is not restricted to the allocation of resources but also requires them to champion the initiatives, model the desired behaviour through the enhancement of their own learning, participation in the collaborative process, in essence; the promotion of knowledge sharing through concrete actions and consistency. Knowing that, I am honestly curious to know if senior leaders are willing and capable to commit to that extent. Could this be part of the lack of collaboration to implement such an initiative?

Another factor, because knowledge is an intangible asset, the business requirements to produce a return-on-investments and cost/benefit factor is often a huge challenge and tough sell. KM (knowledge management) practitioners need concrete evidence both qualitative or quantitative including a special place in the organizational financial statement to enhance the value of this intangible asset. (that will be my next question!) Experts report that 80% of organizational knowledge lies in the head of individuals, a fact worthy of attention.

A knowledge focus culture is a newer way of doing business. If leaders and managers keep thinking that water cooler conversations are a waste of productivity and not part of sharing knowledge and building trust and relationship, its implementation will be difficult. It requires a change in mind-set and behaviour and yes trust.

Implementing a knowledge focus culture takes considerable time, effort, energy and resources, it is the consultant’s responsibility to enhance the value of knowledge management, provide an accurate and informed assessment of the present knowledge manipulation situation, present a solid implementation plan and educate leaders on its present status and benefits. The success of the execution though, at the end of the day lies in the hands of the leaders. According to Bossidy & Charan (2002), “no company can deliver on its commitments or adapt well to change unless all leaders practice the discipline of execution at all levels” (p. 19).

There are many other factors affecting a successful implementation but I have hope I have managed to bring a contribution to your question. >>

My position is also that the responsibility is shared and successful cultural change depends on a partnership between the leader(s) and the consultant(s):  “…it is the consultant’s responsibility to enhance the value of knowledge management, provide an accurate and informed assessment of the present knowledge manipulation situation, present a solid implementation plan and educate leaders on its present status and benefits.”  The leader then makes it happen.  However, I believe that only a minority of consultants initiate this change unsolicited.  The consultant should not wait for the leader to ask them “help initiate a knowledge-focus culture”, as he unlikely knows that this is indeed what the organization needs to gain competitive advantage in a sustainable way.

Could it be that knowledge-focused companies less need to call on consultants? Since these companies make much better use of their human capital by leveraging internal expertise and talents for creativity and innovation, maybe they can do away with consultants for most problem-solving situations.   I do not want to initiate another conspiracy theory but what if many consulting firm partners are aware of this and consciously refrain from spreading too quickly the knowledge word?