Establishing a culture conducive to the state of ‘Flow’ and self-actualisation

In my previous article, I suggested that organisations should aim to establish a working environment conducive to their employees reaching their Ikigai.  Well others have made similar suggestions and maybe the first one to do so in a constructive way was MihalyCsikszentmihalyi  who in 1975 introduced the concept of “Flow” or the “state of concentration or complete absorption with the activity at hand and the situation”.   At work, this state is attained when an individual gets the right balance between challenge and skills.   I will conjecture that someone who has reached his/her Ikigai at work – a sense of purpose and constant motivation – is much more likely to be in a state of flow on a regular basis.  And equally, the more someone is in a state of flow at work, the more likely he/she is to reach Ikigai.

The diagram below shows the 8 mental states in terms of challenge and skills levels according to Mihaly’s flow model:

I intend to read Mihaly’s seminal work “Flow: the Psychology of Optimal Experience” but based on his Wikipedia page, it would seem that he has provided clues for leaders on what kind of working environment would maximize the chances for employees reach the state of flow.  In addition to the challenge-skill balance, Mihaly suggested another eight component states needed:

. Merging of action and awareness: To be completely absorbed in the task at hand.

. Clarity of goals: A clear purpose and good understanding of what to do next.

. Immediate and unambiguous feedback: Continuous feedback to adjust our actions and to always know how well we are doing.

. Concentration on the task at hand: Avoiding distractions to focus on the task at hand.

. Paradox of control: An absolute sense of personal control exists, as if there is no limit to what we can do.

. Transformation of time: Time is distorted and either slows down or flies by.

. Loss of self-consciousness: Being so involved in the activity that do not care to protect our ego.

. Autotelic experience: Being in Flow is an intrinsically rewarding activity so the activity becomes an end in itself, done for its own sake.

So in what kind of working environment or culture would such self-actualisation flourish?

For Rishad Tobaccowala Chief Growth Officer at Publicis Groupe, the first condition is for employees to be “allowed, encouraged, and helped to align their passions and skills.  They are then motivated to learn, take chances, grow, and communicate in ways that benefit not only their careers but their organizations” (Restoring the Soul of Business, 2020, p.46).

Rishad then provides a couple of required cultural characteristics:

•       Encouraging authenticity to help people work in their own minds so that their passion for work ends up motivating them to become experts

•        Awareness of the intersection between passion and comparative advantage between colleagues in order to funnel people into jobs and tasks that place them in this intersection.  

Another key factor for being in a state of ‘Flow’ or self-actualising is a strong sense of purpose or meaning for the activity(ies) at hand.  As Rishad explains (p.44) meaning is best conveyed through stories and they should aim to:

•        Increase skills and competence through continuous learning

•        Offer more chances to innovate through new connections

•        Make better “emotional” communicators to motivate and empathise.

For leaders aiming to initiate a working environment conducive to the state of flow and self-actualisation, it starts with adapting the recruitment and internal career management strategy.
Do you hire people for what they know or what they can know?

As Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi explained in his Flow model, if an individual’s activities does not challenge his/her skills enough, he/she will be in a state of apathy, boredom or relaxation at best.  Clearly not in a motivational state. 

In his book “The Wealth of Knowledge” (2002, chap. 11, ‘A new culture: Developing a knowledge perspective’) Thomas Stewart refers to the talent development process of ‘Stretch’.  The attributes leaders should look for are: Ability to learn, self-initiation, propensity to collaborate, humility, confidence – the ability to connect thinking to action and vice versa - and “intellectual linking” - the ability to connect an idea or experience to an opportunity or problem.  <<All are fostered by making sure leaders [..] have “stretch” assignments to build learning into the job.  P&L responsibility and autonomy are the most important elements of stretch>>.

An organisational culture conducive to self-actualisation must be also a culture conducive to collaboration: A less hierarchical, flatter and relationship-rich environment where knowledge siloes are things of the past, and ‘interpersonal trust’ replaces rigid and overpowering organisational structures.  Such a culture is the antithesis to the obsolete culture defined by my 20 cultural traits not conducive to knowledge sharing.

Traditional KM has lost the plot

For the past two decades or so, KM has grown into an established practice, especially in large organisations where the need for capturing, re-using and sharing valuable knowledge is a challenge proportional to the size. Some organisations even appointed a Chief Knowledge Officer. The KM community has had numerous successes and agreed on best practices and standard tools and techniques. The goal of KM could be defined as leveraging value-adding knowledge produced and/or utilised throughout the organisation, in order to achieve and sustain competitive advantage.

But where does this valuable knowledge resides/originates from? It resides/originates with/from the minds of an organisation’s extended workforce (employees, contractors, strategic partners) (*). What organisations therefore need is for this extended workforce to share this knowledge as easily as possible, in order for any valuable knowledge to be used at the right time by anyone anywhere anytime. In other words, what is needed is an organisational culture conducive to such pervasive knowledge sharing: A collaborative culture. This is particularly important for organisations thriving on continuous innovation.

So, considering the above, one would think that the KM community should have been not only welcoming but indeed driving social collaboration. Social collaboration is about facilitating (to the point of commoditising it) and encouraging (rewarding/recognising) the sharing of valuable expertise, knowledge, insight, ideas, across the organisational natural and artificial borders (geographical, functional, hierarchical, operational, etc…) or in other words, breaking down the “knowledge silos”.

Strangely though, a large number (I think the majority although I do not have any verified data to support this) of KM professionals did not directly contribute to the introduction of social collaboration within their organisation (even less took the lead for it) and once implemented, refused to accept it as a part of KM. It is as if they are collectively stuck in a worldview where KM requires well defined and rigorous structures and processes in order to deliver any value.

The value of a given piece of knowledge is context-dependent. In other words, its value is realised when an individual - or a group of individuals – applies it the right way in the right place at the right time. The larger the Organisation, the more difficult it is to expand and replicate throughout the Organisation the value generated by traditional KM within specific business units or activities. The only way to unlock and leverage the dormant valuable knowledge throughout the organisation is to provide integrated collaboration tools for everyone and establish a collaborative culture. The former consumerizes knowledge sharing internally, and the latter normalises it through adapted behaviours and recognition and reward mechanisms.

An Organisation’s KM community must be fully aligned with social collaboration initiatives because they are the best equipped professionals – in terms of experience and expertise - to make these initiatives realise their full potential soon enough to gain significant competitive advantage.

(*) A relatively popular school of thought considers that knowledge can in fact only reside in our minds. Once we attempt to extract it and code it for sharing and re-use, it becomes information. If philosophically this view is worth debating, in a business context, it does not help anyone understand better the challenges faced by KM. On the contrary it tends to confuse the issue so I personally prefer assuming that valuable knowledge can indeed be passed on in a coded (written) form.

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.

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?

The History of Maths and Knowledge Sharing

Yesterday, I watched a TV program produced by the Open University on the history of Maths. It started in China where Mathematics as a discipline really started. A book was written in about 200BC explaining among other things how to resolve equations. Then it moved on to India a few centuries AD where truly important advances were made such as the 9 Indoo numbers (ancestors to the Arabic numbers we use today), the creation of the number 'zero' and the first method for resolving complex equations to the power of 3 as well as the first method for an approximation of the value of Pi. Then came the Middle East and the Arabic countries where further discoveries were made in the Middle Ages. The point in common with most of these advances in Mathematics are that they were all made in the East well before they were either "rediscovered" or applied in the West from only about the 15th Century. And this is when it struck me! The lack of communication between these Eastern civilizations and the Western World prevented a valuable knowledge sharing that would have enabled a much faster worldwide scientific progress. What has enabled an exponential scientific and technological progress in the last 3 or 4 centuries is the increasing ease to share knowledge around the World. The Internet being the last of these inventions to contribute immensely to this. But then, if it is so obvious that sharing knowledge between distant civilizations, cultures or communities generates creativity, discoveries and innovation; why is it so difficult for most modern companies to recognize the value of fostering internal (and external) knowledge sharing between all employees and stakeholders?

Is sharing knowledge really desirable (question asked on Linkedin)

I recently asked on Linkedin my question comparing two extreme organisations in terms of knowledge sharing processes posted here on 26/04/09 (see all the 14 responses here). More respondents chose company B model (with knowledge sharing). A significant number went for the “it depends” option and a still significant number chose company A model (no knowledge sharing). I do not of course consider this as a quantitative survey but I would like to think that the respondents are a meaningful qualitative representation of managers thanks to the very nature of the medium used: the Linkedin professional networking site. In any case, I was not attempting to obtain a “true” representation of manager’s opinion but more an idea of the proportion choosing model A and what their arguments would be. For all intent and purposes, I view the company A and “it depends” answers in the same larger group of managers that do not consider company B as the best choice all the time. Arguments given for company A by the ones who chose this model are:

1. It is more organized for achieving the company’s goals by having people more focused on their department’s/team’s objectives. 2. Sharing of information between teams/departments strictly limited to what is needed for the operational work flow/supply chain, or in other words, “share [the information] needed to do the job – no more no less”. 3. It prevents information overload.

Arguments given for company A by the ones who opted for a split decision are:

4. Does well in a “best cost approach” (as opposed to “best product/solution approach”). 5. Suppose their offering is functional—it satisfies basic, unchanging needs and has a long life cycle, low margins, and stable demand. (Think paper towels or light bulbs.) In this case, you need an efficient supply chain—which minimizes production, transportation, and storage costs. So model A is better suited for “labour (Production and Manufacturing)” Industries, where employees are not expected to rely much on their thinking abilities. 6. It is a question of size and this model does well in large companies.

Let me now analyse each of these arguments: 1. Why would a model B company be necessarily better organised for achieving the company’s goals? Why is it that the vision of letting people freely share knowledge is often assumed to generate mess?With adapted formal processes in place, you can very effectively and efficiently enable knowledge sharing flows in an organised way, all in line with the strategic goals. Google is a perfect example of this as it has a second to none knowledge sharing culture and is definitely not a “chaotic organisation”. 2. This argument is from another age I believe. It describes the organisational models of the industrial age. We have moved on to a knowledge economy when intangible assets must increasingly be considered to accurately value a company. Managers can no longer dictate over time what information – and even less knowledge – is strictly needed for each operational role to be competitively efficient and effective. In a model A company, by the time managers adjust the information flows in reaction to the market, it is often too late and damage is done with the competition already ahead. To be ahead of the competition, you need to be proactive and therefore enable – at the level of the individual - fluid and adaptive knowledge flows internally as well as with with external stakeholders. 3. When I speak of knowledge in model B, I mean "knowledge", not information. Therefore, the argument of information overload does not hold water. Employees will only seek/share the knowledge they ask for/consider valuable. This is not about having full access to an encyclopedia of (mostly irrelevant) information. Even employees in a model A company can have access to it via the internet for instance! 4. A company with a “best cost” strategy such as Easyjet, the successful low-cost airline, does not imply a top-down structure with isolated teams and departments asked to only do their predefined job. Easyjet incidentally promotes a knowledge-sharing and learning culture where it is assumed that every tasks can always be improved by each individual for the benefit of all his/her colleagues (and ultimately the benefit of the company) therefore improving efficiency and reducing costs further. See below what Easyjet expects of its employees (from Easyjet recruitment website ):

• Pushing yourself to constantly develop and learn from every opportunity
• Sharing knowledge and ideas with colleagues
• Seeking feedback
• Displaying a positive attitude that contributes to an enjoyable working environment
• Communicating your intentions clearly and positively

5. I can agree in principle that in a labour intensive industry (as opposed to a knowledge-based industry) employees are less expected to think and hold valuable knowledge for the company. But this does not mean they never do! If a factory worker works out a better way to use a machine for his/her repetitive tasks, wouldn’t it be valuable to the company that this knowledge be shared with all the employees using the same machine, even if their factory is on the other side of the World? 6. My example of Google earlier already negates the argument that a large company operates better in model A. And there are many more successful large companies with a knowledge sharing culture such as Toyota, BHP Billiton and 3M. In fact, I would argue that the bigger the company (in number of employees) the more valuable knowledge it potentially holds so the more benefits it can obtain by leveraging it. Having said all that, we are still left with the disconcerting fact that the majority of companies today still gravitate closer to model A than model B. If leveraging organisational knowledge makes so much business sense, then why isn’t it already widespread and becoming the norm? I think the answer to this question lies more with organisational culture stagnation than with operational or strategic considerations. For most companies senior management, enabling knowledge sharing or not is not about success but more about losing management control and power. In my 2 blog posts on “organizational cultures not conducive to effective leveraging of knowledge” (first here then here ) I listed 20 common cultural traits inhibiting knowledge sharing. You should find a lot of these traits fitting well with any companies closer to model A you are familiar with. Conversely, anyone familiar with companies more in line with model B should not recognise these traits as typical of their culture. So now, are these “model A” organisational cultures to last? For a while yes but some factors will (hopefully) slowly do away with them such as:

• Generation Y taking over the board room. This is about the necessary top-down leadership to instigate a knowledge-sharing culture, probably lead by the generation of managers who grew up with the Internet.
• Information Systems increasingly integrated and pervasive that facilitate (and reduce transaction costs of) information access and expertise localization.
• An increasingly mainstream acknowledgement of the direct relationships between success and knowledge-focused organisational cultures.
• Social media spreading inside the company. This is the bottom-up pressure for enabling a similar level of knowledge sharing at the workplace that people have at home.
• Or more simply, going out of business as a result of being out of touch with the Knowledge Economy.

The knowledge challenge (for outsourcing companies)

[Below is an article I wrote in Nov 07 for a now defunct Indian website. I stand by it even more today].

For Indian outsourcing providers, their business is evolving towards securing partnerships for innovation with their customers. It is therefore no longer only about cost-savings and taking on non-core activities. Now here is a challenge for them: How to go about obtaining enough specific internal knowledge from their customers in order to produce relevant value-adding innovation? 

The reason why this is a challenge is that most organizations today still fail - or don’t even attempt - to build a knowledge based culture where knowledge sharing between all their employees is the norm. If a customer’s key representatives only share knowledge and experience with their colleagues when they have to, why would they share more freely with external consultants? 

In my experience, consultants usually obtain more information on a specific issue than internal managers, but that is usually due to their – justified or not - “impartial” and “more objective” status. It is also because employees are told to assist the consultant in any way they can because… hem… they are not cheap. But this actually only reinforce my point: For a true value-adding cooperation between an outsourcing firm and a customer organization, you cannot rely on people sharing knowledge only because they are told to do so, you need much more willing and systematic involvements. 

To truly understand the issue, one must realise that the type of partnership that we are talking about here is of a new breed. It is not the classic consulting time-bound project with consultants walking in, gathering information, analysing it, developing then submitting a solution, and finally walking out. What is suggested here is a long-term relationship requiring systematic access to relevant information and sharing of knowledge and experience between the customer and the service provider. 

Innovation does not happen in a vacuum but is very context-dependant. Furthermore, innovation is nearly always the product of collaboration between individuals/teams/companies. Ok, so what is my point then? I do not claim to know all the consequences of this problem (I count on you all reading this to help out). I would only suggest this: Outsourcing firms should steam ahead offering new collaborative services to their most “knowledge focused” customers. With them, there should be no problem in co-generating innovation and value. However, with the other customers still stuck in, pre-Knowledge economy, pre-Web 2.0 era with Industrial Age management methods, my advice is either stay clear of making too many promises, or alternatively first offer to assist them in transforming their organizational culture and foster knowledge-sharing. 

To support the second option, I will quote a report on the recent KM India 2007 Summit : 

<< Comparing the current Knowledge Management (KM) movement with the Quality movement of [the] 80s, noted IT entrepreneur and Chairman & Managing Director of Mindtree Consulting Mr Ashok Soota said, "Knowledge movement is the next important movement. It is like the Quality movement of past. CII and industry will promote this like we did with quality movement." The Summit is being held in New Delhi from Nov 14-16. Highlighting the importance of KM in today's corporate world, quoting management guru Peter Drucker, Mr Soota said, "Today there are no poor countries, only ignorant countries! The same is true of companies." >>

Innovation is a priority, so why not KM?

A recent Boston Consulting Group report shows that 64% of companies consider innovation as one of their top 3 priorities. This is less than the 72% in 2006 but still high in the current difficult economy. That is good and understandable but then why is Knowledge Management not a priority as well as a result? You cannot foster innovation throughout a company wihout effective and efficient knowledge sharing processes. Apple, Google and Toyota took the top 3 spots of the most innovative companies. Unsurprisingly, these 3 are regularly at the top of the global Most Admired Knowledge Enterprises (MAKE). In the 2008 ranking, they were in the 7th, 2nd and 4th place respectively. In fact, 9 of the 20 global MAKE companies last year are among the BCG top 50 innovative companies including 5 of the top 6 ! These organisations have understood that innovation does not only sit in the R&D labs, it is to be fostered everywhere. Innovation implies effective collaboration between individuals, teams, deparments and companies, and effective collaboration implies in turn effective knowledge sharing between all these actors. All these companies above invest heavily in knowledge management and would typically have managers with formal KM responsibilities. But then why is it that the companies with such formal and significant KM are still such a minority? What will it take for leaders to realise en masse the importance of KM?

Is sharing knowledge really desirable in a business?

A. Imagine a company where no knowledge is shared. Only information is passed on between employees within pre-defined operational processes. Each employee exchange information only to their immediate colleagues, either within their team/department or with the colleagues in the next/precedent levels in the operational chain. B. Imagine a company where all knowledge (tacit or explicit) is shared. All employees share their individual and collective (team/department) knowledge with every one else within the company. Each employee is free to share his/her knowledge with anyone else and to ask anyone for his/her knowledge on any subject (of a professional and non-confidential nature). My question is simple: which of these two extremes is likely to generate the most successful business, assuming they would be both in the same market(s) and every other parameters equal (eg. number of employees, age) ? I will expand on this question later on but for now, let me just say that for anyone answering B, please give me strong arguments because the majority of businesses today are still closer to extreme A.

About The Wisdom of Crowds

In his book “The Wisdom of Crowds – Why the many are smarter than the few”, James Surowiecki makes - indirectly but nonetheless powerfully - a very good case for Knowledge Management or the leverage of individual and collective knowledge. Simply put this way, that the many are smarter than the few is hardly a contentious statement. After all, a croud of say 1000 individuals should be smarter than only 500 of this same croud most of the times. You have more minds available to solve a problem/find an answer. However, what Surowiecki means is that a croud of 1000 can be – with the right conditions – much smarter than the sum of its parts even when it acts/decides in a completely uncoordinated way (meaning each individual acts/decides in isolation from the others). In fact, such a group can be (and Surowiecki gives plenty of examples) smarter than the even best experts in a particular field! The three conditions for this group wisdom to materialise according to Surowiecki, are that it must be diverse, independent and decentralized. On diversity, Surowiecki writes (chapter 2, part III): <<The fact that cognitive diversity matters does not mean that if you assemble a group of diverse but thoroughly uninformed people, their collective wisdom will be smarter than an expert’s. But if you can assemble a diverse group of people who possess varying degrees of knowledge and insight, you’re better off entrusting it with major decisions rather than leaving them in the hands of one or two people, no matter how smart those people are.>>This can be hard to believe but Surowiecki then makes the case for this point very well and I cannot find any reason to disagree with him. On independence, he writes (chapter 3, part I): << First, [independence] keeps the mistakes that people make from becoming correlated.[..] One of the quickest way to make people’s judgments systematically biased is to make them dependent on each other for information. Second independent individuals are more likely to have new information rather than the same old data everyone is already familiar with. The smartest groups , then, are made up of people with diverse perspectives who are able to stay independent of each other. >> I would think that this condition is in theory much less contentious than the first one on diversity. However, the problem with true independence is that in practice, it is rather difficult to obtain. Often, decisions in a croud are made sequentially with each individual influenced by his/her predecessors.Therefore, Surowiecki advises that <<If you want to improve an organization’s or an economy’s decision making, one of the best things you can do is make sure, as much as possible, that decisions are made simultaneously (or close to it) rather than one after the other.>> On decentraization, he writes (chapter 4, part II): << [..] if you set a croud of self-interested, independent people to work in a decentralized way on the same problem, instead of trying to direct their efforts from the top down, their collective solution is likely to be better than any other solution you can come up with. [..] Decentralization’s great strength is that it encourages independence and specialization on the one hand while still allowing people to coordinate their activities and solve difficult problems on the other.>> However, Surowiecki then cautions that : << decentralization’s great weakness is that there’s no guarantee that valuable information which is uncovered in one part of the system will find its way through the rest of the system.>> He then asserts that for a crowd of any kinds to allow << individuals to specialize and to acquire local knowledge [..] while also being able to aggregate that local knowledge and private information into a collective whole, [..] [it] needs to find the right balance between the two imperatives: making individual knowledge globally and collectively useful (as we know it can be), while still allowing it to remain resolutely specific and local. >> Well, well, isn’t this where/when Knowledge Management should come in? In fact, for all intent and purposes, this is a definition of KM I am satisfied to work with in an organizational setting: any intentional and managed changes or activities with a conscious objective to facilitate/enable what is highlighted in blue above. But it then highlights a fundamental reason for organizational KM to have so often failed to deliver: the lack of management recognition that collective knowledge in practice is indeed always valuable, with the potential to be very often correct and effective. Leveraging knowledge is then not just about realizing (and doing something about it) that each employee’s knowledge is valuable (and that’s already hard enough for most senior managements) but that the collective knowledge of the whole or groups of employees is even more valuable. I think that a cultural shift is needed here for this realisation to become the norm rather than the exception. This shift has already started with the ubiquitous nature and global reach of the World Wide Web enabling huge crowds to influence decisions directly or indirectly (eg. Obama’s election). This shift now needs to enter the board rooms en masse. According to Malcolm Gladwell, “the tipping point” (see his book with this title) should be reached when between 10 and 15% of board rooms will have formally acknowledged the value and power of individual and collective knowledge. I can safely predict this will happen even if I cannot say when.

Insightful Knowledge

I am currently reading the very interesting marketing book "Creating Market Insight. How firm create value from market understanding", written by Dr Brian Smith and Dr Paul Raspin (Wiley edition). I will surely write a few posts about this book but I'll start here with their definition of an insight in a business context: For knowledge to be considered insight, it must pass what the authors call the VRIO test. Knowledge must be << · "Valuable": Does this knowledge enable the firm to respond to environmental threats and opportunities? · "Rare”: Is this knowledge currently held only by the organisation and not by its competitors? · Not easily Imitable: Is it costly or difficult for other organisations to obtain or develop this knowledge? · Organisationally aligned: Is the firm organised, or can it be organised, to exploit this knowledge? >> The authors do not mean that non-insight knowledge isn’t useful of course. But they attempt to differentiate knowledge that is merely useful from knowledge that is insightful. I think it is an interesting framework but I am not convinced about their definition of valuable knowledge: “Knowledge is valuable if it enables us to change something, rather than maintain things, and that change is valuable to either the customer or to the firm.” Although the authors approach this from a marketing point of view, I really struggle to agree with the notion that valuable knowledge must imply change. The authors themselves acknowledge that “the value test is a contentious and difficult one to apply t to a piece of knowledge.” One problem with this view is that it risks to prioritize in the mind of managers all the ideas and projects that imply change. Ideas and projects to improve existing activities would not be given enough attention and resources. But often it is such improvement that sparks the creation of new knowledge, that in turn will lead to a “valuable” change. In other words, a change providing competitive advantage does happen in an improvements-rich context that cannot be completely dissociated from the change. So without a good dose of “useful” knowledge, the “valuable” knowledge wouldn’t be created at all, let alone lead to an insightful change. Furthermore, stating that the change must be valuable to either the customer or to the firm does not help at all to define valuable knowledge, since any piece of knowledge that isn’t meeting this characteristic cannot even be considered useful to the firm! I think the problem with this definition of insightful knowledge is the use of the word “valuable”. I cannot yet put my finger on it but there should be another way to define what the authors had in mind without the too simple differentiation through subjective value. When I think of something, I’ll post it here.

Knowledge Management in ITIL v3

Read this very clear and insightful white paper from Peter Dorfman (dated May 2007):http://www.thinkhdi.com/hdi2008/files/ITIL3.pdf I agree with nearly all of it. Let me highlight one of Peter's concluding point: <<For end users, ITIL 3 is an opportunity to get KM onto executive radar screens, maybe for the first time.Managers who have tried to promote KM adoption may see this as a golden moment to advance a personal objective, and they may be right.>> This is absolutely correct but based on my experience, I would not advise IT Managers to seek the implementation of a KM specific software solution that would somehow sit on top of or alongside the Service Desk Management system. You will not succeed in making 1st and 2nd line technicians switch to a different tool to record or search for valuable knowledge.KM must be integrated with all the other processes (Incident/Request/Problem Mngt, etc...).To succeed, it must become part of the technician's normal activities to resolve issues or satisfy requests. As always, KM is first about people, culture and processes well before being about tools! And ITIL v3 actually does emphasize on this, and this is maybe one reason why it does not litteraly consider KM as a separate support process.

5 real life examples to make the case for KM in a sales environment

”[..] an organization is nothing more than the collective capacity of its people to create value” (Louis V. Gerstner, Jr., former CEO of IBM) Consider the following five simple scenarios based on real situations I have witnessed during my time in the Richemont Group. I must stress that I expect these to be relevant today to a majority of retail Organizations, and not only in the luxury sector: 1. “Reinventing the wheel.” The Logistics Manager of a regional distribution centre believes that he could greatly improve his team’s efficiency during inventories with the use of about 5 barcode readers. He contacts the IT department for advice since the idea will be to interface with the main IT system. When the stock controller is consulted, she decides that barcode readers would be too expensive if they were to be used also for boutique inventories (you would need at least 20 readers). Since laptop PCs are used in boutiques, it is decided that they would also be used for the distribution centre, against its manager’s preference. It then turns out that if laptops are adapted to boutique stocktaking, they are not practical in a warehouse: too heavy to carry around the aisles and with much less autonomy on battery. The Logistics Manager asks the IT Manager if he could find out from his counterparts what has been implemented in other regions. Logistics Managers have very little contact with one another so rarely share ideas and experiences. The IT Manager finds out that in another region, they did implement a cost-effective barcode reader solution and have even used it in some boutiques. A corporate discount is maybe even possible for the readers. By reinventing the wheel we might improve it, but is it worth the costs when all that is needed is a regular wheel? 2. “Knowledge is Power so retain it.” A wealthy American businessman enters a jewellery boutique in Tokyo. He intends to offer a present to his wife for their wedding anniversary in 2 weeks. He happens to be a regular customer at the 5th Avenue boutique in New York and does tell the Japanese sales executive Yukino of this fact. He is presented a selection of items but cannot decide, and then remembers that he had bought a bracelet for his wife two years ago. “My wife loves this bracelet and it would be great for her to have a matching necklace”. “Yes, sir, which bracelet was it?” Yukino ask. “Oh, unfortunately I cannot remember its name. Could you find out for me? I bought it in New York”. “I’m afraid I cannot do this. Would you remember the type of bracelet?” “Are you telling me that you cannot check on your system?” “Yes sir, we only have access to sales made in Japan”. “This is not very useful is it? Could you call the 5th Avenue showroom then?” “Well yes sir, I could try but with the time-difference, we’ll have to wait for this evening. Would you come back tomorrow then?” “I’m not sure to have the time. I’ll call you tomorrow morning and if you have the details I’ll try to find a moment”. In the evening Yukino calls the 5th Avenue showroom and ask for the manager who happens to be on a day off. The assistant-manager is busy with a customer and the sales-executive who picked up the phone does not believe to have the authority to give such confidential information. She takes the details and says that the assistant-manager will call back. Yukino waits until late after closure but no one calls back. The next day, Yukino is lost in apologies for not obtaining the details of the bracelet. “I am not impressed!” the American tells her. “I was really expecting such a prestigious Brand to provide better international services. I have to tell you, I feel like shopping around for something else as a result.” Knowledge is power and even more now than ever. However, if organizational knowledge is retained and not shared, is the organization as a whole really gaining any lasting power from it? 3. “Everybody is replaceable.” The Merchandising Supervisor of a regional distribution company is offered a new position in another country. Her effectiveness and efficiency as well as a great personality have won her a very good reputation with her peers within the Group. She has 10 years of experience in her current job and has progressively put in place a number of techniques and has mastered a couple of specific IT systems. Her manager is however soon concerned: how can she replace her supervisor without affecting the department’s performance? The supervisor leaves in 3 months and her unique assistant only has 1year experience and has had very little involvement in about 50% of the supervisor’s activities. As for the Manager, she would also need to learn quite a lot from before the supervisor’s departure, and of course, she is already very busy with her own tasks. The Manager decides that the supervisor’s specific activities should be shared between herself and the assistant. The supervisor offers to spend long evenings to write up some step-by-step procedures. After a month, the Manager recruits someone who first needs to be trained on relatively simple but time-consuming tasks, in order to free up the assistant for spending time with the supervisor. By the time the supervisor is on her last day, a significant amount of her knowledge has not been passed on or written down. The IT department is even called in to assess if they will be able to help with the usage of one specific piece of software. As a result, in the following months the Merchandising department struggles to maintain a satisfying level of productivity. Everybody is replaceable, yes but at what costs? 4. “This is the way we do things here.” Harrods, the London department store, is redeveloping its jewellery department this summer. A new boutique design of a jewellery Brand with a unit in this department is implemented for the occasion. Unlike before the late 90s, the local retail staffs as well as other departments (e.g. IT) are now involved in the process. However, at that stage it is about adapting the design to the local specific constraints and needs. There is a very tight schedule imposed by Harrods but the deadline is to be met. Along the way, some design details are identified as being impractical. The functional aspect of the design seems to have been overlooked in favour of the aesthetic. For example, the IT equipment required in the retail area is not sufficiently integrated and facilitated. The beauty of a desk with no cable management will be spoiled by the laptop sitting on it and its power cable running from it. In peak times such as Christmas, the 5 or 6 sales executives (instead of 3 or 4) will each need quick access to a laptop but only 3 are catered for in the design. This will result in laptops being used on top of display cabinets so not really aesthetic but customers cannot wait for sales staff to queue up for a PC! The same boutique design is to be used for many boutiques worldwide. Some of the very same functional flaws are reproduced again and again as no feedback from all the actors in the first project was formally obtained. It is reasonable to assume that each department builds on past successes and is expert in its field. However, wouldn’t each project of a particular department benefit from the proactive input of all other stakeholders? 5. “Making mistakes is fine, this is how you learn.” It is the first day of the month and as usual, each regional IT department completes and checks the End of Month process for the Group’s bespoke operational system. In Holland, the IT Manager identifies a problem: the new Group standard stock-valuing module recently implemented generates incorrect totals. He investigates and soon finds the program at fault. While he has his programmer start to work out the exact problem, he sends an email to all his counterparts in the other regions using the same system, to warn them first and also ask if anyone had already detected this problem. He quickly gets an interest from most of them but more importantly receives a response from his Spanish counterpart telling him that they faced a similar issue the month before but thought it was specific to the Spanish version of the bespoke system. The good news is that they corrected the problem and documented it. The bad news, it was written in Spanish. What is then decided due to the urgency for the Deutsch End of Month procedure is for the Spanish and Deutsch programmers to work jointly by phone (in broken-English). After several hours of collaboration, a Deutsch version of the solution is setup and tested and the End of Month procedure can be re-ran and completed 24hrs late. During that time, the system was not available to users for normal operations so the impact to the business was significant. We should note that when it first happened on the Spanish system 30 days earlier, their system was unavailable for 2 days. Learning and innovation depends on a culture encouraging risk-taking and therefore making “mistakes”. However, shouldn’t this imply that we all collectively learn from these “mistakes” and avoid making them twice? These situations all have in common a lack of knowledge sharing. They are all avoidable but the top-management first need to recognize the value of each individual’s knowledge and define and implement a strategy to leverage it.

On having a “fostering innovation” culture

As I have repeatedly written on this blog, continuous innovation requires access to knowledge. So an organizational culture conducive to knowledge sharing will foster innovation as a direct result. James Todhunter (CIO of Invention Machine Corp.) wrote an article just published in CIO.com titled: “Fostering innovation culture in an unpredictable economy”.

I am not sure what he meant by “unpredictable economy” as no economy has ever been predictable. “Knowledge economy” would be more relevant (and maybe what James had in mind) to relate to the current economy where knowledge (intellectual capital) is increasingly the most valuable asset for businesses, so the intangible taking over the tangible. 

 However, James Todhunter’s view that an innovative culture must be initiated and supported from the top of the organization is spot on: <<[..] It starts at the top. The most common reason cited for why innovation workers feel their organizations fail to have an innovation culture is a perceived lack of management commitment. Organizational culture is created from the top down. In order to create a culture that supports repeatable innovation success, management has to make its commitment to innovation clear and unambiguous. [..] It starts at the top. It really is that simple. Management has the power to set the tone and drive the culture. Managers who avoid taking responsibility for driving the innovation culture by using the “adoption must be a grass-roots thing” crutch, will always be met with failure and left wondering why they can’t achieve their repeatable innovation goals. Culture begins and ends at the top. To create a value-driving, sustainable innovation culture, you need only make it so.>> 

I have constantly in this blog supported the idea that a sustainable fostering innovation culture (or knowledge sharing culture) can only be built with a honest top-down approach. In other words, it needs to be a strategic initiative. I know that many supporters of the social Enterprise 2.0 gaining momentum see it as an alternative to the top-down approach. They believe that if a large part of the people at the base of the organization start collaborating and sharing knowledge and adopting new (cheap or free) tools to do so, and if they increase productivity as a result; it will force the whole organization and its management to embrace these methods of working, this in turn forcing a culture change. 

Of course, people at the fringe of organizations will find benefits in adopting new collaborative technologies at a personal level first then within their team or department, as long as these technologies are answers to needs identified by them to do their work more efficiently and/or effectively. However, for these adoptions to force a company-wide culture change by themselves is not at all a given outcome. This might happen in some contexts but probably only in organizations where the current culture only needed a spark to turn into a knowledge sharing culture. In the majority of organizations where the culture is predominantly of a command and control type, matching my list of 20 syndromes I challenge the bottom-up approach to succeed on its own! Anyone aware of such a successful cultural change, please speak up. 

What has happened in numerous occasions and will continue to happen, is for organizational cultures to be transformed with the impulse and leadership from the top (Buckman Labs, IBM and BP are only 3 of the most famous ex. of such cultural transformation). If we consider Google, surely one of the most innovative companies these past few years, its ground-breaking open culture was initiated by its founders, so therefore a top-down leadership. 

Enterprise 2.0 will not drastically change the balance of power and responsibility: Especially since the Enron scandal! The boss remains the boss and if he/she wants employees to stick to their job descriptions and wants remuneration and recognition processes to reflect this fact, no clever technology will fundamentally change this and Enterprise 2.0 initiatives will remain localized and accessory to standard business processes. Now, is wanting to change the culture sufficient for a leader to succeed in this endeavour? Probably not. No matter how good a leader you are, you cannot simply tell people to start sharing knowledge and be innovative for everyone to do so overnight!

James Todhunter gives a list of 6 methods for effectively fostering an innovation culture: 

 · Invest in your people. 

· Reward the behaviour you want. 

· Invest in infrastructure to support sustainable innovation. 

· An important part of the innovation infrastructure is the framework to leverage knowledge – both the knowledge within your organization and that which is external to the enterprise. 

· Promote the value of innovation. 

· Practice innovation in everything. 

This is a good list and with a very good chance of success if followed. I would however like to add one method that should actually be the one to start with: Lead by example! Don’t count on people to do what you say, even if you reward them for it. It will surely be more effective if you start by doing it yourself: be open, share you knowledge, show off your own creative or innovative ideas (and you might then realize that special rewards are not as necessary as expected).

Knowledge Management in IT Service Management

ITIL (IT Infrastructure Library) v2, the now internationally recognized framework for IT Service Management, was published in 2000 and at the time only implied knowledge management in IT service delivery. Obviously, managers involved in implementing ITIL based services (like myself btw 2003 and 2007) would consider and attempt to cater for the required knowledge capture/retrieval/sharing/reuse. Here is a very good article written in 2003 about such a Manager (Michael McGaughey, Service Management Framework Architect at TXU, the leading energy retailer in Texas) who was concerned with incorporating KM in the IT service framework he was designing. I will reproduce here only these 2 key sections: << [..] knowledge management goes back as far as human memory. It evolved onto stone tablets, books, file cabinets and sticky notes. But knowledge management in the IT world has always suffered from a lack of context, a lack of a problem that KM is clearly designed to fix. Service management may be the answer. IT service management demands a customer-centric view of IT. It helps the company's IT department achieve three fundamental goals: Achieve customer satisfaction, exceed customer expectations and manage customer perceptions. "The service management framework lives and and breathes with knowledge," said Michael McGaughey, Service Management Framework Architect at TXU, the leading energy retailer in Texas, which serves five million customers in North America and Australia. "There's a lot of knowledge used across the process silos." >> And: << Knowledge management as an IT concept has a lot to gain from working within an IT service management framework. One of the factors that led to the development of its identity crisis is that knowledge management offers very little in the way of a value proposition by itself. The value it offers is in making other processes better. >> I really like this last paragraph. It has indeed been KM’s main issue in particular with organizations top-management, even though I would say that today with the help of Enterprise 2.0 technologies, KM can deliver value by itself. Last year, ITIL v3 was published and I was very pleased to find out that in this edition, KM was formally taken care of as a Service Transition concept. I was even more pleased to see that it also included cultural change management! So now, IT departments are expected to formally assess and deal with the cultural change that a new service management implementation can initiate or even require! This was long overdue I would say.

A great little KM story

Found on CIO.com this great little knowledge sharing story in a context where it was least expected (among retail sales staff used to compete with one another): "Around the holidays in 2000, a Giant Eagle deli manager hit on a way to display the seafood delicacy that proved irresistible to harried shoppers, accounting for an extra $200 in one-week sales. But uncertain of his strategy, he first posted the idea on the KnowAsis portal. Other deli managers ribbed him a bit, but one tried the idea in his store and saw a similar boost in sales. The total payoff to the company, for this one tiny chunk of information, was about $20,000 in increased sales in the two stores. The company estimates that if it had implemented the display idea across all its stores during this period, the payoff might have been $350,000. Previously, "there was no tradition of sharing ideas in the store environment," says Jack Flanagan, executive vice president of Giant Eagle business systems. Seeing the bottom-line benefits of sharing knowledge propelled the employees over their initial misgivings, spurring them to try and out-hustle each other on having the best suggestions, rather than the usual metrics. "Now they're competing in the marketplace of ideas," says Russ Ross, senior vice president of IS and CIO at Giant Eagle. "It became a 'Look What I Did' showcase. Everyone wanted to put something in there," says Brian Ferrier, store director of Giant Eagle's South Euclid, Ohio, supermarket. " This is a typical example of a user-initiated quick win that made a whole KM solution become effective. It does seem so simple and common-sense, doesn't it? But why such simple and common-sense concept be so hard at implementing? "

“Forming an ‘inside-out’ company is the secret to innovation in business”

On the PA Consulting website, I found this very interesting news article dated April 2007. It is about a research by Dr Carsten Sørensen of the London School of Economics (LSE) and PA Consulting Group (PA). This is the part I must highlight: “[..] The research found that IT is the enabler for innovation across the whole business. What we are starting to see is the forming of the ‘inside-out’ company, where interactions and relationships with stakeholders actually shape strategy rather than are subject to it. The research concludes that we are approaching a tipping point, where technology will be cheap enough and intuitive enough to make collaboration as valuable a source of innovation to the business as computation has been a source of efficiency. Technology is changing the way we interact and customers (business and consumer) are demanding a richness of dialogue. [..]” First, I am pleased to see that this confirms what I wrote on the knowledge-driven organization back in 2005, and more recently in Jan 2007. Then this article does correctly make the link between the need for a change in the organizational culture and the introduction of new technologies facilitating collaboration. It is implied that you need both in order to foster value-generating innovation throughout the organization. I spotted the following culture-related change in the article: * Organisations that see their customers and their staff as sources of untapped potential and ideas * unlocking this pool of innovative talent will require collaborative management and not traditional command-and-control-style management * interactions and relationships with stakeholders actually shape strategy rather than are subject to it * senior executives are taking a more facilitative than directorial role, acting as a catalyst or ‘lightning conductor’ for innovation wherever it may evolve * this new outlook on innovation and technology has changed traditional management models towards a new ‘collaborate and control’ model * You do not have direct command-and-control anymore. You are working far more across virtual teams. Teams that are brought together just for specific projects. * The trend towards networks and away from hierarchies and the user empowerment that this entails is changing the way we interact. Executives are seeing a similar phenomenon in business, with users across the organisation demanding that businesses are more reactive to their needs and being willing to take responsibility for improving their working environment. * In order to identify the strategic value of IT it is necessary to employ the technology in developing relationships, listening to customers, and engaging them actively in the production of innovative services Good stuff! The culture change described here is the kind that would do away with the cultural barriers to knowledge sharing I have been repeatedly writing about (mainly here, here, here and here). A few more high-profile articles like this one and I might be able to rest my case...

Great synthesis of KMers' current thinking

On 22nd Jan, I informed you of Colleen Carmean's PhD work on new practices in design and support of shared knowledge environments, and that I was proud and delighted to be in the shortlist of KM specialists asked to participate in her research. 

Well, Colleen has now completed the synthesis of all the participants inputs and has now posted it in a wiki for all to see. Read it! It's truly a great summary of the current thinking of KM specialists on the following 6 key concerns: 

 1. INHERENT CHARACTERISTICS of effective emergent learning environments 

2. Fostering INDEPENDENT, AS-NEEDED KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION 

3. Fostering SHARING, COLLABORATION and NETWORKING of organizational knowledge 

4. Fostering better expression and sharing of TACIT KNOWLEDGE 

5. Potential TOOLS or PRACTICES for finding, creating and encouraging organizational knowledge 

6. GREATEST PRIORITY in creating a more effective digital workplace I must agree with it all as I was given a chance to revise it before publication. 

 You can post comments here as Colleen reads my blog or here is her site.

Finding the right person to help with a problem

Here is a basic but hugely rewarding problem to resolve: “Finding and contacting the right person (or group) within an organization to help with a problem”. The problem can be anything that can benefit from the input of someone with a relevant expertise. How do you do this in an Enterprise 1.0 environment (in other words, in most organizations today)? Well, all too often you simply don’t bother trying! Why? Because you know it’s likely to cost you more resources (usually time) than you are prepared to invest, and where there is no certainty to succeed (in finding a useful soul). Furthermore, even if you did take the trouble to search and eventually find someone, there is then no guarantee this person will have the time to help you quickly enough ) or even want to help you!). So it is often easier to instead choose one of the following 3 alternatives:

• Work out the solution to your problem yourself with the people you already know and work with. In other words, you probably will reinvent the wheel.
• Seek external help and usually have to pay for it. Might be faster and more effective than doing it yourself but will probably be more expensive.
• Leave the problem unresolved and maybe find a (less efficient/effective) way around it (trust me, this option is chosen more often than you would think).

Why is it typically so difficult and taking too long to find someone with specific knowledge within an organization? For at least these 5 reasons:

• Knowledge-sharing is not part of the corporate culture, so people are not expected and not expecting to help outside their “normal” job/responsibilities (see my list of traits of a culture not conducive to knowledge-sharing here and here)
• Lack of adapted collaboration tools (Web 2.0)
• Lack of “Who has done what” or “Who knows what” repositories (and not just “who’s who”).
• The larger the company, the more difficult it is.
• The more geographically dispersed the company, the more difficult it is.

Now, this should mean that if you deal with the first 3 points above, you’re on your way to solve the problem. Yes, this is the way forward and this is what Enterprise 2.0 initiatives are supposed to do. HOWEVER, the most important point is undoubltedly the first one. If people don’t want to share/help (for different reasons) it won’t matter what bleading-edge tools you will give them access to, they won’t use them at all or not for the reasons you would like them to (of they use them because they are told to do so, you won’t get the ROI intended).

So I am suggesting that Enterprise 2.0 = Web 2.0 + a cultural change.

Also, I now think this cultural change must be initiated from the grassroots, from the people on the front lines in the organization, and not directed by the top-management. My position on this has somewhat evolved since my first post on PKM . Instead of stating that traditional KM (management-lead) must come first and then allow PKM to support it, I now believe that the opposite has more chance of success. You should encourage PKM (user-lead initiatives) and then formalize at a company level the most popular solutions (my reading of “The Mashup Corporation” book on SOA has something to do with it). This is also Google’s successful business model to focus on satisfying the user, as opposed to Microsoft that focuses on satisfying the Management. In the long run, Google’s model will win it and Microsoft will need to adapt or die.

I suppose I must thank you all...

Sorry for a bit of self gratification but I had to tell you about this.

I have been approached recently by Colleen Carmean, a PhD candidate at Capella University, researching new tools and practices in informal, just-in-time, self-regulated learning that contributes to organizational knowledge and effective business practices.

Colleen asked if I was interested in contributing to her research. I accepted with pleasure but what I really had to mention here on my blog is the fact that her research started with a selective analysis of Knowledge & Learning related sites (http://cmcarmean.googlepages.com/tappingknowledgeintheblogosphere ).

Colleen explains on her site:

“The study tapped into the Blogosphere's version of both popularity and peer review to determine trusted "experts" who are writing about:

• organizational knowledge
• organizational learning
• just in time learning
• informal learning
• emergent learning. “

Starting with 885 sites, Colleen ended up with a list of the 24 most trusted sites and guess what? This site you are reading now is among them!

So I must thank you all, regular readers of my blog, for your encouraging support.

Colleen then writes to define her objective:

“it is the intention of this study to gather knowledge on effective design and support of environments for shared knowledge via collective inquiry by community-identified and connected experts. How we can best design and support emergent learning in the creation of organizational and shared knowledge?”

I wish Colleen success for her PhD and no doubt I will write again about it.

Peter-Anthony Glick