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.

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!

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.

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?

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.

Sustaining an Innovation Culture

James Todhunter did it again. He wrote a very good post to list the following "5 pillars of sustainable innovation culture":

• Executive Leadership
• Skills Development
• Innovation Infrastructure
• Network for Innovation Mentoring & Facilitation
• Internal Promotion

The first one is indeed the most important as it is a prerequisite to the other four. I would add "Recognition & Reward for innovation". People need to be encouraged to innovate, so processes must be in place to formally and fairly recognize and reward the innovators, no matter how small or localized the innovation is (so long as it contributes positively to the organiozation's performance).

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).

"The Google Enigma"

I found a very good article with the same title as this post by Nicholas G. Carr on Strategy-business.com (thanks to a post by Bertand Duperrin). Nicholas warns of the hype around Google’s model to foster innovation and the belief that it is the direct reason of its amazing success. But it could very well be more the product of its success instead of the cause as Nicholas writes. Nicholas message is not to ignore Google’s example but to be careful not to assume that the Google way is necessarily the one to follow for all businesses and in all contexts. I would like here to highlight the following two passages, both found in Nicholas’ conclusion. The first one gives the two key examples of Google strategic initiatives that businesses should reflect on seriously and use as benchmarks: “Google’s use of powerful computers to collect and make sense of the operational and customer data flowing through the Internet and other networks provides a window into the future of many industries. And, on a related note, the company has created simple but useful systems for sharing information within and between teams, a challenge that has frustrated many firms.” So, in other words, this is about knowing better your customers to serve them better and about effective and efficient internal knowledge sharing to leverage your human capital (what I’ve been writing about since my first post on this blog!). The second passage is what, according to Nicholas Carr, Google does teach us: “Above all, Google teaches us, through both its successes and its failures, that smart companies — the ones that are not only consistently innovative but consistently profitable — exhibit three qualities. They hire talented people and give them room to excel. They measure progress and results rigorously and make course adjustments quickly. And they remain disciplined in their work and their spending, curbing the instinct to do too much at once.” I don’t think that this is this is the only lesson on strategy we can retain from Google’ success, but I agree with Carr that it all relies first on hiring talented people and then making sure to continuously leverage this human capital.

“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...

The importance of culture when implementing new technology

Thanks to Bertrand Duperrin, I found out that only 6 days ago, Peter Evans-Greenwood (Cap Gemini CTO in Australia) posted on his company's very good "CTO blog" his thinking on the importance of organizational culture when implementing new technology and in particular Enterprise 2.0. Do read it. It is totally in line with my last post.

It was about SOA all along! Chapter 7

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

Chapter 7 is about the “typical” barriers to implementing SOA throughout an organization. The authors added this chapter in the 2nd edition following a suggestion by Avrami Tzur (VP of SOA at HP). I will start by saying that I was a bit disappointed with this chapter: it does literally focus on the specific resistance to SOA without considering the probable more generic reasons for this resistance. But maybe it’s me again expecting cultural issues to be mentioned everywhere! At least, this chapter has the merit of existing. I am sure Avrami was far from being the only one noticing the need for addressing this topic after reading the 1st edition of the book.

This chapter deals with the fears and needs of technologists - used to a “develop and control” centralized infrastructure – that are being asked to adapt to SOA and the flexibility, openness and informality that comes with it. These fears and needs would typically raise questions such as:

• How do I know what services are available for me to use?
• How do I know exactly what each service does?
• What happens when a service I am using is changed or upgraded?
• What happens when I have to debug an application based on services?
• How does the new world of services fit and interoperate with existing IT systems? Etc,…

Five rules are then proposed to encourage adoption of SOA:

• Use visibility to reduce fear, build trust
• Put it in writing
• Extend existing management processes to SOA
• Support new pattern of collaboration
• Provide incentives for SOA adoption
  

The authors do introduce these rules as enablers of communication and knowledge sharing. I agree. However, if your organisation has a command and control culture where knowledge sharing is not the norm (I take you back to my 16 traits of such a culture) following these 5 SOA adoption rules won’t be enough. But maybe it could be argued that a “command and control” organisation would not initiate a SOA in the first place (now that could be a topic for a lively debate).

The authors do explain that the << adoption of SOA do reflects an evolution in the skills and systems of a company >> ( I would like to add that it reflects an evolution in the organisational culture as well). This evolution is made of 3 stages: Integration, Architecture and finally Operations. I finally noted that successful SOA adoption will rely on 3 groups of people: the Enterprise Architects or designers, the Providers or builders of services, and the Consumers of these services.

It was about SOA all along! Chapter 6

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

Chapter 6 is about “Internal IT” or the effect the SOA transformation can/should have on the internal IT department/functions. With the help of a meeting with all the managers of the fictitious company Vorpal’s IT department, it explains that a SOA does not only support the informal edges of the organisation but also the formal transactional hub. What unifies it all are “the processes that flow through the business” and link “the informal processes at the edge” with “the more formal controlled processes at the hub”. It is therefore important (in order to successfully become a service-oriented organization) to adapt the company’s functional structure. The functions must mirror the key business processes that SOA has formalized.

The authors then suggest a new structure for Vorpal’s IT department. Below are the original (standard) structure followed by a new service-oriented structure:

Old:
End-user support
Development
Infrastructure (CTO)
ERP
Engineering
New:
· Composition (about defining the common services)
· Services Creation (about development of the services)
· Disruptive Innovators (about the creation of new services)
· Consolidation (about the link with the core systems)
· Services Repository (about keeping track of all the services available)

The authors do make it clear that this is only a suggested structure and that each organization would adapt it to suit their needs.

And then reorganizing the IT department around SOA is only a start. The whole organization structure should be reviewed. For example, I can see new cross-functions between sales, marketing and public relations departments: Services to a specific customer group could benefit from having a function (an individual or a team even) pulling resources from these 3 departments to better satisfy these customers no-less specific needs.

It was about SOA all along! Chapter 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was about SOA all along! Chapter 4

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

It was about SOA all along! Chapters 2 & 3

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

It was about SOA all along!

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

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

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

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

 • creating a corporate knowledge-driven culture 

• developing knowledge workers through senior management leadership 

• delivering knowledge-based products/solutions 

• maximizing enterprise intellectual capital

 • creating an environment for collaborative knowledge sharing 

• creating a learning organization 

• delivering value based on customer knowledge

 • transforming enterprise knowledge into shareholder value 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sarkozy’s goal-driven government structure

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

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

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

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

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

http://leveragingknowledge.blogspot.com

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

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