Jack Vinson's thoughts on Knowledge Management

I've been reading a lot of Jack Vinson's blogs on knowledge management and always found him to be a pragmatic knowledge manager. I'm pleased to see he's been quoted by Stan Garfield over at Hewlett Packard - who asked him what words of wisdom he'd want to pass on.

Jack has two points that he makes that chime in closely with mine

Words of wisdom on KM:

• It's not about the knowledge, it's about connecting people who have useful information to those who need it - whether you connect them face-to-face, or it is mediated via technology (and time).
  
• It is very easy to get locked into one method of doing knowledge management. Be curious about options for KM. Test things out, ask your colleagues. Then make your decisions as they work in your environment."

I've always believed that people are the most important element in knowledge management, but I am excited by the range of potential options that are available for firms to use - if they are brave and trust their staff. It reminds me of the conversations that I had when the Internet was in it's infancy and I campaigned with managers to allow it in. They felt that people would goof off and productivity would suffer. It didn't because people used it to access information that they recycled.

The second one is all too easy to get sucked into. The danger of a one size fits all paradigm - there are always some options and try to devise a system that is flexible and meets the internal communities needs. They may not always work first time out - but it is always a learning experience that we can use for version 2.

Team Working and Lawyers - follow up to tonights earlier post

Thank you to a Strategic Legal Technology post from Ron Friedman this evening. 

One of the snippets posted covered recent comments by Jordan Furlong about law schools and team work (and the lack of it). 

I'd always considered that it was law firms and their culture that tended to drum team working out of its trainees but it apparently happens earlier in the law schools. (I'm sure not all law firms are that way - though from reading some of the blawgs and reading Legal Week I'm not so sure now)

When I was studying some of my happiest times where when I was talking to fellow students from all over the world and gaining new insights that I would never have had in the first place - if they hadn't been so open and hopefully they felt that I contributed as well.

Knowledge sharing is an entree into the world of innovation if we have or are allowed to make time for it as well as having a good team working relationship. 

Anyway click on the title of this post to read the article

The future challenge to knowledge management

I've been catching up with some reading this weekend. The front cover of the Economist is titled "The Great American slowdown' and that they consider that the American economy has slipped into recession. and that the American consumer is in no fit state to start picking up the baton and start spending, in fact they are starting to re trench. I don't think that the recession will be deep but in America and for the world it might be long. However, I think that the concept of economic decoupling might mean that the recession is likely to be uneven in its impact especially in India and China.

I was then reading an article in Legal Week covering knowledge management - side by side with an interesting article by Bruce MacEwen over at Adam Smith who comments on the economics of law firms.

This has started to posit a thought in my mind regarding knowledge management in organisations as a whole. The thought is this - is a recession in the world economy going to help or hinder knowledge management in organisations.

One of the areas that I have studied is the lack of time that people have to share knowledge within their organisations - now you would argue that as a recession bites that a wise management would work with people and encourage them to replenish the organisations knowledge banks to make up for the reduction of work volumes and also start to develop both client and internal knowledge networks.

However if you have an economic model of business that charges according to time spent on a matter, and rigidly keep to it, then if those people don't hit the targets and you decide to lose them, then you take a double hit a loss of potential fee earning when the economy turns up as well as a loss of knowledge. 

I'd be taking the hit in term of fee income but retaining people for the turn up and for those areas which aren't so busy ensure that they are updating their knowledge banks, more training, increased mentoring and those all important client and social networks so that they have got the reserves to draw upon to become better problem solvers both internally and externally.

Of course if you start to make people redundant , then you send a message that you keep working as hard as you did and that sharing knowledge still isn't on the managements agenda be it good times or bad times. This leeches into the organisations culture and then future knowledge sharing becomes more difficult because of the Hawthorne effect described by Roethlisberger and Mayo.

In a recession, because of the fear of redundancy, most people traditionally will decide to hoard knowledge, thinking that this is the way to stay safe by concentrating on their own work silo rather than helping colleagues by sharing knowledge. Will managers reward those who share knowledge or those who hoard - the decision is up to senior management to decide which side they choose to reward.  People surely should not be measured in how many hours that they work in a week, but in how the solve a clients problems and work with their fellow colleagues both as people but also by sharing knowledge for the betterment of all.

At the end of the day people learn that sharing knowledge isn't a core concern of the organisation and because of this learn not to share knowledge within their organisation and that being homo economicus - the return on investment does not match the original investment. 

However people are not wholly economic animals and even Adam Smith recognised this when he said 'that an individual stands at all times in need of the co-operation and assistance of great multitudes'  He also states in Moral sentiments with a quote on which our well being in the future might depend " How selfish so ever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others and render their happiness to him, though he derives nothing from it." 

I talk about reciprocal altruism, and believe that people do share knowledge even though they might gain nothing from it now - they share it because of care for a fellow human being and for me the ability to look into a mirror and see the person my parents wished me to be and that ones active principles should be that of generosity.

 Though I recognise that the temptation in troubled times must be immense not to share knowledge with a colleague who you suddenly see as a competitor and that you may have to fight figuratively speaking to save your job, your standard of living of you and possibly your family. 

Does knowledge sharing go even more backward in your thoughts at this time or do you have enlightened management that supports knowledge management in tough times recognising it as an investment in the future of the organisation or do they see it as an easy target for budget cuts a nice to have rather than a core necessity. It is a long term change for senior management in any professional services environment and I don't think that any one management theorist has all the answers - but it is a challenge that we need to address to keep our organisations going in the future.

Upcoming articles

I was reading an article over the weekend by Dan Roam covering the use of visual thinking to solve problems. 

As a mind mapper I know how an image can be used instead of a memo to convey ideas. I use Mind Map on my Mac but not as yet at my current workplace. 

I'll be interested to see if there are any insights that Dan has and be sure to post them in due course. I'm also reading an article on trust and as a knowledge manager, this is an area that I examined in my thesis and has been a subject of past blogs - if you click on the title of this post it will take you to one of my favourite posts.

Genchi Genbestsu Chinese Sages and Communities of practice

A friend of mine sent in a piece that they picked up off another blog (sorry no link provided - but thank you Jim)

It relates to a chinese saying and as it approaches the Chinese new year, i thought that this was quite apposite.

Go to the People
Live with them
Learn from them,
Love them.

Start with what they know,
Build with what they have.
But with the best leaders
When the work is done
the task is accomplished
The people will say,
‘We have done this ourselves.’

This is a good thought to how an internal community of practice should work. Provide people with the tools either through a wiki or a blog, help them set it up provide them with a framework to capture knowledge, through storytelling etc, but also empower them to self explore and to come to realisations themselves and to internalise it.

I wass thinking about this and what I call the curious cat approach to management (yes I know what happens to curious cats) or as the Japanese call it genchi genbetsu which is to go and talk to people and go and observe the situation at first hand which helps you to define the problem and to hopefully refine the solution. It's not always possible but within COP's they are because they are closer to the problem and then able to design a solution.

i've always beleived that people when they have been involved and have a handle in designing the solution can reach that last line.

I'm planning to listen over the weekend to some recent downloads of podcasts from a few of the business schools so I plan to post some comments next week.

Gung Hei Fat Choy

Difficult people can be your best supporters!

I was asked in a discussion on Monday about how I dealt with change with difficult people. After discussing this I was reminded of a quote that I read recently by Lynette Chiang of Bike People who said "Difficult people who become believers end up your biggest evangelists."

I found that in one area where there was a senior manager who didn't believe in the power of the internet to change the way we did business.

After exploring the issues, explaining the rationale, listening to concerns and promising proof in three months - once that proof was delivered in two months that manager became my biggest ally.

McKinsey on Management practices that work - lessons for knowledge managers

Recently received some information from McKinsey on the subject of what makes companies perform well. They studied and reviewed over 100,000 questionnaires to uncover the practices of 400 business units in 230 companies around the world. Unfortunately, it doesn't say how many of these were knowledge based organisations - but one can imagine that there was a goodly percentage.

The analysis eventually discovered a common winning combination: They were

1. clear roles for employees (accountability), 
2. a compelling vision of change (direction), 
3. and an environment that encourages openness, trust, and challenge (culture). 

Apparently no other option came close in improving organisational performance.

What’s more, the study found that organisational and financial performance correlate directly. An analysis of a global energy group’s production facilities, for example, suggested that for a facility of typical size and margins, better organisational performance had a payoff of $25 million to $30 million. Whilst this doesn't directly extrapolate to say a professional service firm - energy groups have been fairly successful in delivering returns on knowledge management. 

I was particularly interested in point no 3 as if that type of culture is truly in operation then it is likely that knowledge sharing in an organisation will flourish. 

Also it needs courage from the leaders not to abandon the way forward when the transition to a new way of working and performance may suffer slightly whilst your team are developing new ways of knowledge sharing. 

It also does not take into account the concept of tight and loose coupling as mentioned by John Roberts within an organisational structure and my next post will be on this concept.

However one area that is lacking is in disciplined experimentation and an ability to fail. I've always found that if we are allowed to fail responsibly we not only learn lessons but can pass those lessons on to fellow co-workers.

Although an interesting article, I feel that it needs to perhaps extend this research to the knowledge based organisation.

Thought for a Friday afternoon and a response

From Jeffrey Pfeffer

"Everybody has equal access to knowledge - however not everyone acts on it which gives an organisation competitive advantage"

I also read a great article from Bruce MacEwen who writes the excellent Adam Smith Blog on Knowledge Management. I wrote back to him and he was kind to post my response which is here but if you want to read it in full then click here .

I notice that there is a comment from another reader and I'd like to comment a little.

To me yes there are hidebound firms - but I do agree with his comments regarding altruism and have seen people that do give information for no desire for reward but academic research has shown that people do expect reciprocal altruism - or as I call it the God father approach to KM. 

I also don't believe that the PSL is dying out, I feel that the role needs to change and this is agreed by the reader who is looking at the role of the PSL in his firm and that the old style PSL who just does research will diminish and disappear. They will have to add value to the process and get involved in value added processes such as say an employment PSL running training course for particular clients. However, I think that firms will have to review their PSL's career paths - something I see this week Herbert Smith have started to do.

I have also read 'The Modern Firm" by John Roberts and also have read The Wealth of Nations so am fully aware of Adam Smith's views expressed in his work on Moral Sentiments and Wealth. 

My view is that if law firms or any other organisation wish to survive, then they will need to adapt and allow their employees and the organisations they serve to be able to create knowledge, capture that knowledge, connecting people and then finding ways to circulate that knowledge.  

One quote is quite apposite from Adam Smith "How selfish soever man may be supposed there are evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others and render their happiness necessary to him though he derives nothing from it.

Be sure your sins may find you out

No post for the last few days as I've been somewhat busy doing the last minute arrangements for my wedding to Sandy in a few weeks time. However I've been reading a recent article in HBR in a case study about a promising candidate for a position with a multinational firm in China. A google search turns up that a few years ago she was involved in a active protest about China. It is interesting to see that recent letters that Hillary Clinton wrote during her teens at high school. Will this mean that in say 10 years time political analysts and employers will be trawling via Googlesoft or whatever is the dominant search engine to see what youthful indiscretions were posted on Facespace or other social networking site that they can use to discredit a candidate be it for political office or maybe for a senior position within an organisation.

To my mind, what we did as an individual 20 years ago and wrote down aren't an indication of the person that we are now - I know that I'm not. The danger is that people without a past tend to be innocuous and bland - and the leaders of the future will need to make hard and more far reaching decisions than they have had to in the past and deal with issues as yet unthought of.

Leaders and managers have had a past and have been involved in posting those thoughts to my mind in an effort to spread knowledge and to add their thoughts to the debate. Those are the people that I would want in my organisation and decisions are made by those who show up and contribute to the debate not those that hang back. I learnt from my father a long time ago that if people make a mistake, then accept it, learn from it and move on - don't hold the mistake against people for ever otherwise you get a person who will be overly cautious.

Trust - the key element.

Just a short entry tonight as I'm waiting for Sandy to come back from a shopping expedition with her relatives. I've banged on about trust in terms of knowledge sharing. However, I was wondering about a larger question today - trust in our leaders. When I lived in South Africa we listened for unbiased news to the BBC and over the years the BBC was seen as a paragon of virtue.

The trust that is built up in people or organisations can take a long time to develop but like the walls of Jericho can collapse ever so easily. I think that the reaction of people to the scandal about editing and the phony phone ins have made a massive dent in peoples perceptions of the BBC and the perception that it is different because it's not commercial.

Also I'm glad in a world where I can get information from a variety of sources and although it may be conflicting or wrong - I do find that through that variety more truth shines through. This search for variety isn't new.

The Greek writer Herodotus 2500 years ago believed in ther simple art of asking one source a question and then asking another and compare the answer. He also taught the value of self doubt and a rabid sense of curiosity that is not easily satisfied. Maybe we as knowledge managers should learn to walk about and talk to people to look and to listen.

I have been criticised for walking about and practising these but I beleive that not only do they develop the social networks but we can observe what is going on and not what superiors are telling us are going on.

The other is trust in our leaders - I think that the news today regarding the CPS not finding anyone to prosecute in the cash for honours scandal (at least it hasn't been cliched with a 'gate') will be met with a weary shrug of the shoulders and the stock of our elected leaders will take another lurch lower.

As another blogger points out in a blog today 20/07 Guido Fawkes points out about the link between the number of peers created and how many were donors to the Labour party.

Trust in an organisation is key to knowledge sharing and if there is no trust in the leaders of the organisation this I then believe percolates down the organisation. If there is trahison de clercs at the top of the social society does that effect us as people.

I hope not and I think not. Just a thought on a late Friday night. I'm reading an article on talent in organisations and I hope to post a comment over the weekend.