Is technology necessary for Knowledge Management?
Posted by Arjun ThomasWe’ve discussed a number of facets to Knowledge Management and one of the biggest is technology. Now, while a portion of you practicing KM out there might feel that technology has no place in KM i still feel that in this day and age creating a robust technology platform that can support a KM initiative is one of the most important milestones you can set for your company.
Let me be very clear about the meaning of my statement above, technology is not Knowledge Management. However I’ve seen a number of cases where a warped understanding of the term “Knowledge Management” have led a large number of companies to re-christen their information system initiatives under this umbrella. This aside, i do feel very strongly that unless you have a strong technology framework your KM initiative will not be as widespread as it should.
A prime example would be in the area of communications. The single biggest challenge to sharing knowledge in any organization are its barriers to communication. Once you’ve opened those up knowledge automatically starts flowing.
Technology helps overcome personal limitations as well. A considerably large number of people are not very outspoken in the work place these people are just as smart, if not more, than the outspoken ones. Creating a communications framework to allow them to contribute should be an organization wide goal. A technology solution, something as simple as a discussion board, would solve this problem almost instantaneously.
One thing that you need to keep in mind when creating a technology framework is, do NOT over-engineer. While you might build the most advanced KM system, at the end of the day what determines the application’s success is how well its received by the end-users. Engineer the system around their requirements and there is a good chance you’ll walk away with an application that truly helps with knowledge management.
Companies around the world have started realizing how using newer emerging technologies can help in achieving business goals. Social networking tools have been enormously successful with creating platforms for knowledge sharing.
In the posts ahead we will address how you can use existing tools within your organization as platforms to address your projects knowledge management needs.
Related posts:
Nick Milton says:
Good post, thanks
Andre Pulido says:
Building upon what was said here, the failure to communicate is indicative of a culture that does not foster nor value a worker’s knowledge. It’s only when an organization values it’s workers and customers that culture of knowledge sharing can exist. So to me culture is more important that technology anytime. In my humble opinion.
Arjun Thomas says:
Andre,
You hit the nail on the head, KM is more about culture than anything else. It takes a lot of effort to foster a rich knowledge sharing culture within an organization.
jean-luc ramboz says:
Fully agree with all the above .. Technology can and will be of great help in starting the KM Journey … and providing a toolkit without ensuring that the organization understandhas the What and the Why of this effort will lead to failure. Yes it is a lot about Culture and Culture is closely linked to Behavior. If it is difficult to figure out how to create a new Enterprise Culture, it is much easier to list the fundamental processes that are mandatory for a successful KM Journey. With those, you get one of the important key to influence Behavior and to start building a more Knowledge Oriented Culture in your Enterprise. As you may understand, such initiatives are more a Journey than a Project.
Martijn van Beek says:
Hi Arjun, nice post.
I like the way you tie in the communication possibilities to the fact that some employees are not as outspoken as others. I wonder though, if more possibilities to communicate, even in a less personal way as via a communications platform, will help those employees. I think there is still a threshold for people to take, to publically share their opinions/knowledge, certainly if you take into account that maybe their contributions can be watched, commented and critizised by a large number of (maybe) anonymous co-workers. Some people just don’t speak up. It’s the attitude/confidence/assertiveness that should be adressed.
Furthermore, I question if this is an issue that should be adressed by KM-workers?
Finally, I’d like to say that i.m.o. the question should be, “how do we reach our (KM) goals?” If the solution to the answer in a specific case/setting is technology, then technology it will be. Technology may not be the holy grail, but trying to stay away from it, for whatever reason isn’t either.
Raghavan says:
Hi
KM in totality includes the people, process and technology.KM can get accelerated if the communication part gets benfits from the technology elelment of the KM – as most of writers have commented.
Technology is not necessary for KM as KM has been practised for ages when there was no technology.
Sujata says:
Off course Yes, It is techno-driven society. So KM professionals should use it as platform to deliver best of the best to the organization. Technology gives opportunity to expedite innovative solutions to stay and excel in this competitive environment; also to facilitate the knowledge retaining as well as sharing across the boundaries (Irrespective of time, distance) and I really believe that, most up-to-date technical knowledge and expertise open up avenues for all of us to access the accumulated knowledge in universe and to use it at optimal level.
Alan O'Neill says:
In my opinion Knowledge Management is about what you do with the Knowledge. Knowledge has been shared and passed on for thousands and thousands of years, via cave paintings, pictures, books, dance, stories, hand signals and demonstrations long before the so called ‘technology’ even came into existence; so in reality you can do Knowledge Management without technology.
Culture is also extremely important (and as this is discussed above I will not elaborate further).
In practice though, not adopting technology will severely limit the effectiveness of any Knowledge Management capability so I think that it is important, although not necessary.
Martijn van Beek says:
@Alan: wouldn’t you agree that a painting brush, pencils or books could qualify as technology, in ancient times even as high-tech :-)
Just to argue that I don’t understand this holdback on technology. If the tools do the job, use them.
Stephaan Van Damme says:
All,
I find the discussion quite useless. As martijn points out, every way to communicate means using a technique. From cave painting to e-mail, all techniques must be mastered. Nowadays we consider a high-tech solution nearly automatically as the best solution. Though we all know that this is not always the case. As pointed out above, one really should apply the technology best fitted for the situation at hand. Even if this means painting cave walls.
Alan O'Neill says:
Firstly to answer Martijn, yes they would have been technology. And Stephaan’s point is also correct and I agree totally.
My point was meant to reflect that Knowledge Management can be undertaken without a high tech solution. As I stated, and I also tell potential clients, a high tech solution will make storage, retrieval, searching, deployment, etc., so much easier and quicker. However, I have been working with a Specialist Sports-car company doing Knowledge Capture/Learning from Experience exercises and it is captured on paper and they have benefited from that! The next stage will probably be the high tech route. I have also been working with a small construction company and they are practising Knowledge Management (without knowing it!) using paper and informal methods.
My message is don’t get hung up on the delivery mechanism, focus on the output – achieving Knowledge Management.
Alan O'Neill says:
A P.S. to my last comment, I do not find these discussions useless, just the opposite. Any means of making Knowledge Management easier to understand, stimulate greater acceptance, make it easier to implement has got to be the way forward.
Udayan says:
Nice post and a good discussion! (at least to me).
The question here – as I think – should not be whether or not technology is a must for KM, but rather, are we really clear on our definitions of the term ‘technology’? My point is, technology has been there for ages, and it will be for ages too (I hope). The post-mail still does work well, even we do have electronic-mail (e-mail) now. But since we are finding that communications are more easier for us with email, we are now used to it.
So is the case with KM and technology. KM existed in different forms even without the existence of modern electronic technologies (email, cms, web etc). However, as most of the communications (business, personal or organizational) now occur electronically than in the traditional forms, the need for the electronic technology for KM becomes inevitable, as KM not only deals with collection of information/knowledge but also with sharing to those who are in need.
Kyoji Takakusaki says:
We are not agreed on the definition of KM. KM has many faces. One picks up one of the aspects, other picks another, ….., and so on. Throughout the discussion, KM is not defined and in a way it is impossible to define it.
For instance, in the context of project management, most of you see KM as a process of communication. Culture is by definition a pattern of communication. Technology makes tools, but to use them, we have to modify our way to communicate, including share.
Here, we have to focus on “knowledge” and its scope. In project management context, often knowledge is a “pattern” or “process (procedure)”, namely, how we can do it better. You will not agree on this definition. Knowledge can be discussed in a broader scope.
Most of you discussed “Management” of knowledge. Colletion, storage, sharing, and so on. For this paticular aspect, there are many hi-tech tools developed in the last decade. Above all, however, sharing has the most important implication. We have to recognize knowledge as knowledge, to begin with. This recognition process is very context sensitive. In many cases, knowledge embedded in culture is difficult to recognize as such. Sharing is an exposure to different contexts/culture. So sharing sometimes generates a new idea, while it primarily aims at increasing organizational learning capacity.
Alan O'Neill says:
I agree with Kyoji’s comments about the ‘what is knowledge’, and I think this is why Knowledge Management has not been more widely adopted, or accepted. To know how to manage Knowledge, you need to know what the Knowledge is. In defining knowledge, I advise clients that a good starting point is to identify if there are any key areas of the business that reside soley in the ‘mind’ of an individual, i.e., expertise, and then what would happen to the business if that individual left with their ‘expertise/knowledge’, or worse died). What impact would this have on the business? I have placed a two slide power-point feature with notes on Linked-in, it is what I use with clients to demonstrate what is Knowledge please take a look – it is labelled the Knowledge Hierarchy; http://www.linkedin.com/myprofile?trk=hb_side_pro.
Alan O'Neill says:
An addition to the above regarding the presentation. There are notes associated with it and you will need to download and save the file to read the notes.
Stephaan Van Damme says:
Alan, I would very much like to watch the slides, but the link guides my to my own linkedin profile.
As for the discussion, I fully agree with Kyoji. Finding out what is particular knowledge of an individual can help to identify knowledge, but as soon as you share it, it is transformed into something else, depending on the person on the reception side.
We all know the game where we whisper a sentence in someone’s ear, who has to whisper it in another ear and so on. The truth from the beginning is not the same as at the end. This can be easily dealt with by using a piece of paper or by a recording.
Still the question remains: is the input, the knowledge passed, truely the knowledge that is meant to pass. Testing the receivers and correcting them, is a good approach I believe, since testing can single out cultural misunderstandings and level them, no? Question remaining: how often is one to test the reception of the information passed?
I hope I am still contributing?
Alan O'Neill says:
Stephaan, go to my profile on Linkedin you should be able to get me from my name. The presentations are towards the bottom of the page. Download them and look at the supporting notes. I can understand what you are saying. In my experience about 70% of any piece of Knowledge is transferred, due to context, interpretation, actually experiencing it, etc., and the person receiving it will personalise, interpret differently, etc. But if by capturing and passing on 70% of any given piece of knowledge then an individual is more capable, avoids mistakes, greater fulfilled, motivated, etc, etc, then it is better than no knowledge at all. If you have any problems with the slides drop me an e-mail at alan@knowledgepad.co.uk.
A Knowledge Management Fable | Project Management Tips says:
[...] the lengthy discussion on one of my previous posts is anything to go by there is still a lot of disagreement around the [...]
Does KM work for you? | Project Management Tips says:
[...] post on whether technology is necessary for Knowledge Management sparked of a rather interesting debate and if the multiple lines of thought are anything to go by [...]