Knowing What You Know

Knowledge is different from process. The way that we carry out our initial investigation and the way in which we create a knowledge programme are, in consequence, different. It is also an evolutionary process. The creation of a knowledge map will nearly always reveal knowledge vulnerable to loss, communities that are unsustainable, opportunities for quick wins; all of which means that the process of mapping is a process of discovery not prescription, the initiation of a series of journeys. Knowledge mapping is about creating a series of lenses through which the knowledge strategy of an organisation can be perceived. The main lenses are:

1. A mapping of knowledge objects in relationship to core organisational process or activity. This is achieved through the ASHEN model, and by creating a simple matrix to link process or activity with key knowledge assets.

2. A view of the communities and structures that possess or create knowledge, both formal and informal. The Cynefin model represents different types of community and different functions and is also a dynamic sense-making model that allows an understanding of diversity of type and function in communities.

3. An understanding of the flows of knowledge and information dependency between those communities and structures. This is provided by SNA that demonstrates the relationship between existing communities and provides clues for the stimulus or creation of new communities based on natural patterns of relationship and trust.

The three considered together allow us to chart a way forward for a knowledge management initiative, or better a portfolio of initiatives.

This is a bottom-up approach to knowing what we know. Traditional approaches based on prior determination of management goals are less effective in that they are based on partial understanding of an organisation’s knowledge. A conservative estimate of an individual’s awareness of their own knowledge is 5 per cent, and a similar percentage can be applied to an organisation’s awareness of the knowledge possessed by its members; 5 per cent of 5 per cent is a very small number! By first of all creating an awareness of an organisation’s current de facto knowledge practices, through the three lenses of ASHEN, Cynefin and SNA an organisation’s knowledge strategy can be informed by, and evolve from reality rather than attempting to achieve some idealised utopia. Utopianism has been an all too frequent companion of management initiatives from process reengineering to much current knowledge management practice.

Finally we should return to the place we started, the contrast between efficient and effective systems. Machines are efficient; we optimise the whole by optimising the parts and then reassembling them. Human systems need to be effective, which requires a degree of sub-optimal behaviour by the identities that comprise its elements. Attempts to introduce machine-like efficiency into human interactions are doomed to failure in all but the most structured of tasks. In contrast, allowing a degree of self-organisation, utilising existing patterns of meaning and trust can produce a highly effective and above all human system; but it all starts with the map. We have to know what we know, how we know it, where it is located and how it flows. We also have to be aware that like all human knowledge the map is never complete, in some cases it will be annotated with the modern equivalent of the medieval cartographer’s here be dragons and other strange beasts; such ambiguity is at the heart of human endeavour, exploration and ingenuity.