Defining Knowledge Management

Just as there are difficulties coming up with a single definition of knowledge, so it is with identifying a single definition of the term knowledge management. Some practitioners feel it is important not to get too hung up on definitions, or indeed get embroiled in a lengthy debate about the differences between data, information and knowledge. However, if individuals are to engage in a dialogue about knowledge management then they at least need to have a working definition of what knowledge management is, within the context of their own organisation. Some definitions that I have gathered while researching in this area include:

. . . the process through which we translate the lessons learnt, residing in our individual brains, into information that everyone can use. (internal consultancy team)

. . . not just doing the existing business better, but about new business approaches to thrive in a market that is radically changing. (DERA)

. . . it is about action and change, not just about installing intranets and managing documents. (Cap Gemini).

. . . creating, managing, applying and sharing explicit knowledge (that exists typically in documents, databases and as part of processes) and tacit knowledge (embedded in people and their experience) in order to ‘make a difference’ in overcoming poverty and suffering. (Oxfam)

The Document Company – Xerox prefer to use the term Managing for Knowledge, as opposed to Knowledge Management. By this they mean

. . . creating a thriving work and learning environment that fosters the continuous creation, aggregation, use and re-use of both personal and organizational knowledge in the pursuit of new business value.

What is different about The Document Company – Xerox and the Oxfam definitions is that they link the ‘What’ and the ‘Why’ associated with managing knowledge, which at least helps people to put changes into a wider context.

Does knowledge management only apply to knowledge professionals?

Before we can answer that question we need to consider what is meant by the term knowledge worker. In her book, Managing Knowledge Workers, Frances Horibe defines knowledge workers as people who use their heads (i.e. through their ideas, analyses, judgements, or syntheses) more than their hands to produce value. She refers to traditional roles, such as R&D, management, and salespeople as being archetypal knowledge workers. Using this definition, IT professionals, HR professionals, as well as people in different creative fields, would all come under the category of knowledge workers.

Another definition is that of a knowledge worker being a worker who knows more than his/her boss about how to do their job, or can do his/her job better than the boss could (Knight and Howes, 2002). Knight and Howes point out, the notion of ‘team working’ is based around assembling people with different skills and using specialists with relevant knowledge to tackle specific projects, managed by someone who does not have the in-depth knowledge of team members. This also works both ways, in that team members will not have the same type of knowledge as their managers.

But what about individuals who work on the customer service desk in a retail environment, or work on the helpdesk in a service company, can these be considered knowledge workers? Certainly they have to make judgements about how to deal with a particular customer problem/complaint and they no doubt have ideas about how to enhance customer service, based upon their experience of dealing with customer problems and complaints day-in and dayout.

There is a danger that if we define the category of knowledge worker too narrowly then we could exclude a large number of individuals who have a lot to offer from a knowledge management perspective.

How do HR professionals see knowledge management?

Research by Vanessa Giannos (2002) identified a number of different perspectives on knowledge management among HR practitioners. These include:

Ensuring the learning acquired is shared with others within the organisation (to save re-inventing the wheel). (Consultancy)

Ensuring that the information that employees need in order to make effective and informed decisions is quickly and easily available. (dot.com company)

Ensuring the right people with the right knowledge and skills are in the right position and making the most impact. (Firm of solicitors)

Having structures, systems and processes in place that encourage and facilitate the creation of knowledge and its transfer across organisational boundaries. (Telecommunications company)

Ensuring that the knowledge held within the organisation is fully available . . . by providing the right environment, culture, structure and processes to motivate and encourage knowledge-sharing at all levels. (Educational institution)

So what then are the common themes in all of these different definitions?

• Learning

• Sharing

• Having people in the right place at the right time

• Effective decision-making

• Creativity

• Making people’s jobs easier

• Generating new business and business value

For these things to happen requires a culture where individuals are motivated enough to want to share their knowledge with others, such that they themselves grow, as well as enabling the business to grow and survive too.

Are organisations taking knowledge management seriously?

Several organisations conduct regular surveys on the state of play of knowledge management within organisations. KPMG’s

Knowledge Management Survey^[5] indicates that:

• 80 per cent of organisations have some knowledge management projects in place.

• 40 per cent of organisations have a formal KM programme in place.

• 25 per cent of organisations have appointed a Chief Knowledge Officer.

• Funding for KM activities comes from central corporate budget, followed by MIS function, then marketing.

However, findings from an annual survey of management trends by Roffey Park Institute – The Management Agenda – indicates that Knowledge Management isn’t a key business process within all organisations yet. The Management Agenda monitors and reports on trends affecting organisations and individuals within the changing workplace. The research is based on a questionnaires sent out to small, medium and large organisations drawn from all business sectors within the UK.

The key findings from the Knowledge Management section of the 2002 Management Agenda highlighted that:

• Knowledge management is a key business process in only 49 per cent of participating organisations.

• In only 45 per cent of participating organisations is knowledge management linked to key results areas.

• Only 23 per cent of participating organisations had an Executive Director with overall responsibility for knowledge management.

• Only 15 per cent of organisations reported having a Chief Knowledge Officer.

• Only 41 per cent of participating organisations have knowledge management competencies included in their competency framework.

• There is a lack of shared understanding of what knowledge management is about. Individuals commented that knowledge management hadn’t been defined within their organisation and that this led to confusion about what the organisation was trying achieve.

This confusion is echoed by one of the HR Directors that I interviewed as background to writing this book. She pointed out how, in her opinion, there is still a lot of confusion about responsibilities and accountability for knowledge management.

Confusion has arisen about who is accountable for knowledge management, because it is not the exclusive remit of IT, or HR. There are important implications for other business functions, such as marketing. Knowledge management needs to be viewed strategically by the business because of the potential impact on the bottom line. Value can be unlocked by recognising that an organisation’s knowledge pool is greater than the sum of its constituent parts.

What this particular HR Director was clear about though was that knowledge management is not a nice to have, but a business imperative, which means that HR really need to be taking knowledge management seriously:

Efficient knowledge management is about having business processes which link to organisational design and development. This is where HR needs to have a broader business focus and develop its relationship with IT and other functions.

Where is your organisation on its knowledge management journey?

Speaking at a seminar on Knowledge Management David Parlby, from KPMG, referred to five stages in an organisation’s knowledge management journey^[6]. These are represented in Table 1.2.

Table 1.2: Stages in an organisation’s knowledge management journey

Stage	Name	Characteristics
1	Knowledge-chaotic	unaware of concept no information processes no information sharing
2	Knowledge-aware	awareness of KM need some KM processes technology in place sharing information an issue
3	Knowledge-enabled	benefits of KM clear standards adopted issues relating to culture and technology
4	Knowledge-managed	integrated frameworks benefits case realised issues in previous stages overcome
5	Knowledge-centric	KM part of mission Knowledge-value recognised in market capitalisation KM integrated into culture

Getting to the knowledge-centric stage requires adopting a balanced implementation approach, combining a Mechanistic Knowledge Management approach (i.e characterised by a strong emphasis on IT solutions and organisational practices that tend to be top-down and highly prescriptive) and an Organic Knowledge Management approach (i.e. emphasis on open and evolving structures and processes, where there is a strong emphasis on the people processes).

The Organic Knowledge Management approach is felt to be more fruitful for the development of tacit knowledge. It requires an approach whereby knowledge is created through volunteering, encouraging self-organised communities, building an open environment where the motivation for knowledge sharing comes from the desire to leave some form of legacy. In this way knowledge sharing becomes a self-reinforcing activity.

Where is your organisation on its knowledge management journey?

If you feel that your organisation is at the knowledge-chaotic stage then perhaps a first step for HR would be to conduct its own internal audit. Questions that you might include are:

For The Organisation As A Whole

• Where does knowledge management fit within the organisation’s strategic plans?

• What do people in different parts of the organisation understand by the term knowledge management?

• Where do they think responsibilities for managing knowledge should rest?

• What do people see as the blocks and enablers to managing knowledge within your organisation?

• What do they think could be done to minimize the blocks and strengthen the enablers?

• What practices already exist that could be considered as helping to build the organisation’s knowledge capabilities?

• What do people know about the practices that exist within other organisations?

For Teams

• What are the things that get in the way of them performing at their best, e.g. certain types of information, tools, processes, certain organisational practices or rituals?

• How much is known about the skills, expertise and interests of team members? Where is this information held? How is it kept up-to-date?

• What practices are in place to enhance knowledge transfer within and across teams?

• How receptive are teams to learning from the experiences of others outside the team? How is this facilitated?

• What practices are in place to capitalise on individuals’ knowledge as they join, grow and move on from the team?

• What is the psychological contract between team members for developing and sharing knowledge?

For Individuals

• Where does managing knowledge fit with individuals’ concept of a career?

• How are individuals investing in themselves in order to keep their own knowledge up-to-date and in demand?

• What support/resources do individuals find most useful in developing their knowledge?

• How do individuals help others develop their knowledge?

These same questions could also be used and/or adapted when carrying out periodic evaluations of how well the organisation is managing its knowledge.

^[5]See Skyrme, D. J. (2001), Capitalizing on Knowledge, from e-business to k-business. Butterworth-Heinemann.

^[6]Parlby, D., Turning Knowledge Into Value. Knowledge Management Conference. Strategic Planning Society. October 1999.