What's the Opposite of a Knowledge Culture?

We're living in interesting times, as far as KM, knowledge services, and the knowledge culture are concerned.

In the workplace, we focus on developing and sustaining the organization or the corporation as a knowledge culture. And we give much attention to the role of the information or knowledge services professional as the natural knowledge thought leader for the organization, as the responsible employee who smooths the progress toward the knowledge culture.

All good stuff, right?

And all based on a number of assumptions, such as "knowledge is good," "the more we know the better our chances of success," "the knowing organization is automatically going to beat out the competition," etc.

And perhaps the most popular assumption of all: "every organization has a knowledge culture, because all the people in the organization know something."

Well, yes. But isn't that the crux of the matter? It's not that those of us affiliated with the organization or the corporation don't know anything. It's just that there are so many distractions - so many paths, you might say, away from the knowledge culture - it becomes very difficult to get to where we need to go. We can't quite reach that knowledge development/knowledge sharing (KD/KS) state that ensures our work will be successful.

So instead of thinking about the attributes of the knowledge culture that lead to organizational success (attributes identified in a number of places, including work done at this company), what if we went in the opposite direction? What if we thought about the attributes that prevent the development of a knowledge culture? Or impede the organization's success in sustaining a knowledge culture?

We might begin with human nature. In his helpful description of how Western philosophy was developed, Thomas Cahill writes about how, once knowledge was no longer the sole province of scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers and started to include attention to human nature and a "close consideration" of human affairs, new principles about knowledge, about how knowledge is used to guide humanity came into the picture (the reference is to Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea: Why the Greeks Matter). Built into that close consideration should be, it seems to me, attention to the role of the worker and - for our discussion - the role of the knowledge worker in relation to that of other workers affiliated with the larger organization.

What are the impediments to the knowledge culture? What constitutes an organization that is the opposite of a knowlege culture? If we take the organization apart, recognizing that an organization is, at its most basic level, a group of people working together, we soon come to realize that it is indeed human nature where we must focus our energies.

For example, we speak about the importance, indeed the necessity of collaboration in the knowledge culture and about how collaboration, transparency, and a respect for KD/KS are built in, are part of the management framework of the organization that is structured as a knowledge culture.

Are they present in the organization or company where you are employed? How do people feel about collaboration, about being open about their work (unless there is a valid reason or requirement for privacy, as with security or proprietary information), about sharing the knowledge they develop in the workplace?

When these attributes are not present, yes, the company might still succeed in achieving its organizational mission, but that success is realized not as the result or effect of a well-managed KD/KS process. In these cases, success comes in spite of the lack of KD/KS. In other words, those affiliated with the organization who make success happen learn to work around the lack of a well-managed KD/KS process, recognizing that they are working in an organization that can be characterized as - and which if they think about it they very likely characterize - as the opposite of a knowledge culture. It's a situation ripe for intervention, and the knowledge professional who identifies that he or she is working in such an organization is provided with a splendid opportunity to get things on track.

KM/Knowledge Services in the Legal Profession

For many of us who contribute to this discussion - or others like it - our concepts about KM and knowledge services in the legal profession are pretty much limited to our experiences or connections with law librarianship. Yet we're speaking much these days (and for me and my nearest-and-dearest) about collaboration and the integration of KM/knowledge services throughout the larger organization, regardless of the particular focus of any single business unit.

Where else in law firms - that is, in what other functional units - are we seeing KM/knowledge services integration taking place? Perhaps we'll find out soon, for I've just put a notice on the discussion board for our new KMKS Alumni & Interest Group at LinkedIn (feel free to join - always looking for interesting participants). I've asked law librarians at the AALL Conference in Washington to be on the lookout for KM/knowledge services themes.

All of us in this field would like to know what's going on in law firms with respect to knowledge development and knowledge sharing, but we particularly want to know what's happening beyond the law library. I know of some information/knowledge managers who have transitioned from the law library to other types of management positions in law firms, and they are working hard to bring along some of the professional tools and techniques from law librarianship to their new positions.

So there are linkages here, connections that can be of value to all of us, if integration is truly our goal (and surely it is, at this point).

And there is evidence that some good work is being done in this area. Last year I was privileged to facilitate a summit meeting on the future of KM in legal librarianship for EOS International. At the summit, attractive predictions were shared, both theoretical insights and practical observations (particularly, with the latter, the increasingly recognized value of identifying and exploiting - in the positive sense of the word - the sponsorship of senior staff in the firm). Obviously this is an important progression toward the further integration of KM and knowledge services throughout the firm. I wonder what some of the others might be. And how they can be adapted in other environments.

On August 10, we begin the next course in the Click U KM/Knowledge Services Program. This one is PKM (Personal Knowledge Management) and the Mission-Specific Focus, and our goal is to connect our PKM skills with what happens in the larger organization. I am sure there are PKM best practices in law firms that we could latch on to, enabling our work to be further integrated into that of the larger enterprise. What might they be?

Thinking About... The Knowledge Thought Leader

If knowledge workers aspire to be knowledge thought leaders for the organizations in which they are employed, how do they go about it? Is there a list of qualifications or attributes that define the knowledge thought leader?

It's no struggle to find a few. Simply by defining the terms we can move forward in identifying some of the attributes of a knowledge thought leader. First of all, as someone once wrote (Peter Drucker?), a leader is someone who has followers, so perhaps a quick way to define a knowledge thought leader is to look around. In terms of KM/knowledge services/managing the organization as a knowledge culture, who's being listened to? Who is the "go-to" person for issues, questions, intellectually provocative conversations relating to KM and knowledge services? Is there such a person who can be identified (if there isn't I would question the organization's commitment to the value of knowledge in organizational effectiveness - if knowledge isn't being shared, I'm not sure knowledge is important to the company)?

A second attribute might be visibility. Not speaking about popularity here. Lots of folks are popular but you wouldn't go to them for guidance when you have a question about how to handle a particular knowledge development/knowledge sharing (KD/KS) situation. A knowledge leader is probably known to a lot of people as just that, a recognized leader in the organization who is known for his or her skill in managing knowledge-related situations.

If you were looking (all other things being equal) to identify the perfect knowledge thought leader for your company or organization, what would you be looking for? What do you define a knowledge thought leaders?

Social Media - Answering Those Questions

If you are employed in a KM/knowledge services business unit, and if your situation is like most, you're spending a lot of time speaking with clients about social media.

"What is it?" they're asking. "How do we use it?" "Why is it important?"

There is help at hand.

Big Duck, a company that works with nonprofit organizations to transform the way they communicate, is sponsoring a webinar next Wednesday. Called "Social Media - Is It For Your Organization?" you can find information and register here.

There will be some answers for those times we try to explain about social media to our colleagues in the organization.

Also check out a link Big Duck has shared, to a good video from Common Craft on the topic. Take a look at "Social Media in Plain English." You (and your clients) will have some fun with this.

What's the Environment for the Knowledge Culture?

The concepts relating to building and when built, to sustaining the corporate knowledge culture continue to intrigue.

Today I'm getting ready to start a new course in the subject - connecting the knowledge culture with leadership and the management of knowledge services - and as always, I'm curious about what drives us as we think about this critical subject.

[If anyone wants to sign up and start a little late, the course, which begins at 3:00 PM ET, is Click U's The Knowledge Culture: Leadership and Knowledge Services. The lectures - all online - are recorded and available for re-play if you don't participate in real time.]

My focus these days (in class and out) is on trying to figure out where the "push" comes from.

Knowledge is like the flag and mom and apple pie. No one is going to say that knowledge is a bad thing (well, except for Alexander Pope's comment about a little of it being dangerous, and he actually uses "learning" rather than "knowledge"). But to get people to actually give attention to how they collect, retain, use, and preserve knowledge assets is a challenge.

I've written about the knowledge culture (both in the last two chapters and the Epilogue of SLA's Centennial History and in the SMR Management Action Plan on Building the Knowledge Culture that Dale Stanley and I wrote) and I have some ideas, but I think other people have ideas, too. And probably different ideas. What are they?

Does the drive come from management? Don't think so. A knowledge culture cannot be imposed, and while management can enable a move toward a knowledge culture by supporting and recognizing successful change that comes about from good KD/KS practices, doesn't the true success of the knowledge culture come from all the other organizational stakeholders?

And if that's the case, how do people desire and commit to good KD/KS practices? It's not just professional development, training, and collegial conversation, is it? What makes the knowledge culture happen?

IT or KM?

Two posts at other blogs have caught my attention, and since our goal here at SMR Int'l is to be provocative, let's see what they say about this whole idea of moving KM, knowledge services, and the support of the knowledge culture beyond the professional and academic and out into the workplace, as I've written about in earlier posts.

A colleague sends along Greg Lambert's fascinating piece Has "IT" Killed "KM"? and in his comment on another subject, Alex Feng puts forward very clear distinctions between the work of information professionals and that done by knowledge professionals (what I call "knowledge professionals," generally characterizing these knowledge workers as "knowledge thought leaders" for their employing organizations).

So the question seems to be one of both collaboration with other information- knowledge- and/or learning-related business functions and moving away from concepts and processes that inhibit the successful interaction of knowledge professionals with others in the workplace. If these colleagues require some sort of assistance, conversation, etc. as they seek to create and use knowledge, I'm not sure IT in and of itself can guarantee success. And indeed, if IT has in fact transitioned KM into nothing more than tools and those famous "pipelines," the battle might be lost.

But I'm not so sure. When I think about the people I know who are successfully performing KM - as a business function - in their organizations, I think the collaborative role kicks in, and it's those interactions with others that keep KM alive. Think about how we define knowledge services (the whole convergence idea, the convergence of information management, knowledge management, and strategic learning). Isn't that what keeps this work from becoming only an IT function?

The Knowledge Worker Redux (2): How We Got Here

It’s been – and continues to be – a fantastic journey, this quest for KM, knowledge services, and building and sustaining the corporate knowledge culture.

And in many respects, we’ve been pretty successful. From our perspective (that is, from the perspective of the information managers, knowledge managers, and strategic learning specialists who focus professionally on these subjects), we’re pretty much there now.

Thanks to 40+ years of wrestling with how we can apply knowledge most effectively, to ensure that our employing organizations achieve their defined organizational mission, and thanks to all the academicians, theoreticians, specialists in organizational development (which today we generally refer to as organizational effectiveness), a large population of professionals now discusses KM, knowledge services, and the knowledge culture with considerable ease and sometimes considerable passion.

And since Thomas A. Stewart identified intellectual capital as a corporate asset in the 1990s, positioning intellectual capital right up there with financial assets and all the other corporate assets, the concept of the “knowledge economy” seems to have come into its own.

The challenge now is to move the subject from the academic and the theoretical into what I’ve begun to think of as the real workplace. There is an enormous population out there doing just this kind of work, dealing with knowledge in the workplace on a daily basis, in millions of offices and who knows how many remote locations.

But is all this work being done well? Can't it be done better? Why do we still hear stories about this deal being lost because somebody didn’t know something? Or that legal action being taken because somebody didn’t understand that there was a format, a regulation, a frame of reference that should have been identified? How can this work be done better?

Our struggle these days is how to get past what we know about knowledge and “working with knowledge” (as Larry Prusak defines KM) and move into that larger workplace, getting what we’ve learned to that population of workers who are not information professionals, knowledge services specialists, corporate archivists, specialist librarians, records and information management professionals.

How do we translate what is being done in the academy and by the many KM theorists (affiliated with the academia or not) into every office and every workplace? Is there some secret formula we’re missing? If we are the “knowledge thought leaders” in our organizations, as many of us think of ourselves, how do we take the expertise of the knowledge thought leader and move it beyond our own work into that of every employee of the organization?

Knowledge Worker Redux

About forty years ago, Peter Drucker brought the idea of the knowledge worker to the workplace. Defining the knowledge worker as someone who works primarily with information and/or who develops and uses knowledge in the workplace, Drucker pushed the whole discipline of organizational management into a new space.

It was the beginning of a new age, an age in which workers moved from working with their hands (agriculture, industry) to working with their minds. What a concept! And what a splendid opportunity for the educated worker who wanted to think about his or her work while pursuing a paycheck!

We know the basics:

• If an organization is to succeed, it must be structured and managed as a knowledge culture
• Knowledge services is the organizational management methodology that converges information management, knowledge management (KM), and strategic learning
• The knowledge culture builds on and is supported by knowledge services

Understanding this, we’ve become pretty skilled at dealing with knowledge in the workplace. We know what knowledge is (although many of us define it differently), and since we’re trying to deal with knowledge in an organizational or business management framework, many people – as we do at our company – make defining knowledge a little easier by thinking about knowledge in terms of knowledge assets. It's not uncommon in management circles these days to hear people speaking about knowledge assets (and, yes, SMR International has given attention to the subject, in a white paper published in December, 2008). At our company, we define a knowledge asset as “any collected information or knowledge within the larger enterprise that is used to help the organization achieve its goals.” We also very carefully point out that all operational units create and retain knowledge assets, not just business units concerned with research.

But whether we’re speaking about “KM,” “knowledge services,” “the knowledge culture,” or "knowledge asset management," when we're interacting with colleagues (and management) in the workplace, who knows what we’re talking about? What are we saying? What do these phrases mean to the knowledge worker in the next cubicle? Does anybody else care about knowledge management, knowledge services, or managing knowledge assets? Or in managing the company as a knowledge culture? Of course they do, but they probably don’t use these terms.

What terms do they use? What do they say when they are trying to figure out how the company dealt with this issue the last time it came up? Or when a corporate threat looms and everyone has an opinion but no one has the facts? What do they do? What do they say they are looking for?

So my quest is very simple: how can we take what we do to another level, all this energy being focused on knowledge management, knowledge services, and the knowledge culture? How can we make knowledge asset management everyone’s job?

Postscript: Actually, “redux” is probably not to most accurate word for the title here, since “redux” means something along the lines of “bringing back” or “reinstating.” That’s not really been the case with the idea of the knowledge worker. The knowledge worker hasn’t gone anywhere, so we’re really not concerned about bringing back the idea of the knowledge worker. Now we are more about expanding, you might say, the professional and academic and experiential insight we’ve developed over the past 40 years. Now we’re trying to figure out how we move KM, knowledge services, and the organizational knowledge culture beyond the academic and the professional. How do we move knowledge into the working habits of the office manager, the IT support staff, the HR file clerk, the records manager, the marketing support staff, the regulatory compliance specialist, the editorial assistant? What do we do next?

Learn about Building & Sustaining the Knowledge Culture

SMR International, through a strategic alliance with SLA’s Click U, offers knowledge workers the opportunity to strengthen their expertise by participating in the Click U Certificate Program in Knowledge Management and Knowledge Services. Attendees are not required to be members of SLA, and the next course in the series is a perfect place to begin your study of this critical discipline. The Knowledge Culture: Leadership and Knowledge Services, beginning July 13, provides participants with skills and practical applications for moving ahead as knowledge thought leaders in their employing organizations.