KM/Knowledge Services: Can We All Play? Are Universities Included Too?

The traditional "home" for KM/knowledge services has been the corporate workplace, and while this is probably not the place to go into the reasons why (a future post, perhaps? or a guest post from a reader? a KM/knowledge services specialist?), we can quickly speculate that the for-profit field has often been the breeding ground for innovation.

And with accelerated innovation one of the four identified deliverables, you might say (along with strengthened research, contextual decision making, and high-level knowledge asset management) of knowledge services, it seems reasonable to latch on to the idea that the non-profits and the not-for-profit institutions have lagged behind.

Not so. Every day we hear about new venues for the study and implementation of KM/knowledge services, and a fascinating stream in this direction is higher education. Strategy development (ex - "strategic planning") has long been a mainstay of academic administrative focus, and many companies and organizations specializing in knowledge strategy development have happily found a welcome on the campuses of some of the more forward-thinking universities.

For academics - whether part of the faculty, administrative staff, or having some other connection with the academy (university librarians, for example) - how might to KM/knowledge services be approached? Is it simply a matter of changing the words and phrases? When we define knowledge management with Prusak's and Davenport's working with knowledge for the organization do we make it work in the academy simply by defining knowledge management as working with knowledge for the institution?

And for that matter, is the management approach for an academic institution (OK - the administrative approach) the same as it is for a corporation? A research institute? A manufacturing plant? What are the differences? Are they subtle or are they major? Can an academic institution embrace Peter Drucker's philosophy as willingly and as successfully as a for-profit operation (and, yes it can, for we all know of Drucker's solid connection with the academy and his great success with charitable institutions and other non-profits)?

The question then becomes simply one of direction, doesn't it? How can the principles and philosophies behind successful change management, say, in the KM/knowledge services environment be stated for an academic institution? What language do we use? And is that language going to work in other operational structures?

Let's find out.

Knowledge Sharing at the Mega-Level: World Urban Forum 5 in Rio de Janeiro

Meeting in Rio de Janeiro in late March, some 10,000 specialists in sustainable urbanization gathered for the Fifth Session of the UN-HABITAT World Urban Forum. Clearly the need is there, and as experts, heads of state, government ministers, mayors, executives of leading global foundations, business leaders, and interested observers met March 24 – 26, it was obvious that the work UN-HABITAT is doing is critical. And becoming more critical all the time.

The numbers are slightly overwhelming, but when you stop to think that just a little over 50 years ago one-third of the world’s population lived in cities and now it’s over 50% (and expected to climb to two-thirds of the global population – six billion people – by 2050) you recognize that a sense of being overwhelmed is absolutely appropriate. Attention must be paid.

The main theme of the conference – Bridging the Urban Divide – provided the occasion for much open and frank debate, and UN-HABITAT’s oft-expressed characterization of “sustainable urbanization” as simply “a better city, a better life” provided many conference attendees with a noticeable attitude of uplift and enthusiasm. For these folks,  WUF5 (as the forum was called) provided the impetus for going back to their homes and workplaces with an optimism that many global citizens aren’t in a position to share.

Which made the whole experience that much more exciting, for now charged-up urban studies professionals will have the energy and motivation to see that attention is paid.

For KM/knowledge services professionals, the Rio pay-off came with the many discussions, strategic learning opportunities, and just plain networking that took place. Both formal and informal knowledge-sharing activities were happening all over the conference venue (unused dock warehouses that were being converted into a huge conference center), and a highlight for those of us who look to KM/knowledge services as the bridge across any of the professional, societal, or economic divides we encounter was the opening of UN-HABITAT’s new World Urban Campaign. In announcing the campaign, Nicholas You noted that the agency’s next major effort would acknowledge and focus on the role of knowledge sharing in achieving the agency’s mission.

That mission, generally referred to as the Habitat Agenda, is to promote socially and environmentally sustainable towns and cities with the goal of providing adequate shelter for all. In launching the new initiative, You – who serves as Strategic Policy Advisor to Dr. Anna Tibaijuka, UN-HABITAT’s Executive Director – made it clear that there would be two key areas of focus to the campaign, one of which is the agency’s knowledge network system (with the other being The 100 Cities Initiative, an experimental initiative in which 100 cities would make pledges for urban reform).

The knowledge networking system has a more fundamental purpose, one that affects all levels of all the many efforts involved in the larger sustainability movement. As You described the initiative, the UN-HABITAT knowledge networking system is defined by and being developed to enable all people working with sustainable urbanization to take full advantage of the diversity and wealth of knowledge, tools, and methods being gathered by UN-HABITAT. The system will focus on lessons learned from best practices, good policies and operational tools and methodologies, and constitute a one-stop shop for knowledge, expertise, and experience.

With the sustainable urbanization knowledge services community poised to reap the rewards of strengthened information management, KM, and strategic learning, could not other organizations take up the knowledge networking system as a model, to achieve their own organizational effectiveness?

Strategy Development: Descriptive or Prescriptive?

A long time ago (1966 was a long time ago, wasn’t it?), George A. Steiner was well recognized as one of strategy planning’s most famous authorities. While KM/knowledge services directors in the 21st century might use slightly more up-dated language than Steiner used 44 years ago, developing knowledge strategy still works from Steiner’s “common characteristics” of strategic planning.

One of these especially still hits the mark: the whole idea behind the development of a knowledge strategy is “the futurity of current decisions,” thinking about how current (or recent past) decision making affects what will happen as the KM/knowledge services function proceeds into the future.

Our good friend Peter F. Drucker also brings knowledge workers closer to understanding the true impetus behind planning  knowledge strategy: planning for the future. In his classic Managing in a Time of Great Change, Drucker could be writing for knowledge strategists in 2010 (for could there be a time of greater change than the times we’re living in today?): “Traditional planning asks,” Drucker wrote, “‘what is most likely to happen? Planning for uncertainty asks, instead, ‘what has already happened that will create the future?’”

For Drucker, “strategic planning is not a box of tricks, a bundle of techniques” (Drucker’s emphasis). For our great management hero, strategy development was summed up in four important activities which can be applied directly to the development of knowledge strategy:

§  Analytical thinking and the commitment to resources in action

§  A continual process of making present entrepreneurial decisions systematically and with the greatest knowledge of their futurity

§  Organizing systematically the efforts needed to carry out these decision

§  Measuring the results of these decision against expectations through organized, systematic feedback

So there’s the answer to our challenge. Developing knowledge strategy is both prescriptive and descriptive, and the knowledge strategist simply has to position himself/herself to drill down as deep as it’s necessary to go. The task is to find the nuances, the private (or public) agendas, and the organizational goals that will bring forward the information the organization requires for managing its knowledge. Only when the knowledge strategy is developed in an atmosphere that includes both “how-things-are” and “how-things-ought-to-be” can the strategy lead to the results the organization is seeking.

John Cotton Dana and Knowledge Services

A recent post reported on a presentation about the history of the Special Libraries Association and how the association's history will influence the management of strategic knowledge in the future. Much discussion about this topic is captured in the final two chapters and the Epilogue of SLA at 100: From Putting Knowledge to Work to Building the Knowledge Culture, the centennial history of the association (slightly different versions of those chapters are available at SMRShare). In the presentation, an introductory thought asked about the connection between knowledge services and SLA’s founder, John Cotton Dana.

If there is some skepticism about such a connection over the (now) 101-year span, that’s an understandable reaction. In fact, though, when we think about what John Cotton Dana was trying to do, the similarities between his “new library creed” and knowledge services becomes pretty clear:

Knowledge services – as defined in today’s workplace – looks at the management of strategic knowledge from the perspective of the knowledge user, at what that user’s needs might be and how the strategic knowledge being sought is going to be used. In the classic definition, we describe knowledge services as the management and service-delivery methodology that converges information management, knowledge management, and strategic learning into a single, overarching operational function. Putting a knowledge services “spin” on SLA’s famous motto, used since 1916, the goal of knowledge services is to “put knowledge management to work.” In the 21st-century workplace, knowledge services is – in Dale Stanley’s version –  ”the practical side of knowledge management.”

While he did not use our terminology, couldn’t this have been John Cotton Dana’s goal when he called together a group of specialist librarians (that’s what he called them) to think about how they worked? He and his colleagues wanted to determine how their services could be of better use to the businessman (and, yes, that was the term used in 1909, just as the term “man of affairs” was often used – and often by Dana – to describe people who worked in business, probably a link to the French phrase for businessman,l’homme d’affaires).

In his professional work, Dana had concluded that businessmen were too busy to read, and that was just the point: “I am not asking the businessman toread books,” he said. “I am suggesting that we persuade him to use some of them.”

It was a vital distinction, and it would become an important driver as specialized librarianship began its development. So much so that as they talked, Dana and his colleagues realized that they needed a new organization, an association of people like themselves, librarians who would lead a “movement” (yes, they used that term, without apology), a new movement that would replace the old library method, which they described as “Select the best books, list them elaborately, save them forever—that was the sum of the librarians’ creed of yesterday….”

But they went on, and Dana articulated the new “creed” which is particularly familiar to today’s knowledge services specialist:

• Select a few of the best books and keep them, as before, but also…
• Select from the vast flood of print the things your constituency will find useful…
• Make them available with a minimum of expense, and…
• Discard them as soon as their usefulness is past.

By the end of their first year, the nascent SLA had held its first meeting in New York City. It was a meeting at which Dana—SLA’s first president—spoke eloquently about the role of specialized libraries in society:

• “Here in the opening years of the Twentieth Century,” Dana said, “Men of affairs are for the first time beginning to see clearly that collections and printed materials are not, as they were long held to be by most, for the use simply of the scholar, the student, the reader, and the devotee of belles lettres. … [They] are useful tools, needing only the care and skill of a curator, of a kind of living index thereto … to be of the greatest possible help in promoting business efficiency.”

“The care and skill of the curator….” Surely that is the role of the knowledge services specialist in today’s workplace, to take ownership of the strategic knowledge that ensures organizational effectiveness be the organization’s “living index thereto.” Could there be a higher professional calling?

Specialized Librarianship - Thinking About the Future

Guy St. Clair, SMR International President and Consulting Specialist for Knowledge Services, has been named the Alice Rankin Distinguished Lecturer for 2010 by the New Jersey Chapter of the Special Libraries Association (SLA).

Speaking to the New Jersey Chapter at the Rutgers Club in New Brunswick on Wednesday, March 3, 2010, St. Clair discussed his recent work researching and writing SLA's 100-year history and used the lecture to bridge SLA's past with the future for specialized librarianship and the discipline's contribution to organizational effectiveness.

Asked to submit 10 reasons why "chapter members should hear him speak," St. Clair prepared his audience with the following, and during the presentation used these topics to stimulate discussion with chapter members and guests:

1. 1.    Learn how John Cotton Dana was creating what we now think of as "KM/knowledge services" when SLA was born
2. 2.    Why is specialized librarianship a distinctive branch of librarianship? Or more provocatively: is specialized librarianship a branch of librarianship?
3. 3.    Hear how the President of the United States recognized the professional skills of specialist librarians
4. 4.    Hear about the three times in SLA's history when specialized librarianship had the opportunity to make history and advance the profession but stepped aside
5. 5.    Since specialist librarians have been combining ICT management, KM, and strategic learning for 101 years, they are the natural “knowledge thought leaders” for their employers. Are they up to it? Are they brave enough?
6. 6.    Find out why other knowledge workers are moving ahead of specialist librarians – and fast
7. 7.    Find out why managing strategic knowledge is the future of specialized librarianship… and why specialist librarians can’t go back
8. 8.    Learn a clear, straight-forward statement of the mission of specialized librarianship (whatever it’s called and however it’s structured within the organizations that employ specialist librarians) – and how it’s not about membership in any professional association
9. 9.    Hear how specialist librarians can get comfortable with their role in “building the knowledge culture”
10. 10. Learn why – if their professional lives are going to be professionally satisfying – specialist librarians must “make no small plans.”

Culture Change: The KM/Knowledge Services Perspective

Now that KM/knowledge services has made its way into the corporate management lexicon, developing an enterprise-wide knowledge strategy becomes the next step (unless, that is, enlightened corporate management got the message early on and devised a corporate knowledge strategy before it was accepted practice to do so).

We know what we want to do with KM/knowledge services. Our objective is clear: We expect to establish a knowledge culture, a workplace in which KM/knowledge services is exploited (in the positive sense of that good word) to support and advance a workplace environment in which we all work smarter. And, once the knowledge culture is established, KM/knowledge services will be the management methodology we will use to sustain it, to ensure the highest levels of research, contextual decision making, and innovation in the future.

But to achieve that knowledge culture (or to achieve any objective as we seek to strengthen organizational performance) requires developing a strategy, a framework for how we’ll get there. In dealing with a KM/knowledge services strategy, one of our first findings is that we must first focus on another culture, the larger organizational culture that defines and distinguishes the overall enterprise.

And here is when we start to get a little nervous, because as we look about we find any number of possible impediments to moving forward to our goal, and practically all of these will have something to do with that larger corporate culture. And this is when we begin to speak about “culture change,” with the message that to move to the implementation of the new strategy, to set things up so the new strategy will be implemented with success, some elements of the corporate culture will need to change.

These considerations are especially relevant with KM/knowledge services (even under the new management circumstances in which ICT and KM are recognized as the critical enablers they are). For some reason, a lot of people aren’t very interested in the methods, principles, or even the results of a successfully integrated knowledge strategy. Despite the fact that there are obvious and easily documented costs (often very high costs) to sticking with the status quo, many people just can’t handle moving to a new way of dealing with the information and knowledge they must have for their work. They do not have the time, their managers are not interested and discourage their participation (so they think), or they are just not the type of people who are ready to take on something new and different while they try to deal with what they think of as their day-to-day work.

So culture change is hard to come by, and we all know why. As organizations develop, the people involved in developing the organizational structure bring their own ideas and – not to put too fine a point on it – their own agendas to the workplace. As a result, a great many points of view, organizational arrangements, and personal interests become associated with the larger enterprise, to the extent that some of these – over time – become literally embedded in the organizational structure. “It’s what we do,” people say. “It’s what our company is all about.”

That’s what we mean when we speak about the corporate culture, the one that is in place. It has to do with shared beliefs and values, an accumulation of shared beliefs and values about how the organization functions and about how its people succeed. And the organizational culture is – especially – about how those shared beliefs and values converge for the benefit of the larger enterprise, for groups of people working within it, even for individuals as they devise strategies to succeed at what they are trying to do in the workplace. It’s our challenge to work with that, to change that culture, if you will, and to re-frame it so that it will include the elements that support the  knowledge culture.

So what do we do? How do we “fix things” and come up with some techniques and methodologies we can take up – or put before the organization to take up – to ensure that change happens?

A cool first step is to initiate the discussion among people you’ve already identified, folks who have a stake in working smarter, who understand the value of information, knowledge, and strategic learning in the workplace and who would welcome bringing a good strategy for KM/knowledge services into the picture. In my work, what I’m seeing (very often) is that among the people who are going to be implementing KM/knowledge services strategy on the floor, so to speak (not necessarily the company’s leadership), there is great enthusiasm for undertaking whatever steps are necessary to bring about culture change. They are ready to move forward with KM/knowledge services, but no one has ever invited them to think about the subject before.

I know this because when I meet with them individually, these company employees are amazingly willing to go forward. The problem is that in the past the subject just hasn’t come up. And then when they come into a meeting to discuss the subject with other people (also people I’ve identified as being enthusiastic), you can almost feel the eagerness to get moving, to come up with some speedy and high-profile solutions and get started. Since these people have not come together before to talk about how they might use KM/knowledge services to help them work smarter, just the opportunity to brainstorm and explore a few KM/knowledge services recommendations is welcomed. They get to jumping all over the place, and the suggestions fly back and forth like crazy.

So it’s pretty exciting, this experience. It is very gratifying, too, especially for those of us who focus our professional energies on looking at KM/knowledge services applications as the way to go. I can't help but wonder if our success with KM/knowledge services enthusiasts relates to what Peter Bregman talks about in an interesting little thought piece from last June, the idea of finding the right stories to tell. These meetings I’m describing are full of story-telling (even if it’s not called that) and the discussion often begins with everybody talking about how this doesn't work or how that needs to be fixed. But once the attention is re-focused, with some prodding to get people in the group to share their own ideas of what they think could be done to solve whatever problem is being described, things move forward at a very fast pace.

It's amazing what these people come up with, and I think the main thing that makes it work is just bringing people together – often people who don't even know each other, or if they do know each other, not in a KM/knowledge services connection. Guiding the conversation so they talk about what works, what could work, what might work is a very gentle way to get things moving. And soon the discussion isn't about what's wrong, it's about what we can do to make it right for the future.

The Strategic Knowledge Connection: KM/Knowledge Services Makes it Happen

Certainly the "Only Connect" concept was alive and well long before E.M. Forster made it famous in Howard's End. We're all grateful to have had that particularly erudite introduction to the value of connections when we were youngsters, and we've learned by now that the value of connections only becomes stronger as we move into our work and develop professionally. It is no surprise that much of what we undertake as strategic knowledge managers has to do with identifying, strengthening, and exploiting (in the classical sense of that great word) our connections. It's how we ensure our work in KM/knowledge services succeeds.

Continuing an earlier frame of thought, it is good to think about where we are in KM/knowledge services. Given the movement of organizational management toward understanding and recognizing the value of knowledge to organizational effectiveness and the critical role of managing strategic knowledge as the high levels of excellence that essential for corporate success, it is gratifying to see our influence. We are now seeing the results of that renaissance Judith Field spoke about more than a decade ago when she urged information professionals to join the "knowledge age." For those who did, who were smart enough to recognize that their roles in their employing organizations would only be strengthened if they took on KM/knowledge services leadership, the effort paid off. The knowledge age is here  and we are all obliged to meet corporate management where it expects to be met: at that juncture where the precepts of information management meet the principles of KM/knowledge services. It's where we connect. Management now understands that managing the organization's strategic knowledge ensures organizational success, and management is not be at all subtle about its expectations from those who work in KM/knowledge services. We provide the connection.

We aren't surprised. When we think about how society is changing, about how society at large (and not just the management and academic communities) focuses on the value of knowledge, we understand what Peter Drucker was referring to when he urged us to look at the "underlying systems." When things weren't going right, as Rosabeth Moss Kanter has wisely pointed out, Drucker wasn't in the business of blaming individuals. He found the root causes in the design of the organization, as Kanter put it in her homage to Drucker in The Harvard Business Review last November, "in the stuctures, processes, norms, and routines" of the larger organization.

Of course. KM/knowledge services managers long ago picked up on the idea that the capture, organization, storage, and dissemination of strategic knowledge was going to be required - in any organization - if the organization is going to be successful (however success is defined in the particular situation).  And strategic knowledge managers realized that connecting would not be limited to research or activities traditionally thought of as "knowledge" related.

Now that organizational management - even down to the level of those over-worked middle management staff caught in their famous "black hole of middle management" - is recognizing that "we've got to figure out what to do with all this information and knowledge we collect and use," everybody is looking at strategic knowledge and wondering what to do. Why? Because strategic knowledge is everywhere, in every department and functional unit, and it must be managed if the organization is to succeed. And as part of the deal, companies are turning to the people who know how to do this work, to the organization's "knowledge thought leaders," the company's KM/knowledge services managers who are taking on the leadership role of seeing that strategic knowledge is managed for the good of the larger organization.

Let's have a case in point: A financial services company located in the American heartland has made quite an impact in the industry. It started with a bang, it hired the best whiz kids it could find, and in all the excitement of making all that money and - yes - providing a very reasonable ROI for investors, the routines of day-to-day management sort of got lost in the shuffle, as they say. Naturally all the compliance documentation was taken seriously and submitted appropriately (there are laws for that) but much of the organization's captured content - it's corporate history - was pretty casually pushed aside. Once in a while this or that observant manager would ask about this or that document describing a historical event, or wonder aloud about what was "happening" in the area of legacy documentation with respect to the company's background. Not the legal content, of course, as noted, not the compliance or regulatory material. All that was duly handled, and handled well. But much of what was left over, well, it didn't seem to be all that important.

Now it is. Now there is interest in moving the company into another product line, one very different from what it has offered in the past, and no one can find what they need. They will, of course, and the company will succeed in moving into the new product line, but the costs of dealing with identifying, codifying, and sharing the knowledge have been very expensive. The knowledge was there all the time. The challenge was to find it and format it so that it could be used for background and shared in whatever knowledge-sharing the deal required.

Lesson learned (and in this case management learned it well): Be prepared with the knowledge the organization uses and will need to re-use. Take a page from the Drucker handbook and ensure that structures, processes, norms, and routines are captured, that the management of strategic knowledge in each is part of the organizational framework.

And turn the job over to the KM/knowledge services management team. These people know how to handle strategic knowledge, and managers - not just in examples such as this but throughout the management field - are heeding the call. They get it. They understand that accessing and using strategic knowledge is critical to corporate success, and they're willing to pay to ensure that it's done right.