Bold action or management process? Finding the right balance in KM
In addition, the core process for knowledge management, if I understand the discussions of process, is search and retrieval. The tool for identifying experts in an organization is a “locator system,” that is, search. Hofer-Alfeis makes a strong case for the use of social methods to complement search and retrieval. He introduces an interesting concept: a community typology. The idea is that an organization consists of numerous, often-overlapping groups. Each community can be complex. A diagram for the “Basic Requirement: Shared Understanding of the Community of Practice Knowledge Area. Example Vendor Management Community” provides a glimpse of the management, information collection and communication activities in a single community of practice for an organization. (Download chart 1 also on page 20, April KMWorld Vol. 24, Issue 4.)
Another presentation touches upon the value of knowledge management. The examples, however, beg financial detail. Hofer-Alfeis stresses the process, not the measurable payoff. He presents an interesting process of process flow diagram. By definition, the important components are people, communication and management activities. (Download chart 2, also on page 20, April KMWorld Vol. 24, Issue 4.)
In another presentation, Hofer-Alfeis links knowledge management to innovation. He asserts, “Effective knowledge management is an excellent basis for innovation.” The assertion makes sense within the context of process. The weakness, in my experience, is the implicit assumptions that knowledge management is a precursor to innovation and innovation is dependent on knowledge management processes.
One reference company for Hofer-Alfeis is Siemens AG, the largest engineering firm in Europe. The Munich- and Berlin-based firm announced in February 2015 that it was cutting two percent of its workforce. That works out to 7,800 jobs. With annual revenue of about 80 billion Euro, Siemens has reported flat profits for four straight years. If there were a link between the knowledge management process and innovation, I would like to see revenue growth and profitability, not a gentle decline.
In February 2015, a company specializing in training law enforcement professionals held a CyberOSINT conference. The presentations, particularly those of Haystax Technology (haystax.com) and BAE Systems (baesystems.com), took a different approach to building a sustainable business. In the case of BAE, the company has made changes to top management and been proactive in providing staff and technology to address certain computer-related threats. The company’s core competency has begun to attract more inquiries from governmental and commercial sectors. The firm quickly adapted to meet exogenous opportunities. Those were off-the-radar developments that collaborative processes did not generate.
In the case of Haystax Technology, a packager of advanced technology to deal with company-related threats, entrepreneurs built a company via acquisition. Haystax responded to an opportunity and methodically assembled technology, executives and firms in a span of 36 months. A small group of bright professionals moved forward with no formal knowledge or innovation processes.
As Jack Welch, former president of General Electric, allegedly observed: “Focus on a few key objectives … I only have three things to do. I have to choose the right people, allocate the right number of dollars, and transmit ideas from one division to another with the speed of light. So I’m really in the business of being the gatekeeper and the transmitter of ideas.”
Putting process before people, resources and ideas may drag down knowledge, not manage it.