Passing the Cringe Test Has Knowledge Management Made It to Prime Time?

Sally Hicks agreed: "The terminology issue is huge. If you're working with a database, and there isn't a term that exactly matches ‘table 1' in the database, there is absolutely no way you're going to get what you need. In many cases, the user isn't even sure he HAS the information, much less be able to find it using strict database terms."

And it doesn't appear that the average technology tools provide much help; a more integrated solution is required. "A lot of customers feel that ‘search' by itself is not as big a problem as content or knowledge," said InQuira's Tim Shetler. "Most of our customers now come to us looking for both. It's a much broader solution area."

"A useful lens to look at this through is the long tail," said Paul. "Within an enterprise, there will be a number of requests for information that everyone asks all the time—total blockbusters. Then there's the body of requests that are kind of in the middle, relatively common but not blockbusters. But then you've got an almost infinite number of requests that occur seldomly... maybe only once. So any kind of ‘master schema' will fail."

Getting in the Door

Perhaps because of the complexity; perhaps because of the ambiguity of the benefit, KM is a tough sell. "Selling knowledge management systems is harder than selling systems that help people make money," said Silvija. "You have to provide a very strong ROI argument. You have to help customers understand how it will either make them more effective, or save money," she said.

"The difficulty begins when you want to roll it out. You have to convince the IT person at every division or office. For them this is just a headache; they have to replace something that's already in place and working with something that will take time to get right. In order to grow a system to a very large scale with very advanced features, you need to have a nicely staged process, where they first get something that works really well at a basic level, then add new features and grow the system in a controlled way."

"When it works right," added Brandon Lackey, "IT recognizes that the business problem has to be solved by the line-of-business stakeholders. IT should coordinate, and see themselves as the enablers. So much of knowledge management is people and process; if the business says to IT ‘Make me a repository,' IT should push back and say ‘No, this is so much more than that. You need to make sure the processes are open and the right people are in place.'" All agreed that Brandon's view is correct, but utopian. "Business wants a quick fix, and that's been the failure of knowledge management: there isn't one."

"IT will end up owning and running the system, so it's OK for them to be in charge," added Sally. "But they need to have the input and buy-in from business, and listen. And the end users also have to take the time to work with IT and ask for exactly what they want up front."

"The more ambitious of our customers know they have to view it as cross-functional and cross-divisional. They see it as a platform, and on top of that they keep growing projects," explained Silvija. "They are starting ‘centers of excellence' in greater numbers. But in order for them to succeed, you need support from quite a high level."

What's Next?

Tim Shetler detects a "mood shift" among KM system users and purchasers: "The resurgence of KM is driven by the distribution of workers, and work, both geographically and over time. For companies like that, knowledge management is something you have to do just to run the business. But there's another change: people are looking for ways to affect their top line. Sure, people are still looking for ways to cut costs, and get ROIs from cost centers, such as their call-center operations. But people are tired of doing that; they're looking for ways to raise the top line—‘Give me a 2% increase in marketshare.'" He continued: "An enterprise knowledge-sharing initiative has a lot of hard-to-quantify, soft-dollar benefits. That's hard to justify. But if you can demonstrate a hard-dollar return, it's much easier to spread when the case is proven."

The most interesting turn in our conversations revolved around the opportunities for KM to leverage emerging Web technologies and concepts. "Certain organizations, such as telcos and media companies, are very keen to figure out how to make money from Web 2.0," declared Silvija, "and apply the whole social aspect of information. We need to provide them with the tools to position themselves in that space."

Brandon Lackey agreed: "I'm excited about Web 2.0, because it builds communities of like-minded contributors who share implicit knowledge, but in doing so it's being captured and made searchable. So while they're solving specific business problems, they're also building a valuable knowledgebase...just in a subtle and implicit way."

"People are putting KM systems in place which are quite capable at organizing and distributing knowledge," added Lowell. "But how do they enrich those systems in real time with knowledge from the employees' minds? There's a tremendous amount of interest in using the concepts of Web 2.0 to use collaboration to enrich and expand the information within these systems."

It's popular to think of KM technologies as being "transparent" and totally automated, but some of the panel thought just the opposite. Sally said, "What's different now from five or 10 years ago is that users want to ‘do it themselves.' Back then, they just said: ‘Give me a report, give me a number.' Now they want to be empowered."

"People are concerned with the quality of information. And they have become spoiled, because there are so many more solutions. How do you provide them with the information they want, even if they can't express what it is they want?" wondered Silvija.

I guess that remains to be seen. It's certainly true that a "one-size-fits-all/it slices, it dices" solution is probably a thing of the past. Even with search, it is rare to find a vendor that only uses one type of technology. It's a combination of text with semantic understanding on top of a taxonomy...as KM gets better and enters the mainstream, it also has become extraordinarily more complex.

That's what the KMWorld White Papers are for. It is no longer possible to explain KM in a simple "blurb" or describe in a colorful brochure. Information management solutions are not only complex, they are usually multi-dimensional, solving many different problems, depending on how they are applied and where the needs of the organization lie. And don't forget: solving one problem only opens the opportunity to face the next one. But that's what knowledge management solutions have always done best.

Special Advertising Section