This article is intended to look at some implications in the practical application of a knowledge management framework. The content of this article is based on the learning from a great book, “Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice” by Kimiz Dalkir. [Those who have landed on this article and have not read the introductory one, please see here].
How to put the KM theoretical models into practice? Some key questions to answer will be:
- What knowledge does the organisation have?
- What knowledge does the organisation need?
- Where does knowledge come from?
- How does the organisation use and transfer knowledge?
- How does the organisation save and re-use it?
- Who is responsible?
In her book Dalkir emphasises two important points, that ‘there is no magic black box, data goes in…and knowledge magically comes out the other end‘, and she also notes that ‘KM implementation almost always requires a cultural change in the organisation‘.
I would leave aside the cultural change as it is a topic too big for me. However, the author proposes a three-element concept, ‘Content, Containers, Communities‘. With a slight change (expanding with a fourth C, as ‘Culture’), this model could help organisations in trying to fix the ‘magic black box’. This model can be a blueprint for a start in looking at the KM status and mechanics of the process in the organisation.
The elements of the C-model
‘Content‘ covers few things, such as the type of data the organisation is interested in, their sources (internal or external), their nature (tacit, evident, explicit, easy/hard/impossible to capture), their format (numerical, textual, graphical etc), their attributes (as metadata), their organisation (as in taxonomies, lexicons, glossaries, etc), their intended use (as in databases, system supports, job aids, learning aids, “yellow pages”, etc).
‘Containers‘ refers to the platforms (data, information and knowledge repositories), the tools, the methodologies, the procedures available (or needed) for the Communities to use or adopt in order to get the Content.
‘Communities‘ refers to the users as ‘Communities of Practice’ (CoPs) and their social and professional interactions. These CoPs are intended as ‘the groups of people having common identity, professional interest and that undertake to share, participate and establish a fellowship‘. These groups are not constrained by geography, business units or functional boundaries, but rather by a common task, context or interest. They are key agents in the organisation’s KM setup.
The interplay between the three components should be seen in the context of the ‘Culture‘ of the organisation, ‘communal, networked, mercenary or fragmented‘ (as in Goffee and Jones). The culture should be looked at in order to create the right conditions for the nurturing of a healthy and effective interplay between the elements.
The interplay between the elements
The interplays reflect the actions and interactions between the elements. These interplays should be looked as answers to specific questions:
Communities <-> Content: This is about the interest the CoPs have for the data, the mechanism used for data capturing. How is the information codified, used and re-used? What is the dynamics of the sharing between CoPs? What is the extent of the tacit knowledge? Where is the tacit knowledge accumulating? Can it be made explicit?
Communities <-> Containers: This is about the interaction between the CoPs and the technologies. Are the users willing to learn about new technologies? Are the users compliant in the use of the data and information systems? What is the attitude of the different CoPs towards the use of the organisational systems? What are the favourite user or CoP interfaces? What level of training is needed to get all aligned? Who are the key, knowledgeable ‘power-users’? Are the ‘power-users’ connected with the communities?
Content <-> Containers: This about the IT systems being able to accommodate the ‘content’. What flexibility has the IT system for the content codification and organisation? What is the level of user’s customisation that is allowed? Are systems fit to accommodate the required taxonomies and metadata?
And the culture? The organisational culture sets the background for the interplays above. The organisation will have to set a clear KM vision and make the investment in resources and tools to implement the right knowledge management strategy. Knowledge management strategies will have to consider the type of the organisational culture (communal, networked, mercenary or fragmented) and the CoPs. Knowledge has a social construct and must be related to the social texture of the organisation. On a general level, it is about setting the ‘knowledge vision’. The organisation will be responsible in setting the working standards (flex-time, remote working etc) and provide a suitable infrastructure of systems. It will have to deal in smoothing the generational gaps in the workforce. All these aspects have a huge impact in the KM setup, especially in ensuring knowledge robustness and resilience. Importantly, the organisation should also be open to the prospect of highlighting gaps, shortfalls, lack of internal consensus and be willing to embrace change, taking the staff in the journey of change (which, we know, can be hard..).
I am not an expert in the subject, but Dalkir’s book has helped me in getting some clarity around the subject of KM and provided good hints. In particular, I think that the 3-C model is interesting and it could be a possible approach for an organisation to consider in the evaluation of their own knowledge management framework. Maybe with the help of a specialised consultant, this model could be a powerful aggregator allowing interested parties to converge onto a workable plan of action.
With the next article I will try to dip into the knowledge management applied to projects. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me for any comments and constructive feedback.
Marco Bottacini, Senior Portfolio Manager, GALVmed
The views and opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinion of GALVmed.
Project Management Discussion Group 