Articles Content
How can you win customers for knowledge management (KM) projects?
Sometimes we get things right without thinking much about how we got there. For many years I have worked with and for middle and senior managers. The results were satisfactory, so I was recommended to their colleagues and received additional business from them.
It was only after the Corona years, when many of my colleagues who also worked in knowledge management consulting were struggling to get work, that I started to think about the success factors for my projects.
This has led in 2023 to the KMGN project for business-aligned knowledge management. In this project we defined the key success factors for KM. To give you an idea of our thinking, I will start by listing some of the objectives of my clients since 1998, when I received my first KM assignment, then as Knowledge Networking Officer for Roche Diagnostics.
Looking back and reflecting on these objectives, a pattern began to emerge. Here are some of my clients’ objectives that have led to well-paid KM projects:
- Managed a cross-functional IT project with the potential to save $120 million
- Enabled engineers to complete critical projects on time through efficient documentation practices
- Captured and transferred the knowledge of a high throughput programmer to meet agreed year-end targets
- Synchronized the collaboration of a drug development team to identify the most effective solution within the agreed timeframe to reach the next phase
- Developed a visual process collaboration portal to enable internationally dispersed teams to report financial results on time to meet regulatory legal requirements
These objectives have a common denominator. They are all objectives that executives negotiate with their line managers and, in most cases, their annual bonus depends on meeting them. And they are in line with the key objectives of their companies.
At that time I did not think any further about it, I just concentrated on the best KM methods to achieve these goals. Today, however, I recognize what I did not see at the time, that these are the success factors for winning a KM project.
A good rationale can be derived from this, namely that in order to win a KM project, you should start with the goals of the senior managers. As a rule, these goals are achieved most quickly with KM methods anyway. So you should communicate this to the managers from the start. This can be done best with storytelling.
That’s why we developed a «KM Storytelling Canvas» that outlines the story’s talking points in a way that creates an engaging narrative. This concludes our KMGN project, which involved knowledge managers and executives from Europe, the Americas and Asia. The final report will be published at the end of April 2025.
Thoughts on ETH Alumni “Knowledge Network” using a technological solution
The dream of a technologically supported knowledge exchange or knowledge network has existed since the 1990s. Starmind, the currently selected option, is one of a long line of software systems with this claim, e.g. Adarvo, Autonomy, Confluence, Finebrain, Humingbird, Livelink, Metalayer, Teampage. Starmind corresponds 1:1 to the former idea of Finebrain, Basel.
So far, however, only a few of these systems have met expectations and most no longer exist.
Depending on the company, there were various internal names for such systems. Yellow Pages at Novartis, Knowledge Organizer at Roche Diagnostics, Touchpoint at Roche Pharma, MedIS at Actelion or ReferencesPlus at Siemens.
These “Knowledge Network Systems” (KNS) offer at least the following functions:
- Static and/or dynamic creation of expert profiles
- Assignment of queries to experts based on rules and profiles
- Q&A archiving in a database
- Forwarding of queries on the basis of workflows
- Search tools for appropriate responses to queries
- Making documents created by experts accessible
The KNS software vendors make a number of assumptions that are often not fulfilled in organizations:
- Users can formulate their questions precisely and use the necessary technical terms so that the KNS can find suitable experts
- Experts pass on their knowledge to people they don’t know without worrying about IP (intellectual property)
- The experts create and complete their individual profiles on their own initiative and have the time to do so.
- Expert profiles can be created automatically, as there are many documents in which both the subject areas and the names of the experts appear. Their matching is unambiguous.
- The keywording of the expert knowledge in the expert profiles will later match the users’ search terms
- The breadth and depth of the users’ search queries across the specialist areas and the expertise stored in the expert profiles provide useful results.
- If not, users will have the stamina to keep searching
The work required to implement such a system is wide ranging. They can only be partially facilitated by AI. Here is a selection:
- Creation of a taxonomy or ontology for each area of expertise. This allows user queries to be placed in the right context.
- Ensure that this ontology is used for both the expert profiles and the user queries
- Funding an editorial team that can assess and manage the content and profiles from a discipline-specific perspective
- Clarifying the question of whether and how the experts are remunerated for their IP
- Creation of instructions and operation of a hotline for experts and users
Unfortunately, the same mistakes were repeated, as the effort involved was always underestimated and too little attention was paid to the work mentioned above. The focus was usually primarily on the technical IT implementation.
By the time they saw and understood all the effort required, it was usually too late to stop the project. One option was then to include simple, sometimes trivial content in the databases. Another option was to shut down the system quietly after a few months.
It is presently believed that AI will make it easier to set up these databases – quod esset demonstrandum.
It is difficult enough to introduce such a system in a company that can mandate its employees to participate. It is even more difficult in a voluntary organization like ETH Alumni.
Knowledge management back to square one – once again?
In discussions about what Knowledge Management (KM) is and what it encompasses, it sometimes seems to me that we are going around in circles and starting all over again. Dave Snowden said at Potsdam 2022 that those of us who have been in KM since the 1990s have seen the cycle of KM adoption and abandonment five times now.
Time and time again, the people who are trying to implement KM make exactly the same mistakes as those who have done it before, so that the executives no longer want to pay for it. Then it all goes away for three years, but then people still have to manage knowledge, so it starts all over again. But they repeat the same process and the same mistakes. As he said, we are now in the fifth cycle and we are going round and round again.
So what is the real problem?
Why does KM not evolve and learn from past mistakes? This should be one of the main components of KM – lessons learned.
Maybe it is the desire for quick and easy solutions. Or perhaps it is the love of tools and the hope that they will somehow magically solve the problem. I often start my KM workshops and presentations with the magic fairy. She comes and all KM problems are solved by themselves and everyone is happy. Unfortunately, we are still waiting for her.
3 ways how to start a KM initiative
There are three ways to start a KM initiative – two good and one bad. KM often starts in a support function, often in IT, quality management, or communications. After analyzing the nature of the organizational problem and KM, the initiative leaders realize the multifaceted nature of KM. In fact, many more functions are needed to support the initiative. Then they have three options:
1) Expand the initiative to include executives of other value creating functions such as research, development, production, sales, etc.
2) Stop the initiative because it is beyond your capabilities and other functions cannot be motivated to participate.
3) Implement some kind of tool, be it a database or search with or without AI.
The first two are the good ones and the last one – the most practiced – is the bad one. This is my personal experience, based on many observations.
KM Success Logic
In 2015 I wrote a chapter in the book «Wissensmanagement beflügelt»: How Knowledge Management Projects Fail Sustainably – On the Way to a Success Logic. There I summarized the experiences with KM implementations of the last 20 years.
The best option how to start a KM initiative
If KM initiative leaders choose the first option, they might consider the ideas in the above mentioned book chapter. In it, the first steps are to analyze the organizational strategy with its purpose and business model. How is value created? What are the key components for measuring performance and productivity?
With this in mind, a solution-neutral analysis is carried out as the next step. The key prerequisites for this analysis are both – a clear distinction between knowledge (tacit, implicit) and information (explicit knowledge) and furthermore a good understanding of the characteristics of knowledge as well as information quality. As a result of this analysis, key success factors for the organization are identified and addressed using the methods and techniques available in the KM toolkit.
Those knowledge managers who embrace this approach will break the vicious cycle of KM implementation failures. This is my hope and wish.
The Houston Knowledge Management Model: 27 Years of Impact
Those were the early days of Knowledge Management (KM). In the mid-90s, two colleagues from Roche Diagnostics and I attended a benchmarking conference on knowledge management. It was organized by APQC in Houston by Carla O’Dell and Cindy Hubert. Three full days were filled with presentations on various aspects of KM from more than a dozen organizations such as Siemens, Hewlett-Packard, World Bank, Xerox, Schlumberger. Speakers included people like Steve Denning, Josef Hofer-Alfeis, and many more.
During this three-day conference, we attended all the sessions and in our free time we gathered and tried to collect and analyze all the facets of KM that we saw.
It has been a great challenge to bring so many aspects, facets, and details into a framework in a way that they are mutually exclusive but collectively exhaustive. It also had to be as simple as possible. The goal was to quickly and clearly communicate to our management what KM is all about.
This culminated in the creation of a model that had three tiers: Focus, Process, and Capability. We called it the Houston Model because that was where the APQC conference was held.
This Houston model, now 27 years old, came to mind when I was recently asked by a student who had created a different three-tier model: People, Processes, and Tools. So I took the Houston model out of my drawer and reviewed it with the student. To my surprise, most of what was developed during those evenings at the Houston conference is still relevant today.
The Houston Model was the first of six that have been developed since, based on consulting work or discussions within the Swiss Knowledge Management Forum. The latest is a Problem-Consequence KM Story Model that is included in the 2024 Guideline ENABLING KNOWLEDGE MANAGERS TO COMMUNICATE BETTER WITH BUSINESS MANAGERS.
And here we come full circle. Once again, we are explaining KM and the value and importance of its place in the management toolbox.
The Houston Knowledge Management Model: 27 Years of Impact
Those were the early days of Knowledge Management (KM). In the mid-90s, two colleagues from Roche Diagnostics and I attended a benchmarking conference on knowledge management. It was organized by APQC in Houston by Carla O’Dell and Cindy Hubert. Three full days were filled with presentations on various aspects of KM from more than a dozen organizations such as Siemens, Hewlett-Packard, World Bank, Xerox, Schlumberger. Speakers included people like Steve Denning, Josef Hofer-Alfeis, and many more.
During this three-day conference, we attended all the sessions and in our free time we gathered and tried to collect and analyze all the facets of KM that we saw.
It has been a great challenge to bring so many aspects, facets, and details into a framework in a way that they are mutually exclusive but collectively exhaustive. It also had to be as simple as possible. The goal was to quickly and clearly communicate to our management what KM is all about.
This culminated in the creation of a model that had three tiers: Focus, Process, and Capability. We called it the Houston Model because that was where the APQC conference was held.
This Houston model, now 27 years old, came to mind when I was recently asked by a student who had created a different three-tier model: People, Processes, and Tools. So I took the Houston model out of my drawer and reviewed it with the student. To my surprise, most of what was developed during those evenings at the Houston conference is still relevant today.
The Houston Model was the first of six that have been developed since, based on consulting work or discussions within the Swiss Knowledge Management Forum. The latest is a Problem-Consequence KM Story Model that is included in the 2024 Guideline ENABLING KNOWLEDGE MANAGERS TO COMMUNICATE BETTER WITH BUSINESS MANAGERS.
And here we come full circle. Once again, we are explaining KM and the value and importance of its place in the management toolbox.
The Houston Knowledge Management Model: 27 Years of Impact
Those were the early days of Knowledge Management (KM). In the mid-90s, two colleagues from Roche Diagnostics and I attended a benchmarking conference on knowledge management. It was organized by APQC in Houston by Carla O’Dell and Cindy Hubert. Three full days were filled with presentations on various aspects of KM from more than a dozen organizations such as Siemens, Hewlett-Packard, World Bank, Xerox, Schlumberger. Speakers included people like Steve Denning, Josef Hofer-Alfeis, and many more.
During this three-day conference, we attended all the sessions and in our free time we gathered and tried to collect and analyze all the facets of KM that we saw.
It has been a great challenge to bring so many aspects, facets, and details into a framework in a way that they are mutually exclusive but collectively exhaustive. It also had to be as simple as possible. The goal was to quickly and clearly communicate to our management what KM is all about.
This culminated in the creation of a model that had three tiers: Focus, Process, and Capability. We called it the Houston Model because that was where the APQC conference was held.
This Houston model, now 27 years old, came to mind when I was recently asked by a student who had created a different three-tier model: People, Processes, and Tools. So I took the Houston model out of my drawer and reviewed it with the student. To my surprise, most of what was developed during those evenings at the Houston conference is still relevant today.
The Houston Model was the first of six that have been developed since, based on consulting work or discussions within the Swiss Knowledge Management Forum. The latest is a Problem-Consequence KM Story Model that is included in the 2024 Guideline ENABLING KNOWLEDGE MANAGERS TO COMMUNICATE BETTER WITH BUSINESS MANAGERS.
And here we come full circle. Once again, we are explaining KM and the value and importance of its place in the management toolbox.