Knowledge Management is Dead

A few days ago, a friend attempted to compare some new software applications we are developing for innovation and idea management to "knowledge management".  Once I was done with my arguments about the difference between software that supports innovation processes and knowledge management, and he had picked himself up off the floor, we could talk again like regular people.

I LOVE the idea of knowledge management.  There's simply nothing better than believing that a business or team can find one place to store what it knows, so that knowledge is available in a flash to anyone who needs it.  Unfortunately, though, this is a little like believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.  Most knowledge management systems don't pan out to be nearly what they seem they could be.  You can, as they say, stick a fork in it.  It's done.

Why?  There's probably a lot of reasons, but I only have time for three.

First, it is difficult to constrain the definitions or build consistent "meta-data" about knowledge.  If I know something about a process or an object, how do I classify it so that others can find it and use that information?  If you make the categorization and definitions too confining, there's no distinction in the information.  Too loose and you can never find anything at all.  Just getting people to agree on the definitions of the information is difficult.

Second, Knowledge Management systems tend to be a catch-all and a cul-de-sac.  They are not critical for any important business function - that is, they don't enable or improve an important business function.  By this I mean that knowledge management systems on the whole don't improve the way you process a purchase order, or help with Sarbanes-Oxley compliance.  They aren't critical to any consistent business process and unless they become critical to a process then they are sidelined and become a parking lot for interesting but not necessarily useful information.

Third - what's "knowledge" anyway?  On our internal wiki we have information on local lunch spots and links to doctors and pharmacists on our health plan.  What distinguishes this from a knowledge management system?  Who defines "knowledge" and its value?  A lot of the information that gets placed in many knowledge management systems is simply not scalable and not useful on a consistent basis.  The knowledge management system takes on the responsibility to hold all "just in case" information.

Successful computer systems are those that enable or support processes - ERP for purchasing or finance and CRM for sales management are two examples.  Systems that struggle for acceptance are often not tied to a critical business process or function.  While the capabilities and benefits they offer sound great, they are not integral to the success of an important process. 

That's also why I try to distinguish "knowledge management" systems from innovation and idea management systems, by demonstrating that idea management systems support a business process - from idea generation to new product or service launch - rather than just collecting ideas in a parking lot.  That's the kiss of death.

There are some exceptions to the general rule that systems must support a business process to become important and effective.  Probably the best example is Human Resources.  HR systems don't support a process, but if you don't pay your people regularly and you don't file the appropriate state and federal paperwork about your employees, your firm will end up in a bad way.  What happens if nobody uses the information in your Knowledge Management system?

Eventually, this post is really about ensuring that any system you build or deploy supports critical business processes or functions.  It needs to be more than just interesting, it needs to enable a process or keep someone out of jail!

Comments

[TF]

Hooray!

It was the management bit that killed it.

Long live freetagging scraped opendocument farms!

FUTF

[Stefan]

KM is not dead. It is alive and being practiced by everybody in the world on a daily basis - without computers. Since we really cannot write down knowledge - how about we provide the plumbing for it to freely, through the use of online collaboration environments customized to the needs of the network that needs to work with it..

Just my humble thoughts,
SL

[Gail]

Nope – knowledge management isn’t dead. What I hope is dying, is the misconception that KM is about technological systems for capturing, ordering & distributing knowledge. Unfortunately that’s what it came to mean. Perhaps because it was the most concrete concept that people could focus on. What KM is really about (or should be about) is culture. KM is a buzz-word for improving the way we relate to each other & use our interactions for mutual benefit. It seems to be commonsense that work environments can foster or hinder learning, productive interaction, skill exchange and creativity. Finding & breaking down barriers to positive behavior that supports problem solving, idea generation and idea development is what I believe KM to be – and where the value lies. I guess it feels warm & fuzzy.  But it’s critically important. And hard to do.

Knowledge is a very subjective thing. Its development depends on background experiences, existing understanding, thinking styles and skills, context and companions and probably more. Its value is similarly dependent on various things, not least on context. So knowledge is a very human-focused concept. Sure some knowledge can be captured on paper & in other storage systems but that’s like the tip of the iceberg. Storage, distribution and enablement is where technology has some limited use, but it simply can’t be the answer to whatever problem many KM proponents are trying to fix. Real knowledge is dynamic and tacit (in heads, talents and experiences etc).

Stefan reckons too much management. Not sure. I think it’s far too slippery to manage & that’s the problem. If we had KM sussed, we could ensure the right environment for the situation and the people, create opportunities for interaction & get out of the way. Sounds like it should be easy, but the “right” mix is difficult to determine.

The amusing thing for me is that there’s nothing new in this idea. Many people in many companies have worked to achieve better communications and interactions and all the other related things, for years before KM came along. It just wasn’t legitimized, or glamorized or whatever with a sexy name and a spotlight. So the term falls out of fashion… well, it ain’t going to stop the efforts to make our corporate environments more conducive to working smarter and more easily. Who doesn’t want employees who are more fulfilled and engaged, and innovation and productivity that knocks your socks off?

You ask some valid questions in your post. I salute you. Ask on. Debate creates knowledge.