By Eileen Davenport, Research Analyst in the Business Research Group at BMO Capital Markets
Earlier this spring, the Wall Street Journal ran a special report on knowledge management and its effectiveness in business, "Putting Ideas to Work: Knowledge management can make a difference, but it needs to be more pragmatic" by Thomas H. Davenport, Laurence Prusak, and Bruce Strong (March 10, 2008). It identified some successes, but also many missteps that have followed the concept of knowledge management.
Knowledge Sharing
The arguments laid out in the article bring me back to my first days in the profession. In 1998, fresh out of the MLIS program at Dominican, my first full-time position carried the heady title of “Knowledge Analyst” and I began working in the Knowledge Center of KPMG Peat Marwick.
In this newly established department, there were a dozen librarians, writers and database technicians charged with the responsibility of creating a corporate repository where the information of the business practices/departments/individuals would be stored electronically for the benefit of all.
Knowledge creation was second only to knowledge sharing. Intellectual capital was the measure against which all internal departments/individuals would be judged. At least, that was the idea.
Pervasive Interest
At my first SLA conference in 1999, knowledge management was everywhere. As I remember it, the opening session was sponsored by Westlaw and discussed knowledge management; the keynote speaker was Laurence Prusak (one of the authors of the WSJ article). My co-worker and I had attended a continuing education session on the topic prior to the conference starting.
Every day I went to at least one session on KM. And the exhibit hall had countless vendors offering an abundance of knowledge management solutions. But while the phrase seemed to envelope the conference proceedings, I never lost the feeling that though the phrase “knowledge management” was pervasive, a common, codified meaning remained elusive.
In "Putting Ideas To Work," the authors urge practitioners to take a more pragmatic approach to knowledge management, and define knowledge management as the “concerted effort to improve how knowledge is created, delivered and used” while acknowledging that “there is no single recipe for managing knowledge” and then going on to give some examples of successful programs in various industries.
Individual's Role?
Based on my own experience, the theories of knowledge management create the illusion of knowledge existing in a kind of vacuum. Knowledge, in my interpretation of some theories and theorists, is separate from the individual and exists in some abstract, disembodied form.
The examples cited in the article are from companies unalike in business purpose and corporate culture, but all of them rely to some extent on the contribution of the individual, which is sometimes disregarded or taken too much for granted in the professional literature.
I have not read everything, or even extensively, on knowledge management, but what I have read does not fully address the role of the individual. People and personal roles are often afterthoughts when they are addressed, while knowledge is considered to exist independently of anything or anyone. Knowledge without any input or application from an individual is no different from encyclopedias.
Not Exactly 'World Books'
One could argue that these are the first knowledge management tools, for practically all useful knowledge is contained within. But no one can reasonably assume that the possession of a set of World Books is enough to guarantee success. They must be read and their information absorbed on a personal level to be understood.
The role of human involvement in knowledge management is not emphasized enough, or taken entirely for granted. Knowledge, and the management of it, is without value if it is designed to make personal experience obsolete or obscure. Presenting it as a tool to be used by individuals is the first step in making it more pragmatic.
The professional genre can only benefit from the obvious inclusion of human roles and purpose. But as I noted earlier, my recent reading on the topic has not been extensive. If you have articles that combine the review of knowledge and personal experience together, please send me that information. It would be reassuring to know that the personal contribution hasn’t been completely forgotten.
Contact Eileen Davenport at eileen.davenport@bmo.com [1].