Exact role of Knowledge Manager
Total number of comments: 34 (Show More)
Greetings Kavu,
I suspect a useful answer to your question will require a deeper understanding of the reason, the context and your situation. In general knowledge managers are responsible for:
Strategic issues related to learning, business intelligence, customer relationships, intellectual assets and agility.
Influencing, building and changing organizational culture, practices and policies to enable greater innovation, knowledge sharing and creativity.
Introducing advanced practices to improve knowledge creation and sharing, such as, tools for building a corporate memory, enabling virtual forums, stewarding communities of practice, assisting with informal learning.
Knowledge managers are expected to engage and mentor executives in the finer points of KM - creating open space, building trust, showing a tolerance for learning via errors, helping with hiring qualities that promote knowledge flows.
Depending on circumstances, you may be involved with knowledge audits and mapping, development of taxonomic policy, decisions on software procurement and adoption and will be expected to lead the firm in working with tacit knowledge assets.
There are many more roles and competencies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_management
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KM_concepts
The best way to improve your KM skills is to find a project and a mentor and jump right in - learn by and from doing.
I suspect a useful answer to your question will require a deeper understanding of the reason, the context and your situation. In general knowledge managers are responsible for:
Strategic issues related to learning, business intelligence, customer relationships, intellectual assets and agility.
Influencing, building and changing organizational culture, practices and policies to enable greater innovation, knowledge sharing and creativity.
Introducing advanced practices to improve knowledge creation and sharing, such as, tools for building a corporate memory, enabling virtual forums, stewarding communities of practice, assisting with informal learning.
Knowledge managers are expected to engage and mentor executives in the finer points of KM - creating open space, building trust, showing a tolerance for learning via errors, helping with hiring qualities that promote knowledge flows.
Depending on circumstances, you may be involved with knowledge audits and mapping, development of taxonomic policy, decisions on software procurement and adoption and will be expected to lead the firm in working with tacit knowledge assets.
There are many more roles and competencies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_management
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KM_concepts
The best way to improve your KM skills is to find a project and a mentor and jump right in - learn by and from doing.
I agree with the precedent posts and would just distinguish the three points of view that KM embeds:
- the technical ones which iare the field of documentation and computers specialists
- the business (content) ones which ought to be the genuine focus of the CKO with the help of interlocutors in each main department of the company so as to supply users (process actors) with pertinent knowledge
-the organizational ones which are namely devoted to collaborative work and knowledge sharing; this "human" side of KM may be the task of HR specialists
Of course, those three points of views are imbricated but in my opinion it is clearer for everybody if they are explicited. This does not prevent -on the contrary- persons in charge of them from meeting one another and discussing about transversal issues such as the ones quoted by Denham (taxonomic policy, software procurement and so on). This does not mean that the three above functions would be assigned to an only manager.
The reality is much more complex and firm dependant but you will more easily apprehend it if you keep in mind the above distinction as you will verify it throughreading the examples given in the Contactivity reports which are just posted on the KB portal!
- the technical ones which iare the field of documentation and computers specialists
- the business (content) ones which ought to be the genuine focus of the CKO with the help of interlocutors in each main department of the company so as to supply users (process actors) with pertinent knowledge
-the organizational ones which are namely devoted to collaborative work and knowledge sharing; this "human" side of KM may be the task of HR specialists
Of course, those three points of views are imbricated but in my opinion it is clearer for everybody if they are explicited. This does not prevent -on the contrary- persons in charge of them from meeting one another and discussing about transversal issues such as the ones quoted by Denham (taxonomic policy, software procurement and so on). This does not mean that the three above functions would be assigned to an only manager.
The reality is much more complex and firm dependant but you will more easily apprehend it if you keep in mind the above distinction as you will verify it throughreading the examples given in the Contactivity reports which are just posted on the KB portal!
Edited: 11-Nov-06 4:19pm
Hello All,
I have read the responses to this and, with all due respect, I will now play devil's advocate...
I have managed very large IT organizations, with a background in highly distributed information systems and KM in multiple companies, and I now actually sell and teach KM solutions to enterprises.
I ask that you put yourself in my shoes and understand that you cannot spend money frivolously and irresponsibly, so I'm looking for solid justification that would make me want to hire that dedicated Knowledge Manager.
After reading your responses, and as an executive in a firm, I have to say that I see no value in hiring a Knowledge Manager, based on your pitch. What you've described are the responsibilities of a solid Architect (Software and/or Information), whose responsibilities include both strategic and tactical growth of the enterprise he or she represents. If not the Architect, then at a higher level, you've described the responsibilities of a Chief Operations Officer, whose responsibilities revolve around all facets of operations, both strategic and tactical. If my firm is suffering in the areas you've described, why wouldn't I just fire my lead Architect or my COO with a more competent one who will do his or her job more effectively? Why hire the additional headcount?
It appears that there is nothing in your description of a Knowledge Manager that would allow me to justify or make me want to hire a Knowledge Manager. And, reading your descriptions simply makes me believe that hiring a dedicated KM is not going to add any value that can be differentiated from key roles I already have in place, today. Therefore, I ask that you please help me understand what a CKO would do that is different than my COO or my lead Architect. Spending the extra money is very important issue to enterprises and they will want to know what the ROI is on a dedicated KM.
I, personally, have not been able to come up with a logical justification to doing so. I have been able to convince people to buy KM solutions that will help them eliminate headcount but I can almost never justify an uptick in headcount for such a service and I'm trying to understand if I'm missing something important, here.
Thanks for any help you can provide.
Best Regards,
Frank Guerino
CEO & Founder
TraverseIT
On-Demand Knowledge Management
Frank.Guerino@TraverseIT.com
http://www.TraverseIT.com
I have read the responses to this and, with all due respect, I will now play devil's advocate...
I have managed very large IT organizations, with a background in highly distributed information systems and KM in multiple companies, and I now actually sell and teach KM solutions to enterprises.
I ask that you put yourself in my shoes and understand that you cannot spend money frivolously and irresponsibly, so I'm looking for solid justification that would make me want to hire that dedicated Knowledge Manager.
After reading your responses, and as an executive in a firm, I have to say that I see no value in hiring a Knowledge Manager, based on your pitch. What you've described are the responsibilities of a solid Architect (Software and/or Information), whose responsibilities include both strategic and tactical growth of the enterprise he or she represents. If not the Architect, then at a higher level, you've described the responsibilities of a Chief Operations Officer, whose responsibilities revolve around all facets of operations, both strategic and tactical. If my firm is suffering in the areas you've described, why wouldn't I just fire my lead Architect or my COO with a more competent one who will do his or her job more effectively? Why hire the additional headcount?
It appears that there is nothing in your description of a Knowledge Manager that would allow me to justify or make me want to hire a Knowledge Manager. And, reading your descriptions simply makes me believe that hiring a dedicated KM is not going to add any value that can be differentiated from key roles I already have in place, today. Therefore, I ask that you please help me understand what a CKO would do that is different than my COO or my lead Architect. Spending the extra money is very important issue to enterprises and they will want to know what the ROI is on a dedicated KM.
I, personally, have not been able to come up with a logical justification to doing so. I have been able to convince people to buy KM solutions that will help them eliminate headcount but I can almost never justify an uptick in headcount for such a service and I'm trying to understand if I'm missing something important, here.
Thanks for any help you can provide.
Best Regards,
Frank Guerino
CEO & Founder
TraverseIT
On-Demand Knowledge Management
Frank.Guerino@TraverseIT.com
http://www.TraverseIT.com
Edited: 12-Nov-06 02:50am
Frank,
I beg to differ, yes you can load your COO, CIO even the CEO with knowledge responsibilities, but will they have the sensitivity, time, training, interest and relationships to really work with knowledge?
Will they really appreciate the subtle differences that come from a knowledge vs. information mindset and be able to fully leverage that?
Will they have the motivation to push the hard cultural changes necessary to build a knowledge driven organization?
Will they really be sensitive to the hiring decisions, the need for personal learning opportunities and the advantages of being a member of a CoP?
My experience is COOs, CIOs and CTOs are driven by the bottom line, concerned with everyday firefighting, this quarters profits and keeping up with the competition - if this were not so, something is very wrong.
Most firms then lack a champion for cross silo learning, intelligence gathering, agility, awareness and competitive advantage from knowledge sharing - this is where the knowledge manager steps up to the plate.
IMO these knowledge management imperatives have not gone away - if anything they have become more important as firms struggle to understand web2.0, deal with the ever decreasing half-life of knowledge and faster decision cycles, battle global competition and rising customer expectations and power.
I beg to differ, yes you can load your COO, CIO even the CEO with knowledge responsibilities, but will they have the sensitivity, time, training, interest and relationships to really work with knowledge?
Will they really appreciate the subtle differences that come from a knowledge vs. information mindset and be able to fully leverage that?
Will they have the motivation to push the hard cultural changes necessary to build a knowledge driven organization?
Will they really be sensitive to the hiring decisions, the need for personal learning opportunities and the advantages of being a member of a CoP?
My experience is COOs, CIOs and CTOs are driven by the bottom line, concerned with everyday firefighting, this quarters profits and keeping up with the competition - if this were not so, something is very wrong.
Most firms then lack a champion for cross silo learning, intelligence gathering, agility, awareness and competitive advantage from knowledge sharing - this is where the knowledge manager steps up to the plate.
IMO these knowledge management imperatives have not gone away - if anything they have become more important as firms struggle to understand web2.0, deal with the ever decreasing half-life of knowledge and faster decision cycles, battle global competition and rising customer expectations and power.
Edited: 12-Nov-06 04:29am
First we need to differentiate between 'KM Project Managers' and 'Knowledge Managers'. Having a 'dedicated' knowledge manager is a trap for failure. To make KM an integral part of the business process, knowlede manager role must be an integral part of the managers and leaders of the business processes. We have implemented this model and it works. This is going to be a one-chapter in my book that am working on. Hope I will be able to articulate in this small note the essence of integrating the functional role and knowledge management role without adding additional burden to people. This is one of the success factors of KM. If it is not done right, it can become the key reason for KM failures.
Knowledge is people, content, practices or processes and intellectual capital. Who else will be the best person to manage the knowledge of support organization (support delivery team, questions & answers, problems and solutions, etc.,) other than the support manager? Who else can be the greatest knowledge manager for training organization who can take the complete responsibility for training content, delivery model and so on other than the training manager?
In my view, all the managers and middle-level leaders such as training manager, support managers, project leaders, team leads and so on must be considered as knowledge manager. This way you will get 100s and 1000s of knowledge mangers in a mid-size and very large enterprises respectively.
KM model bring in productivity improvement for the managers and leaders. Managers must be able to save 20-30% of time through scientific and systematic management approaches. This time saved must be used for the additional knowledge manager role. This way, the manager feel empowered but not insecured. After some time, the managers will feel that they were doing this all along but without a systematic and scalable approach.
Let's get into the other role now. The KM Project Manager is a 'dedicated' role for large organizations. We need only few of them. They are responsible for working with implementing systems that are common across the organization, evangelizing and driving KM and they need to work with the knowledge managers. If KM Project Manager is a decision maker for the business function specific KM systems such as Support KM, Project KM, Training KM and so on, then KM will never take-off.
Let's go one level above. Frankly speaking, many COO organization do not understand KM in today's work environment. CIO or CTO give more emphasis on technology or at least it is perception right now. That's the reason it could make sense to have a CKO who needs to very closely work with the CIO for the technology side. If CKO tries to take control over CIO, then failure is certain. HR organization must come into picture only for the recruitment and initial training part but not for the on-the-job learning.
CKO role can be a dedicated role preferrably or an integral part of CIO depending on the narrow or broad minds of the CIOs.
Coming to the productivity. Doesn't matter you implement email system, website, ERP, CRM or KM, ROI plan must be in place. It is no different from implementing any other system.
If there is no proven 5% productivity gain (minimum) or 15% productivity gain in large or mid-size organization during the pilot, then no KM system must be put in place across the organization. As long as the right KM system is put in place and right size of KM champions (task force) and there is a good working model for connecting knowledge managers and dedicated KM project managers, there will be great benefits.
If CKO thinks that he or she needs to have 100s of people under his/her empire, no one can save the empire.
Knowledge is people, content, practices or processes and intellectual capital. Who else will be the best person to manage the knowledge of support organization (support delivery team, questions & answers, problems and solutions, etc.,) other than the support manager? Who else can be the greatest knowledge manager for training organization who can take the complete responsibility for training content, delivery model and so on other than the training manager?
In my view, all the managers and middle-level leaders such as training manager, support managers, project leaders, team leads and so on must be considered as knowledge manager. This way you will get 100s and 1000s of knowledge mangers in a mid-size and very large enterprises respectively.
KM model bring in productivity improvement for the managers and leaders. Managers must be able to save 20-30% of time through scientific and systematic management approaches. This time saved must be used for the additional knowledge manager role. This way, the manager feel empowered but not insecured. After some time, the managers will feel that they were doing this all along but without a systematic and scalable approach.
Let's get into the other role now. The KM Project Manager is a 'dedicated' role for large organizations. We need only few of them. They are responsible for working with implementing systems that are common across the organization, evangelizing and driving KM and they need to work with the knowledge managers. If KM Project Manager is a decision maker for the business function specific KM systems such as Support KM, Project KM, Training KM and so on, then KM will never take-off.
Let's go one level above. Frankly speaking, many COO organization do not understand KM in today's work environment. CIO or CTO give more emphasis on technology or at least it is perception right now. That's the reason it could make sense to have a CKO who needs to very closely work with the CIO for the technology side. If CKO tries to take control over CIO, then failure is certain. HR organization must come into picture only for the recruitment and initial training part but not for the on-the-job learning.
CKO role can be a dedicated role preferrably or an integral part of CIO depending on the narrow or broad minds of the CIOs.
Coming to the productivity. Doesn't matter you implement email system, website, ERP, CRM or KM, ROI plan must be in place. It is no different from implementing any other system.
If there is no proven 5% productivity gain (minimum) or 15% productivity gain in large or mid-size organization during the pilot, then no KM system must be put in place across the organization. As long as the right KM system is put in place and right size of KM champions (task force) and there is a good working model for connecting knowledge managers and dedicated KM project managers, there will be great benefits.
If CKO thinks that he or she needs to have 100s of people under his/her empire, no one can save the empire.
Edited: 12-Nov-06 06:40am
Dear Colleagues,
I read your objections with a great interest and of course the optimal organization depends on the size of the company. In small firms, the same man has several functions whereas in big firms you are more specialized.
In the cases you describe, I wonder who will ensure the coordination of numerous knowledge managers so that they use the same framework if you have no CKO?
When it is said that it is necessary to "connect knowledge managers and dedicated KM project managers", this coordination is not necessarly an imperialistic one: teamwork is a reality today!
I suggested to you to read KB reports for you may discover
-into one of them that at IAI there is a Chief Knowledge Officer (CKO) who coordinates knowledge managers: they see him as a "facilitator and a supplier of methods, processes, best practices and experience"
-into the other one that at Teva, a corporate Knowledge Management team connects remote professionals and saves costs; it namely comprises a CKO too and KM executive leader (who is also VP Safety & Environment)
Sincerely, do you think those companies throw their money out of the window? You have to consider ROI at a global level; as for contributions of KM it is only to be evaluated as a factor of success by means of ad hoc KPI such as those used in scorecarding: it is not conceivable to say a priori that employing a CKO brings a ROI of x% (Are you able to reckon the ROI of any executive or non executive officer?); you may do that only afterwards by comparison or before if you have benchmarking opportunities.
I read your objections with a great interest and of course the optimal organization depends on the size of the company. In small firms, the same man has several functions whereas in big firms you are more specialized.
In the cases you describe, I wonder who will ensure the coordination of numerous knowledge managers so that they use the same framework if you have no CKO?
When it is said that it is necessary to "connect knowledge managers and dedicated KM project managers", this coordination is not necessarly an imperialistic one: teamwork is a reality today!
I suggested to you to read KB reports for you may discover
-into one of them that at IAI there is a Chief Knowledge Officer (CKO) who coordinates knowledge managers: they see him as a "facilitator and a supplier of methods, processes, best practices and experience"
-into the other one that at Teva, a corporate Knowledge Management team connects remote professionals and saves costs; it namely comprises a CKO too and KM executive leader (who is also VP Safety & Environment)
Sincerely, do you think those companies throw their money out of the window? You have to consider ROI at a global level; as for contributions of KM it is only to be evaluated as a factor of success by means of ad hoc KPI such as those used in scorecarding: it is not conceivable to say a priori that employing a CKO brings a ROI of x% (Are you able to reckon the ROI of any executive or non executive officer?); you may do that only afterwards by comparison or before if you have benchmarking opportunities.
Edited: 12-Nov-06 5:18pm
Guy,
This is the summary of my previous note:
1. Knowledge Manager is not a dedicated role it is an integral part of the managers and leaders of all business processes
2. CKO can be dedicated preferrably (ref: paragraph 7 in my previous note) or it can be part of CIO
CKOs need not worry if there are 10 knowledge managers or 1000 knowledge managers. The systematic approach he or she put in must be scalable. CKOs effort is based on the number of LOBs that should come under the KM radar. The head of LOB (business process) will drive the knowledge managers of his or her team through the KM practices and measure its outcome through the KPIs.
CKO along with the KM project managers, LOB heads and few representatives (knowledge managers) from each LOB must work together initially to put the pratice in place, define the KPIs and kick-start KM.
The primary ownership of productivity, quality and innovation must lie with the LOB heads and the people within the LOB. CKO is the facilitator of KM practices.
So to address the actual question of Kavu, the roles of knowledge managers are:
Whatever role they play as functional manager or leader + manager of knowledge assets, knowledge activity and knowledge workers through the KM practices necessary for their function.
This is the summary of my previous note:
1. Knowledge Manager is not a dedicated role it is an integral part of the managers and leaders of all business processes
2. CKO can be dedicated preferrably (ref: paragraph 7 in my previous note) or it can be part of CIO
CKOs need not worry if there are 10 knowledge managers or 1000 knowledge managers. The systematic approach he or she put in must be scalable. CKOs effort is based on the number of LOBs that should come under the KM radar. The head of LOB (business process) will drive the knowledge managers of his or her team through the KM practices and measure its outcome through the KPIs.
CKO along with the KM project managers, LOB heads and few representatives (knowledge managers) from each LOB must work together initially to put the pratice in place, define the KPIs and kick-start KM.
The primary ownership of productivity, quality and innovation must lie with the LOB heads and the people within the LOB. CKO is the facilitator of KM practices.
So to address the actual question of Kavu, the roles of knowledge managers are:
Whatever role they play as functional manager or leader + manager of knowledge assets, knowledge activity and knowledge workers through the KM practices necessary for their function.
Edited: 13-Nov-06 03:18am
Gentlemen,
The more I read, the more I see that there is no definitive answer as to what a Knowledge Manager is supposed to do. At best, the descriptions I'm reading are the qualities of a good leader. If you put yourself in the role of owning a company, where the people you hire are to be direct contributors to your revenue streams and your profits, I see nothing in your descriptions that would drive me to hire a dedicated resource as a stand-alone role.
Strategy and innovation are things that are the responsibilities of multiple people in an enterprise. While I personally am enamoured with the whole discipline and the related practices and principles of Knowledge Management, I see nothing that justified a dedicated role. As a matter of fact, every enterprise I have been exposed to who hired a dedicated KM has had significant issues getting the role to be productive. As mentioned above, a stand-alone Knowledge Manager has no real responsibility over productive operational processes. If you think about it, in a large enterprise, the responsibilities of a so-called Knowledge Manager are spread across the key functions of the enterprise. For example:
- How an enterprise learns is typically the role of a Learning and Development Organization
- How an enterprise leverages information to improve operations and revenue is the responsibility of the CIO and his/her Information Architects.
- How an enterprise improves its processes and operations for the purpose of maximizing profits and enabling new business channels is the responsibility of the COO.
- How an enterprise leverages technologies to improve operations and enable revenues is typically the responsibility of the CTO (getting his or her requirements from CIOs, COOs, etc.). This, also, would include his/her Technology Architects (SW, HW, etc.).
- Etc.
I could go on and on. In a large enterprise, it is virtually impossible to have any one person who can know enough about the bigger picture and also have control of value add policies, processes, tools, technologies, etc. In a smaller enterprise, it is virtually impossible to justify the cost.
Again, while I totally love and believe in the concept of Knowledge Management, and as a decision maker (past and present), I see absolutely no justification for a dedicated Knowledge Manager. All I see is wanting to hire another person to perform work that should already be performed by my highly paid leaders, making me thinkg: "If they're not doing their work correctly, why should I hire another person into the mess when the right thing to do is replace the broken pieces with better ones?"
Innovation is not the job of a Knowledge Manager. It's the job of every employee I hire. Knowledge sharing isn't the job of a Knowledge Manager, its the job of my CIO and his/her Information Architects. Learning isn't the job of my Knowledge Manager. It's the job of my Learning and Development leader. And so on...
I'd like to see the justification of hiring a dedicated KM but I just don't see it, yet. Let me leave you with the same statement that any competent board would ask of its C-Level executives... "Show me the financials." As much as I'd like to be able to do so, I just don't see it.
Best Regards,
Frank Guerino
CEO & Founder
TraverseIT
On-Demand Knowledge Management
Frank.Guerino@TraverseIT.com
http://www.TraverseIT.com
The more I read, the more I see that there is no definitive answer as to what a Knowledge Manager is supposed to do. At best, the descriptions I'm reading are the qualities of a good leader. If you put yourself in the role of owning a company, where the people you hire are to be direct contributors to your revenue streams and your profits, I see nothing in your descriptions that would drive me to hire a dedicated resource as a stand-alone role.
Strategy and innovation are things that are the responsibilities of multiple people in an enterprise. While I personally am enamoured with the whole discipline and the related practices and principles of Knowledge Management, I see nothing that justified a dedicated role. As a matter of fact, every enterprise I have been exposed to who hired a dedicated KM has had significant issues getting the role to be productive. As mentioned above, a stand-alone Knowledge Manager has no real responsibility over productive operational processes. If you think about it, in a large enterprise, the responsibilities of a so-called Knowledge Manager are spread across the key functions of the enterprise. For example:
- How an enterprise learns is typically the role of a Learning and Development Organization
- How an enterprise leverages information to improve operations and revenue is the responsibility of the CIO and his/her Information Architects.
- How an enterprise improves its processes and operations for the purpose of maximizing profits and enabling new business channels is the responsibility of the COO.
- How an enterprise leverages technologies to improve operations and enable revenues is typically the responsibility of the CTO (getting his or her requirements from CIOs, COOs, etc.). This, also, would include his/her Technology Architects (SW, HW, etc.).
- Etc.
I could go on and on. In a large enterprise, it is virtually impossible to have any one person who can know enough about the bigger picture and also have control of value add policies, processes, tools, technologies, etc. In a smaller enterprise, it is virtually impossible to justify the cost.
Again, while I totally love and believe in the concept of Knowledge Management, and as a decision maker (past and present), I see absolutely no justification for a dedicated Knowledge Manager. All I see is wanting to hire another person to perform work that should already be performed by my highly paid leaders, making me thinkg: "If they're not doing their work correctly, why should I hire another person into the mess when the right thing to do is replace the broken pieces with better ones?"
Innovation is not the job of a Knowledge Manager. It's the job of every employee I hire. Knowledge sharing isn't the job of a Knowledge Manager, its the job of my CIO and his/her Information Architects. Learning isn't the job of my Knowledge Manager. It's the job of my Learning and Development leader. And so on...
I'd like to see the justification of hiring a dedicated KM but I just don't see it, yet. Let me leave you with the same statement that any competent board would ask of its C-Level executives... "Show me the financials." As much as I'd like to be able to do so, I just don't see it.
Best Regards,
Frank Guerino
CEO & Founder
TraverseIT
On-Demand Knowledge Management
Frank.Guerino@TraverseIT.com
http://www.TraverseIT.com
Edited: 13-Nov-06 05:39am
Denham,
To answer your questions, yes, my highly paid leaders can tell the difference between "knowledge" and "information". I expect them to be able to. If they can't, I replace them with leadership who can.
The majority of the most innovative companies in the world never had a dedicated Knowledge Manager of any form. They set the precedence of enterprises that function successfully without dedicated KMs. If they can do so and other enterprises can't, it's most likely not an issue of the lack of a dedicated KM. For the enterprises that can't, it's more than likely an issue of the leadership & resources not matching up to the quality of enterprises that can function without a dedicated KM. It means your leadership and resources aren't performing to expectations.
To me, Knowledge Management is a cultural issue, not one that can be controlled by a dedicated "knowledge" role. That culture comes from solid leaders who understand things like competitive edges, job satisfaction, morale, collecting and managing information, learning, sharing, etc. If culture isn't going to be addressed by your existing leadership, who actually does have complete control of operational fuctions, then bringing in one person to try and bridge all of their responsibilities, who has no real control over any operational processes, certainly seems to have a very low probability of success.
I hope my response is represented properly and makes sense to the readers. If there are any questions, please let me know.
Best Regards,
Frank Guerino
CEO & Founder
TraverseIT
On-Demand Knowledge Management
Frank.Guerino@TraverseIT.com
http://www.TraverseIT.com
To answer your questions, yes, my highly paid leaders can tell the difference between "knowledge" and "information". I expect them to be able to. If they can't, I replace them with leadership who can.
The majority of the most innovative companies in the world never had a dedicated Knowledge Manager of any form. They set the precedence of enterprises that function successfully without dedicated KMs. If they can do so and other enterprises can't, it's most likely not an issue of the lack of a dedicated KM. For the enterprises that can't, it's more than likely an issue of the leadership & resources not matching up to the quality of enterprises that can function without a dedicated KM. It means your leadership and resources aren't performing to expectations.
To me, Knowledge Management is a cultural issue, not one that can be controlled by a dedicated "knowledge" role. That culture comes from solid leaders who understand things like competitive edges, job satisfaction, morale, collecting and managing information, learning, sharing, etc. If culture isn't going to be addressed by your existing leadership, who actually does have complete control of operational fuctions, then bringing in one person to try and bridge all of their responsibilities, who has no real control over any operational processes, certainly seems to have a very low probability of success.
I hope my response is represented properly and makes sense to the readers. If there are any questions, please let me know.
Best Regards,
Frank Guerino
CEO & Founder
TraverseIT
On-Demand Knowledge Management
Frank.Guerino@TraverseIT.com
http://www.TraverseIT.com
Edited: 20-Nov-06 04:52am
Exact role of Knowledge Manager
Kavita Parab
8-Nov-06 08:29am