Knowledge Organisation Transformation Roadmaps
16-May-03
- (Business Intelligence/Ernst &Young Survey, 1997)
“Successfully adapting systems have the property of translating apparent noise into meaning at a faster rate than the arrival of apparent noise.”
- Seth Lloyd Complexity Scientist.
“A successful species not only has to be adapted to the environment, it also has to be adapted to adapting to the environment”
- The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins.
Transformation Roadmaps
Over the past decade a number of powerful drivers have transformed the environment in which most organisations operate. Probably the most dynamic is the factor that emerges out of the conjunction of innovations in ICT and new value network dynamics. This is the shift in the way value is created to “advantage through knowledge”.
Although many commentators agree that the western economies have shifted from industrial to intangible forms of wealth creation, the fact is that many older organisations have emerged into this new landscape with much of their legacy intact. There are many k-based organisations operating in a k-advantage environment that retain traditional management approaches. There are also organisations who have accurately made sense of these emergent realities. They have successfully innovated and experimented to create k-advantage. The positive impacts of adopting more appropriate management approaches are many and varied; from smarter sensing, responding and adapting, to faster speed of execution and increased flexibility, attracting the best talent, mobilising innovation and creating and delivering value.
We term organisations that maintain traditional approaches to management, yet operate in dominantly k-advantage environments K-T, where K stands for k-advantage environment and T represents the negative impact of traditional legacy management. We believe that this is a very real issue for many large, old and complex organisations in Europe. The term K+ is used for organisations who are successfully creating knowledge advantage. This means that there is a good fit between the organisation and its knowledge-advantage environment.
So if the above description of current realities is correct, how are K-T organisations going to catch up with the K+ organisations? In our experience many organisations have not formally undertaken a holistic transformation process in response to the new set of environmental drivers. Instead managers may be unsure of how and where the organisation needs to change, or may be unaware of the imperative to transform at all.
The assumption is that K-T organisations are going to operate sub-optimally on a number of areas. These include the strategic, process, operational and functional dimensions. In knowledge-base organisations people are often the critical value-adding component. Many of the sub-optimal forces in K-T organisations centre on how people are managed, organised, motivated, directed, supported and developed.
This project identifies some of the key environmental drivers and proposes a high-level framework for enabling holistic knowledge-advantage transformation. The process takes the form of a gap analysis, transformation strategy development, roadmap development and execution. Case studies, stories and other resources to support knowledge-based transformation will also be included.
This project is an attempt to map out some of the ground and offer some top-level resources and tools. This is an emerging area and there is much further work to do in bringing together the many different strands.
Please feel free to comment, give feedback and provide suggestions on the approach.
We would also welcome case studies, stories and resources and any other relevant other methods, approaches and ideas...
Paul Riches and Jeroen Kemp
Details
Attachments: 1
-
A proposed model for a continuously adapting business transformation process, for achieving sustainable knowledge advantage.16-May-03
- Author:
- Jeroen Kemp
- Publisher:
- KnowledgeBoard
- Date:
- 16-May-03
- Categories:
- Implementation, Business Processes, KM Strategy and Vision, Strategy and Vision
- Sections:
- News
This article has been read 12709 times.
Tools
Member comments (6)
Share your views with other users: add your own comments to this item.
conflict between greatest future purpose and last 90 day scores
Martin - these need 2 opposite kinds of goverenance system
by definition you cannot centralise and control the greatest reason why outside stakeholders gravitate around you; you have to serve and listen to them, evolve, and the top isnt well placed to control that through standard metrics, it can only faciliate that by:
making sure that everyone is talking/tristing about the same human purpose for advancing what only your comany is most competent at
encouraging everyone to feedback any emerging conflicts such as when outside needs chnage or other relationship disconnects happen
The one thing that is known is that the numbers used to measure cash-flow provide absolutely no information on whether a company is getting better or worse at its purpose, and if they rule alone over all knowledge workers then their lack of context and inability to strenghthen trust and other learning flows will be systemically perfect for eroding purpose cycle after cycle
this is why intangibles need an opposite maths and an opposite method of faciliation (ie making the map transparent) than tangible counting up of what's been transacted
Can you be selective, i.e. chooses the ones you like and disregard the others?
Paul,
I saw your presentation only today, almost two years after you posted it. Shame on me.
I like it very much because it can be used as an eye-opener. In my company, top managers do realize that we are a knowledge organization and moving more and more in that direction. They do want knowledge networks to develop and ask me to promote them. But on the other hand, our need to control our costs in Europe and to rebalance our activities has driven management/leadership practices towards more control and more centralization.
Did you witness something comparable at BT? If you did, what did you do?
Transformation Roadmaps - One way?
Thanks for the interesting comments.
Atai - do you have real world examples in mind for the reverse transformation, where a truly k-based organisation has shifted from visionary facilitative leadership to tight command and control?
I would have thought that this destroy a lot of potential value and would have to be implemented in a very careful and targeted way.
We imagine that the transformation roadmaps will be:
„h Dynamic and reflect changes in the environment at a frequency that is manageable and sustainable by the organisation
„h Represent a reasonable fit between an organisation and its environment in the areas of greatest impact
„h No one size fits all. Different enablers will be emphasised for different organisational conditions. So if competition within the industry drives cost-cutting then transformation initiatives may reflect this.
An high profile example/analogy of an organisation that is more to do the with legacy of its original purpose that is now experiencing serious issues with its fit within a changed environment is the United Nations.
Best Regards
Paul
Direction of transformation
Hi Jeroen and Paul,
I love Atai's comment: Coming from a knowledge management background, I believe in the feeling that we must support organisations in the transformation process from t to k. But how can we be sure that this is what organisations need? And: We should be aware to argue the transformation direction we are going to support in a very pragmatic, understandable manner.
“Transformation Roadmaps” - One way?
Dear Paul and Jeroen,
I found the concept suggested as “Transformation Roadmaps” interesting and valuable.
However, I would like to ask if you can imagine a situation were the transformation is not only “One Way”. For example, an organization in tight cash flow problem has to be much more “centralized” managed. If so, how will the knowledge worker accept the “backwards” transformation.
Kind regards,
Atai Ziv – Innovation Ecology
Potential conflict between knowledge networks and control and centralisation
Hi Martin,
Thanks for your query – even if it has a very long latency!
Your question that relates to the apparent conflict between flexible knowledge networks and the imperative of cost control/centralisation is very relevant to the majority of organisations. Cost control is the one-shot approach to extracting value, whereas positive value creation is accumulative and ongoing. If properly established, centralised governance, which starts top-down with customer value and aligns this with organisational resources, is not necessarily incompatible with a people networked approach.
The case for improving knowledge flexibility through enabling people networks should always align with how value is created for customers. Without this flexibility, there is a high probability of untapped and latent value trapped within different business stovepipes. In terms of the Knowledge Organisation Transformation framework these domains fall under Leadership and Structure. In our research we found that one of the biggest barriers to enabling a knowledge organisation is the inappropriate mental models and mindsets of Leadership. So it could be that you have first some research, then educational work to properly negotiate this apparent conflict.
In BT Global Services, we are actively encouraged to discover and establish useful links and collaborate across boundaries. Its even written in our appraisal guidance. There is very much a culture of project-based virtual working, with typically many project colleagues in different geographies and business units. This is supported through access to collaborative tools like collaborative platforms, people directories, instant messaging, audio conferencing etc.
One great book on the subject of alternative ways of working published last year is:
The Future of Work: Thomas W. Malone. This book covers the above areas and provides a good insight in the potential for future market-based approaches of organisational structure.
I’d be interested to know how you get on.
Best Regards
Paul