Observatório de Gestão do Conhecimento

In a recent post, "Why sitting at the kids' table is killing KM", I wrote about the risk of how a pattern of failed KM implementations could snowball into damaging the reputation of the discipline as a whole. To be exact, I said, "every such failure is like another small dose of poison that can eventually bring down the entire beast." Among the many thoughtful comments I received, one (thank you, Neil Olonoff) posed a particularly interesting question: If this is true for KM, why isn't it for IT? To further quote Neil:

Certainly the history of IT implementations is littered with famous and expensive failures! Is it only because organizations believe that they "must" have IT whereas KM is a "nice to have"?

The observation that, like KM and many other business disciplines, IT implementations have seen a significant share of --sometimes spectacular-- failures is probably a fair one. It also appears true that no matter the level of frustration that may be felt in some corners, few seem to be questioning the fundamental role of technology in business operations.

So how is that KM Programs that struggle (sometimes due to little fault of their own) face the real possibility of being scaled back, re-purposed, restructured, or outright eliminated by their organizations, while this doesn't seem to be true (to the same extent) for IT? Using an analogy of the organization as a sports team may help crystallize the difference.

If your organization was a sports team, your CIO might be the team's equipment manager, responsible for delivering the best equipment (shoes, clothes, balls, bats, sticks, helmets etc.) to the team. If equipment costs get out of control, or the quality doesn't meet the needs of the team, the equipment manager may get fired, but that doesn't remove the team's need for shoes and shirts. So, they'll just have the find an equipment manager with better skills, knowledge, and priorities to get the job done right. Even if the team decides it no longer needs a dedicated equipment manager, they will still need equipment --and thus people to take care of it.

In this analogy, KM programs on the other hand would be more like the team's fitness or conditioning coach. A good fitness program can help get the most out of the players, increase their sharpness and ability to make plays and outlast the competition to get the win. In any physical sport (or knowledge-heavy organization), the promise of excellent fitness is obvious, and the role a conditioning coach can play clear. Small town junior teams may feel they don't need to create a formal role for it and can handle conditioning as part of their regular practice routine, but any big time or professional team will surely want one on staff.

Now, what if the conditioning program fails to meet team expectations? Initially, the same "fire and replace" tactic will likely be applied. If disappointment persists, however, the question may emerge among the team's leaders: "If this is not working, why do we even need a special program for conditioning? Couldn't we take care of this ourselves or some other way? After all, we have to work out as part of practice anyway..." In other words, the added value of the role itself is in question. The fundamental difference between equipment and conditioning is that the first is binary --you either need at least some equipment for the team or you don't. And in almost all cases, you do.

Special efforts for conditioning, like KM, on the other hand are an augmenter, an amplifier, of something that is already happening: performance. Organizations already perform one way or the other, and to some extent they share, learn, and collaborate, with our without a formal KM program. In another post, I described this simply as “Before KM, there was KM”. The fact that KM operates on a continuous scale (performance) that isn't its own also makes the impact of KM more difficult to measure and demonstrate --the infamous ROI debate. Its contribution to performance can be hard to isolate, which is another reason KM programs --and consequently KM as a discipline-- is more likely to get "punished" for its struggles, real or perceived. Clearly, KM programs can play a critical role in maximizing the role and value of knowledge in how organizations operate and achieve results. Well-functioning KM programs already do so all over the world.

But organizational leaders disappointed for any reason in their apparent cost-benefit may be more tempted to conclude they can do without formal KM than is the case for IT. Regardless of how KM and IT are different in this regard, Neil also implicitly raised another powerful question: Does this make KM just "nice to have" or is it essential to an organization's functioning? To make this judgment, it may be useful to discern two ways in which a function can be essential to an organization: inherently or performance-based. Some functions of organizations are inherently essential, whether or not they are performing well, and whether or not they are highly valued across the organization. Building maintenance or payroll administration come to mind as possible examples. Some core IT functions also fall into this category, depending on the type and size of the organization. Without them the organization loses (some of) its capacity to function.

Not function well or poorly, function period. Formal KM programs don't typically fall into this "inherently essential" category. Nonetheless, organizations appreciate many functions that do not fall into this first category as a "must have", essential to their ability to survive, innovate, and grow. KM programs should fit into this second category, but they can only do so based on their performance. By performing well and adding demonstrable value to the way the organization operates, KM can effectively turn itself into a "must have" function. Failing that, KM will be stuck as a "could" or "should" do at best, either considered unimportant or not urgent. Or worse, sink to "nice to have" status.

At the same time, KM and any of the other organizational "performance-based functions" should not kid themselves. If a perception of under-performance takes hold in the organization, none of these functions are sacred or untouchable. Well known mobile phone maker Nokia started out as a paper mill processing wood pulp, not exactly part of their business today. Apparently, even producing paper isn't indefinitely or unconditionally essential to a paper company.

So, whether at the end of the day you consider KM a fundamental "must have", just "nice to have", or somewhere in between, it is the job of KM professionals everywhere to help organizations continuously perform better. This will not only keep KM alive as a discipline, but also strengthen it as a relevant --even essential-- part of how organizations operate.