Transparency: Transparency of internal communication or
decision making is important but challenging, because the decision comprises
knowledge in itself, especially when you take the reasons for taking the
decision in this regard. Internally communicating the motivation for a decision
has advantages on both sides (1) the decision maker is 'forced' to actually
think about why he/she decided to do this or that...this exercise will make
knowledge more explicit, even for him/herself. (2) all people influenced by the
decision know on what basis the decision was made 3) Nothing can be absolutely
transparent, it takes balanced approach to manage EA effectively.
Succession Planning: knowledge
cannot just be effectively transferred via documents or other means of ‘storing
knowledge’, if knowledge is defined
as strategy, practice, method or approach as well as the expertise, and skills
acquired by a person through experience or education... The successful
succession planning requires, among other things, an overlap between the
incoming and the outgoing person to allow for a face-to-face handover (in
addition to documentation and some sort of system to capture all relevant
information). One of the obvious challenges is a potential lack of incentive on
the site of the departing staff member to share relevant information with their
successor. Making this a mandatory step of your check-out procedure could be
one way of mitigating this problem but there might be better ways.
KM can not capture
the ‘Expert Knowledge;’ effectively. Inefficient knowledge captures and
reuses, multiple storage places and methods of saving, and many KM solutions do
not help experts articulate the nature of their expertise. Much of what is captured, stored, and delivered is shallow
information - not expert knowledge. "KM solutions" assume the expert
knows what to share, and that the knowledge seekers know what to look for.
These are skills that must be developed, on both sides of the equation.
The culture may not
allow the knowledge workers to "do knowledge right". Everyone is
run off his or her feet, silos are prevalent, and there may be few
opportunities (or indeed rewards) for behaviors such as in-depth investigation
of past thinking, thoughtful sharing and the like. But in practice, day to day
pressures trump the good intentions, and crisis management ends up prevailing.
To adapt the old IT adage about doing things right vs. doing things over, there
may not be enough money or political will to invest in suitable KM mechanisms
and rewards for good knowledge stewardship … but there will be enough money to
perform heroics when things go wrong. The organizations should look for
practical proof that in the long run, giving knowledge workers a culture in
which insights and expertise can be generated and protected
Lack the alignment of
leadership, process, technology and measures, etc. 1) Having no or a way
too idealistic definition of KM is one of the key issues. Linked to that is the
creation of false expectations in terms of what a company can achieve with KM.
2) C-level buy-in, or rather, lack of, But KM needs to be discussed as a
tangible component of strategy, which
starts with C-level guidance and communication. 3) A lack of political
will to see a true I&KM program through. The need for instant
gratification, without the willingness to understand the infrastructure needed
to be successful. 4) Not engage in the latest technology trend. The introduction
of social knowledge management for business is very natural progression and can
be one way to address knowledge capture real time through discussion threads
that are stored in a KM system. 5) Accountability - not enabling those WITH the
knowledge by affording the time to adequately contribute to the knowledge bases
and not building accountability (their role) into the knowledge chain
The real challenge in KM is adaptation, with the ability to
ride ahead of changes curves, and design the solutions enabling organization’s
digital transformation.
No comments:
Post a Comment