Recap: APQC's KM Conference, Day Two

University of Virginia professor Rob Cross kicked off his keynote by asking us to think about how a "network perspective" could help our organizations. If leaders understood more about how collaboration happens--the paths through which information is exchanged and value is created--what would those leaders do differently? What steps could be taken to reduce inefficiencies and ensure that employees are collaborating effectively?

Cross has studied corporate networks for many years. Part of his research involves going into companies and asking employees to fill out a 15-minute Web-based survey about how much time they spend working with others, who they go to when they need information, and so forth. He then maps the results to identify bottlenecks and breakdowns within the networks: Does the company have a problem with onboarding where new hires are not engaged quickly enough? Which individuals, functions, or locations aren't communicating with one another?  Who spends too much time inefficiently dispensing information?  

One of Cross' most insightful points is that more collaboration is not always better. If you weigh the benefits and costs of employee interactions, you realize that endless collaboration isn't the best use of people's time. Knowing a lot of people does not necessarily make you more productive. However, the networks of top performers include what Cross refers to as "bridging times"--people from across the organization with different areas of expertise. Rather than building huge networks, top performers focus on the most useful relationships. This allows them to form fruitful partnerships and find needed information without getting bogged down in excessive interaction.

For more information, I suggest reading Rob Cross' blog post from last month, which lays out five strategies to help leaders leverage talent and promote effective collaboration.

***********************************************************************************************

While John McQuary's keynote dealt primarily with broad lessons learned over Fluor Corp.'s decade in KM, he also spoke to specific practical dilemmas that a beginning KM program might encounter.

First, he outlined a challenge that many organizations face: Fluor's engineers work in diverse, even remote, locations, yet they and all their resources need to be linked tightly enough that any question can be answered quickly and thoroughly. To create a worldwide knowledge-sharing environment, Fluor built a consistent, scalable KM platform that would allow rapid deployment and onboarding for both new employees and those working in new locations.

 McQuary also advised that, because the transformation to a knowledge-sharing organization requires significant cultural changes, KM should be part of a larger project. At Fluor, the natural partner was the human capital management (HCM) function. The value of KM was proven through the successful identification of knowledge gaps and the creation of knowledge-loss mitigation strategies, which became key components of the HCM function's succession management plan.

For the human side of KM, McQuary emphasized the importance of structuring a KM program around how users are most likely to search for the information they need. Fluor's knowledge-sharing system is introduced during the onboarding process, allowing employees to quickly tap into the organization's collective expertise as well as discover where their own unique experiences can contribute to Fluor's body of knowledge.

************************************************************************************************

During the lunchtime keynote, Bryant Clevenger discussed recent changes to IBM Global Business Services' knowledge management tools and appraoch. In 2007, IBM's internal KM system was good, but the company wanted it to do more.  Clevenger cited four key success factors that allowed IBM to achieve its new, highly responsive system:

1. embracing risk,
2. focusing on a service-oriented architecture,
3. building a highly extensible and flexible model, and
   
4. treating everything as data.

The new system allows users to verify the quality and relevance of the data.  All of the company's search mechanisms include the option of referencing the tags and ratings users have applied. The system also leverages knowledge about subjects, people, and expertise housed in other IBM systems.  For example, the expertise location portion of the system is not solely dependent on information that users have entered in the database.  Every individual's record also includes a listing of his or her bookmarked items, communities that he or she belongs to, coworker connections, and blog posts.  If the expert is not currently available, searchers can utilize these other means to find the same information they could obtain through a conversation with the expert.

Having created a moldable, teachable system, IBM believes that its content management tool will be able to evolve and provide users with increasingly customized ways to access the information they need as well as a streamlined way of broadcasting their own information. User acceptance has been high, and the increased user feedback is resulting in dramatic refinements in the search, language, and expertise elements.

Click here for more information and to watch a short video on IBM's new KM tools.

**********************************************************************************************

After all the inspiration generated by two days of KM-practitioner knowledge sharing, Alan  Deutschman's closing keynote offered a path forward: You've seen where you want to take your organization, now you must figure out how to get there. According to  Deutschman, to understand how to enact change within your organization, you must first understand how you don't. One of  Deutschman's first questions to the audience was, "Why do we fail at creating change?" He argued that the answer lies in the very techniques we think most likely to help us effect transformation within our organizations. He calls them the Three Fs: facts, fear, and force.

Though it may seem counterintuitive, presenting facts will sway few people's opinions: We are rational people, but if a fact does not reflect our long-held beliefs, we are likely to reject it. It simply has no place in our paradigm, and our brains resist believing truths other than our own.

When appealing to ration fails, we frequently switch tactics to tap into anxiety--we try to sell an idea based on fear. It's this technique from which  Deutschman drew the title of his keynote: Change or Die. An abstract future need--especially one requiring capital investment or a great deal of work--will not motivate change.  A future peril will not always translate into a present fear.

The final F, "force," is one that is often extolled as a change virtue. Many change proponents wish for the one thing they believe will overcome the failures of facts and fear, the seeming holy grail of change: a senior management mandate.  However, Deutschman points out that it is often human nature to rebel against so-called direct orders, and that "pulling rank" can make workers feel belittled. In order to regain their dignity and maintain their sense of autonomy, employees will often decide for themselves whether they wish to comply--or, at the very least, will continue to do things the way they've always done them and hope the new initiative goes away.

What strategies are effective for creating change?  Deutschman suggests looking at change the way you would any complex form of learning, such as studying a foreign language or mastering a musical instrument. First, you must secure a teacher, coach, or mentor to guide you through. Then, you have to practice--any real change involves mastering dozens of new skills and/or habits, and until you struggle through the learning phase, you will not be able to progress. The final step requires a shift in mindset, at which point the new behavior starts to feel natural. That's when you know that you've successfully enacted the desired change.

**************************************************************************************

Thank you again for a great conference. Every year, this event allows us to engage with our knowledge management community and learn about the challenges you are facing. Regardless of whether you were able to attend, we hope you will continue to communicate with APQC and tell us what knowledge management issues are most important to your organizations. If you have any thoughts on future topics for KM Edge or would like to contribute to our Web site, please contact me at ltrees@apqc.org.