If you are
really going to take knowledge management seriously--invest time and resources,
engage with senior leadership, and expect to see results--then you need to
consider the roles and resources required to support your organization's KM
activities.
APQC's KM
Advanced Working Group recently completed a collaborative project focused on
knowledge for the future. As part of the project, the KM Advanced Working Group
identified four critical roles necessary for developing and maturing an
organization's KM capabilities.
These four roles are:
- knowledge management leader--focuses on strategy, leadership, and facilitation;
- knowledge management specialist--focuses on knowledge/content, flow and the impact of knowledge on processes and business/knowledge domains;
- communication director--focuses on communications and change
management; and
- information technology/business analyst--focuses on IT tools, infrastructure,
applications, and content management.
What KM roles
have you found to be most valuable within your organization? At
APQC's KM conference this Friday, APQC Executive Director Cindy Hubert and I
will be leading a lively discussion on roles within KM. We hope you'll be able
to join us and share your experiences.
Darcy, I think THE most critical role in KM is the Manager (regardless of the level). Unless they understand the value of looking at an organization's business process, and most importantly, social systems, through a knowledge lens, then agreeing to fund or take action to make changes and improvements to how knowledge is created, flows, or is captured in the organization, all the other roles you mention are "pushing a big rock up a hill."
We received the following comment on this article in the KM Edge LinkedIn forum.
Fascinating topic Darcy - I look forward to your presentation on Friday.
I was on a call last night with colleagues located in the Far East. We discussed some of the organizations that participated in the APQC’s “Role of Evolving Technologies” Best Practice Partner study two years ago. The conversation turned to degrees of centralized and decentralized KM and the impact of organizational size and culture. Based on the complexities that emerge from combining and divesting business units (and sometimes entire companies) I wonder if one size does not fit all. Instead, should we consider profiles by organizational size, complexity, or scope that impact or even dictate the efficacy of KM roles?
I would say the Knowledge Provider is the MVP, and the Knowledge Seeker is runner up. Without these roles, why bother.
Then comes:
3) KM Champion (refered to as KM Leader above)
4) Sponsor
5) Organizational Change Agent (includes communications)
There is a danger in trying to define roles, just as there is a danger in trying to define how to do KM. I know it sounds trite but it really does depend on the organization. I think the question should really be what are the competencies and attributes that contribute to successful adoption of KM. In this case it could include things like the following:
- business knowledge,
- competence in doing KM, OD, IT, IM, HR, Org Learning, communication, negotiation, etc, and
- perseverance.
If the question remains about the roles, then IMHO there are three:
- the business manager/owner/leader who sees the need and wants to make it succeed;
- the KM person(s) who has the competencies listed above and can help make it succeed; and
- people who get engaged in the process and actually make it succeed.
Cheers
T.J.. sorry.. I disagree with your pointing to the "provider" as MVP.. why?
(oversimplificaton)
- knowledge is an outcome of a learning process
- learning begins with a question / a need - dare I say "demand"
- supply (knowledge provider) with no demand (knowledge seeker) results in .. well.. no transaction (learning) ...un-used "knowledge repositories" .. some might call them information graveyards
In fact, both the sender and receiver are vitally important.. the receiver to identify learning needs, and the sender not only to fulfill them, but also make the receiver aware of as yet unknown possibilities possiblities and opportunities.