tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7623387.post115932312317313162..comments2023-09-17T05:31:55.566-07:00Comments on APQC's Knowledge Management Blog: Whither Knowledge Management?Jim Lee, PMPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16108428376045190098noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7623387.post-1159359119672689972006-09-27T05:11:00.000-07:002006-09-27T05:11:00.000-07:00Ron.. an interesting post, which to me reinforces ...Ron.. an interesting post, which to me reinforces what I've heard frequently over the last few years - KM is just good management. And more recently, in the future KM will just be how we manage.<BR/><BR/>Measurement in KM is a topic in many conversations, and certainly influenced by what is defined as KM, and also how tightly linked philosophally the participants in the conversation are to Taylorism. Something I read recently in an essay (Returns on Investment from Knowledge Management) by Mark McElroy/KMCI where he states <I>"investments in KM can only have a direct impact on knowledge processing performance, not business performance."</I> Maybe this perspective will help deal with KM ROI challenges.<BR/><BR/>We're conducting an experimental partnership project with HR to develop an Organizational Capability Planning methodology. <BR/><BR/>Loosely defined, it's an approach intended to a) ensure the right person is in the right chair at the right time with the right skills and knowledge (succession planning), and once there b) helping to shorten the learning curve / time to productivity by providing the person with access to the quality, relevant information, knowledge, and knowledge holders required to fulfill the role in the organizational context (knowledge continuity). <BR/><BR/>I don't know of anyorganization taking this type of wholistic approach yet. (In particular one like ours where the issue is as much deep smarts/expert knowledge as it is operational knowledge.) These two perspectives, succession planning and knowledge continuity, are most often dealt with separately.<BR/><BR/>We have a number of challenges, not the least of which is coming to common understanding, finding common ground and objectives, and reconciling the HR view of "knowledge" and the KM view of the term - among other definitions. <BR/><BR/>In the APQC Report "Integrating KM and OL", there is a point made: "KM and Organizational Learning each have distinct value propositions driving their implementations in organizations, but they also share a common goal of increasing employee capability. For KM, that means sharing knowledge across the enterprise; for OL, it means improving employee competence individually. Regardless of the approach, the desired end result is an organization capable of nimbleness, flexibility and innovation."<BR/><BR/>Interesting. But here is the question (more or less) that has come up in conversations, and I've yet to create a succinct, pithy response.<BR/><BR/>"Given that KM is a management discipline, and by definition is managers' responsibility, and the degree of "growing" extension, if not ownership, of HR in KM related initiatives, what does KM "bring to the party?" I somewhat further qualify this by adding "What is KM uniquely about that necessitates its existence as a organizational entity, an identifiable capability / service offering?"<BR/><BR/>And of course, how do you measure that in a meaningful way?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com