The Human Element: Knowledge Management's Secret Ingredient
A White Paper by VisionCor

Capturing individual knowledge so that it can be understood and applied by an entire organization is a key objective of most knowledge management (KM) initiatives. As a result, many companies employ a specific process or technology to index and disseminate large quantities of knowledge to an audience. To accomplish this, they implement a logical-order category scheme that enables more effective search functionality.

Unfortunately, some companies tend to paint an elegant, exaggerated, and over-simplified picture of the benefits of implementing KM software. They claim that new software can capture an entire enterprise’s documents and email messages quickly and, then, simply by applying a common indexing scheme and search functionality, enable anyone to find anything quickly. Indeed, there is value in implementing robust search and index functionality across large document volumes. However, does this type of implementation alone enable companies to manage and leverage intellectual capital? Rarely.

A KM initiative that overemphasizes aggregation and indexing can overlook the human side of knowledge management. Central to understanding knowledge in human terms is identifying knowledge that is truly sharable by people. Sharable knowledge—knowledge that people can reuse and apply to novel situations—isn't contained wholly in the documents and email messages of an organization. In fact, unless a stand-alone document is specifically produced to serve a knowledge-sharing purpose, it typically represents only part of the understanding required to apply that document to a business problem. For example, stand-alone documents often provide only clues about how a colleague tackled a business problem. Merely providing access to documents through a KM system creates an experience much like a typical archeological exhibit in a museum that displays ancient artifacts with basic information about their age and composition but leaves visitors to rely on their imaginations to draw conclusions about the application and significance of the artifacts.

A similar strategy leads to KM applications that resemble warehouses or repositories, which place a heavy burden on the end user to find relevant expertise and to determine how knowledge should be applied. To minimize that impact on productivity and to maximize the return on KM investment, KM applications must make an effort to capture the context of such business artifacts as documents, charts, videos, and so forth. To achieve this, KM as a discipline must shift its emphasis from aggregating artifacts to cultivating expertise. Currently, this shift in emphasis is made up of a few key misconceptions about KM implementation. By examining these misconceptions and discussing strategies to humanize how knowledge is represented, organizations can realize knowledge management objectives that improve productivity, increase organizational competency, and foster innovative thinking.

Misconception #1: If you maximize the number of accessible business artifacts (documents, charts, reports, and so forth), you increase the chances that individuals will locate precisely what they need to solve business problems.

To believe this, you also must believe the following: A large portion of easily obtainable business artifacts have applicability to new business situations, and search technology helps people locate relevant information from large repositories quickly.

Generally, as the size of a document repository swells, the number of irrelevant and out-of-date documents increases. This can be attributed to a simple resource allocation issue: As target size for a document repository increases, resources allocated for filtering out useless documents become overextended. Over time, the need for sophisticated search technology increases, which can further decrease resources allocated to filtering information. Eventually, those forces conspire to create a KM system consisting of one search text box that accesses every document in the company. Every organization has lots of useless documents; providing easy access to them carries a tremendous cost that, once recognized, is difficult for most businesses to justify.

Search technology is not utopian. It often requires considerable effort and trial-and-error to locate relevant items. Technology itself isn't always the main problem. Frequently, there's a navigational abyss between people and the items they're seeking. Employees trying to solve business problems don't always know how to search effectively for the documents that best satisfy their specific needs.

Individuals must struggle with simple text keyword searches. As a knowledge repository grows, keyword searches are likely to yield an ever-increasing number of hits. Frustration sets in from having to sift through hundreds of results. For example, when a large consumer bank conducted a test of search functionality for an online document repository, results typically yielded between 100 to 900 hits. Most people lack the patience to narrow search criteria or the time to review 900 documents.

Humanizing Strategy #1: Capture the top 20 percent of your available intellectual capital to make relevant expertise easier to find.

Establish the initial criteria and a virtual team of business experts to act as knowledge reviewers for your organization. This team can then use the criteria and their business expertise to pinpoint the artifacts that provide the most value to the business—the top 20 percent. This ongoing effort should analyze new content continuously, as well as purge or modify outdated or misrepresentative examples. Keep in mind that this should not be a top-down approach. For example, the review team should work with leading field experts to solicit the best sample artifacts through an established peer-review process. Time and resources play a critical role in determining the best strategy. In addition, technology should be leveraged where possible to filter artifacts. A content management application often provides functionality that determines frequently used resources, pages, and so forth, and then organizes those resources according to their value. This helps eliminate "knowledge noise" and provides more targeted knowledge to an organization.

Misconception #2: If you provide a portal or KM application with submission functionality, it will maintain itself.

To believe this, you also must believe the following:

• People naturally will devote their time to contribute to a knowledge repository.
• People know the difference between content that should and should not be shared.
• Everything that people contribute is valuable.

The self-service KM portal is a well-intended theory. However, it doesn't take into account people’s actual work habits. It's difficult for most people to find time to reflect on what they know, especially for people who are the top performers in an organization--whose knowledge is most desirable. In fact, top performers usually perceive their own knowledge as the basis for their top performance. It's their personal competitive advantage. Why should they share?

Additionally, prolific knowledge contribution can lead to a repository dominated by a few individuals with a strong commitment to KM. Over time, a repository dominated by a few contributors can discourage participation from others who may eventually perceive the KM application as not being fully representative of the business.

Humanizing Strategy #2: Treat experts like experts.

You want experts to contribute to your KM initiative because they hold that elusive top 20 percent of knowledge that's truly valuable to the rest of the organization. Usually, experts are an organization’s top performers. With rare exceptions, it's difficult for experts to explain their expertise to others. To capture this expertise initially takes in-depth, one-on-one interviews. While this process demands commitment and patience, the resulting content will be rich in the sort of detail that makes it possible for others to understand, transfer, and apply the expert's outlook. Consider the benefits realized from every person in an organization understanding how the best people perform key business activities. As a KM system matures, an organization can rely on standard methods of representing expertise and can then capture much of this content through direct voluntary contributions.

KM systems do not eliminate entirely the need for personal dialogue with experts. Experts also need to be asked about their expertise; it serves as an invitation to share. There's a powerful emotion associated with being asked for one’s opinion. Experts often need this for validation; they may be unaware that they're considered experts because no one has ever asked them to contribute what they know to the business. By directly soliciting expertise, your organization wins in two important ways: 1) expertise gained from individual experience is reinvested back into your business, and 2) experts become more aware of their role and are more likely to contribute--either voluntarily through formal KM channels or informally through day-to-day interaction with colleagues.

Financial incentives and a culture that supports knowledge sharing can help build momentum behind a KM initiative, but neither compares to the immediate value of working individually with your experts to capture what they know.

Misconception #3: If you generalize your expertise, then it will apply to a wide audience.

To believe this, you also must believe that people believe everything they read and that nuance and contextual detail in business communications is unimportant.

Consider the following situation: An expert sales representative recalls a story to a knowledge manager about how he saved a big account by reworking pricing on a deal through creative discounting. The knowledge manager recognizes the value in sharing this experience and asks the expert sales representative to outline the steps taken so others can avoid reinventing the wheel. The sales representative drafts a step-by-step, high-level bulleted list that tells other sales representatives how to apply discounts. The knowledge manager removes specific references to the customer and generalizes some of the steps to make them more applicable to the entire sales force. The list is then posted on the KM portal under the heading "Discounting Procedure."

Although the whole sales force has access to the discounting procedure, so much contextual knowledge has been omitted or removed that there's a risk that other sales representatives may never apply the procedure properly. Consider the potential questions raised by the person trying to apply this knowledge:

• Is this plan legitimate? Who proposed the procedure?
• Has this plan been validated by management?
• When should I apply the procedure—always, or are there exceptions?
• Whom should I ask about the plan?
• How old is the procedure? Is it up-to-date?
• My account is unique; I'm not sure this applies to my situation. How can I be certain this procedure is relevant?
• I think I need to add some discounts to a proposal I am working on. Is there an example somewhere that shows how to represent the discounts in a proposal?

In making a set of guidelines widely applicable, the information that people need to interpret and apply them to novel situations is often lost. At best, people misinterpret the guidelines and make minor mistakes. At worst, official guidelines lose credibility and people improvise or rely on a trusted colleague (who may or may not be an expert). Productivity, consistency, and quality are left to chance in those cases.

Humanizing Strategy #3: Capture the individual experiences that form the basis of best practices.

Using a bulleted list to provide guidance for a business activity isn't a bad idea. In fact, it's great for people already familiar with the activity. But until people feel comfortable and capable, a bulleted list doesn't provide enough detail for people to apply the knowledge to novel business problems. As you build resources that document organizational best practices, go beyond generic guidelines by capturing and including links to detailed information that can help people understand how to apply best practices.

Examples of these knowledge resources include

• examples: documents or other work deliverables that show how an expert applied part or all of a best practice
• demonstrations: rich media representations of a best practice in action
• war stories: anecdotal detail by an expert recalling how he or she applied a best practice
• tools: applications that help automate some or all of the steps of a best practice
• learning scenarios: simulations that allow a person to try out a best practice before applying it to a real business problem
• expert references: contact information for people who can answer questions about a best practice or subject, including names of people who contributed to or approved the development of a best practice, validating its legitimacy in the eyes of the workforce.

The bottom line is that people don't always interpret advice from a computer well; they need more of a human element to raise their comfort level. Preserving the ties between abstract information and real experience helps to validate the superiority of a best practice. It also gives individuals the necessary background to judge how they should apply best practices to new situations.

The big tradeoff

Knowledge managers face an investment choice as they consider the development of KM applications: technology vs. content. Obviously, you need both, but too often the emphasis is on technology. Consider the alternative approach: a simpler KM application that provides access to a lower volume of higher quality content, transformed and tailored to the needs of its audience. Trade in a portion of your investment in sophisticated indexing and search technology for the resources and time required to interview experts in your organization on an ongoing basis. Ultimately, knowledge management needs to be more than facilitating knowledge management, which is what happens when you implement a self-service portal without addressing content issues. KM efforts need to be about managing (or leveraging) knowledge, which can only be achieved by paying attention to the source of knowledge—people.

Adopt a technology-focused approach to KM, and you're likely to build KM systems that are easy for the IT department to install and maintain. Adopt a human-focused approach and you're likely to build KM systems that make it easier for your knowledge workers to capture and share knowledge. For most, the latter is a much wiser investment.

Published: December 2001