The Case for Knowledge Planners Part 2: Getting in Touch With Your Inner Firewall

As the first post on the SIKM talk suggests knowledge planners are the de facto arbitrators between what the user base is seeking and what the provider base contributes towards the fulfillment of those requirements. However it is also true (at least in an outfit of under 1,000 headcounts like mine) that we're really talking about the same individual. There is a built-in reciprocity in any system when its inputs and outputs are shared by its members on both sides of the exchange.

In an organization where utilization is king, centralization is non-existent, and administrative overheads get the hairy eyeball, Knowledge planners need to leverage this awareness for all its worth! Add to that the fact there are no formal reward structures in terms of recognition or bonus compensation as providers and the "feel good" pay-it-forward benefits of becoming a faithful KM contributor start to pale in comparison to just keeping one's head above water.

So how do you plan for knowledge in a firm where any task not immediately billable is at best on when-I-get-to-it status and in the scarcity mentality of recession cycles placed on life support -- if supported at all? The operationalizing of KM requires a parallel be drawn between the firm's business opportunities or pipeline with the IP it generates for pursuing those opportunities -- READ: document pipeline. Thinking about a new business presentation? Don't even hold that thought without consulting KM first!

How do we hardwire this reflex into the firm's go-to-market activities?

How does the urge to check KM become less of a "to-do" and more of a "got-it-done" determination topping your best-in-class impulses?

There are several knowledge flows that weave well into project workstreams and feed new business initiatives. These are the case summaries that tell the story of past client engagements. From a process flow perspective their filings are as closely tracked as any uploads or new site requests. That's because each submission also contains the definitive deliverables -- those final presentations that represent significant IP generated within past projects -- hence the document pipeline needed to keep KM as current as the projects themselves.

What does this process look like to colleagues?

Well from a top-down perspective the directors get regular compliance reports -- sorted by director. From the bottom-up view junior level consultants get the training they need to host their own team-only workspaces for creating and storing in-process materials. They get comfortable with the tools and the knowledge planner prepares them for the eventuality that they will elevate the significant deliverables when their project closes -- Surprise, surprise -- it's from the ground up that the IP capture effort is conducted by the less seasoned consulting staff.

The result is that even overtaxed, distracted nonbelieving thought leaders still see their best work staged in KM. Even without recognition programs, billable KM work, and a strong penchant for non-involvement we see a system where over two-thirds of all employees log in at least once a month and half at least once a week. Not bad for a firm that collectively experiences twice a month paychecks, once a month staff meetings, and precious little else.

The Case for Knowledge Planners Part 2: Getting in Touch With Your Inner Firewall

As the first post on the SIKM talk suggests knowledge planners are the de facto arbitrators between what the user base is seeking and what the provider base contributes towards the fulfillment of those requirements. However it is also true (at least in an outfit of under 1,000 headcounts like mine) that we're really talking about the same individual. There is a built-in reciprocity in any system when its inputs and outputs are shared by its members on both sides of the exchange.

In an organization where utilization is king, centralization is non-existent, and administrative overheads get the hairy eyeball, Knowledge planners need to leverage this awareness for all its worth! Add to that the fact there are no formal reward structures in terms of recognition or bonus compensation as providers and the "feel good" pay-it-forward benefits of becoming a faithful KM contributor start to pale in comparison to just keeping one's head above water.

So how do you plan for knowledge in a firm where any task not immediately billable is at best on when-I-get-to-it status and in the scarcity mentality of recession cycles placed on life support -- if supported at all? The operationalizing of KM requires a parallel be drawn between the firm's business opportunities or pipeline with the IP it generates for pursuing those opportunities -- READ: document pipeline. Thinking about a new business presentation? Don't even hold that thought without consulting KM first!

How do we hardwire this reflex into the firm's go-to-market activities?

How does the urge to check KM become less of a "to-do" and more of a "got-it-done" determination topping your best-in-class impulses?

There are several knowledge flows that weave well into project workstreams and feed new business initiatives. These are the case summaries that tell the story of past client engagements. From a process flow perspective their filings are as closely tracked as any uploads or new site requests. That's because each submission also contains the definitive deliverables -- those final presentations that represent significant IP generated within past projects -- hence the document pipeline needed to keep KM as current as the projects themselves.

What does this process look like to colleagues?

Well from a top-down perspective the directors get regular compliance reports -- sorted by director. From the bottom-up view junior level consultants get the training they need to host their own team-only workspaces for creating and storing in-process materials. They get comfortable with the tools and the knowledge planner prepares them for the eventuality that they will elevate the significant deliverables when their project closes -- Surprise, surprise -- it's from the ground up that the IP capture effort is conducted by the less seasoned consulting staff.

The result is that even overtaxed, distracted nonbelieving thought leaders still see their best work staged in KM. Even without recognition programs, billable KM work, and a strong penchant for non-involvement we see a system where over two-thirds of all employees log in at least once a month and half at least once a week. Not bad for a firm that collectively experiences twice a month paychecks, once a month staff meetings, and precious little else.

The Case for Knowledge Planners -- An SIKM Forum

This past week I was invited to present at the monthly SIKM ("System Integrators KM Leaders") group call hosted by PwC's Stan Garfield and HP's Marcus Funke.

The topic was entitled "Content Supply? Meet Knowledge Demand." It focused on the post web 2.0 imperative to get inside the heads of users on a transactional level -- just because we're selling arguments and buying rationales doesn't mean we can't be as savvy to our own internal marketing as marketers are to moving iconic shopping carts through their virtual stores. Inside the firewall what we've got to move and replenish are cartloads of content.

But in our case not only are the items intangible and instantly perishable. We also have to contend with the fact that the consumers and the producers are actually one in the same -- a fact of enterprise life forever confused by the objectification of our colleagues as the ITspeak term of users.

The talk was presented in four chunks:

1. Voice of customer transcripts – responding to the project requirements of consultants who live in luggage, airports and client conference rooms.
2. How to weave KM into the workstreams of our projects for minimal disruption and maximum benefit.
3. Resulting best practices and KPIs generated from regular knowledge reporting.
4. Slide builds around the screen interfaces reflecting workstreams supported by our taxonomy and provision policies (on supply side) and our search and usage policies (on the demand side).

Before I offer a few specifics and delve into some of the finer points I also want to acknowledge the occupational downside of dense, multidimensional polemics delivered in an impassioned drone. Only a couple of questions were asked and comments passed. The "discussion" literally touched down one hour to the moment the droning began. Hopefully the presentation will be organized well enough to attract a more open exchange than possible over one synchronous conference line (+ slide deck).

I first put forward the Case for Knowledge Planners in an article that run this past winter in Searcher. Basically the rationale is this: Information overload may be a fact of knowledge management life. But could this be a blessing in disguise? We know it as a black hole but for the knowledge planner it can be a golden opportunity by getting to know our colleagues as well as we do our inventories. I started down the KM memory parade beginning with the seminal work Tom Stewart did by addressing knowledge capital in the pages of Fortune in the early nineties. That's when I first heard the now shopworn cliche: “I wish we knew what we know.”

But anyone with access to the usage log of your internal search tool can flip this lament on its side ..."We may not know what we know but we're completely certain now of what we "wish" we knew!"

Being able to measure uncertainty? Approximate a level of doubt? All those queries that end in no hits? Those are not errors -- those are invitations to fill in the blanks.

Another golden KM oldie goes: “right information to right person at right time...”

But what if the right information found the right person ... the timing takes care of itself? Now it’s about having that information find them because it was trapped in advance – not desperately sought the morning of a presentation. The knowledge planner is at the cross section between supply and demand, inputs and outputs, usage and provision. It is more than uploads and downloads though. It is being able to translate aggregates like search log transactions and the metadata contributors use to tag their materials into a shapable and productive outcome -- a dialog between user requests and producer responses.

Documents can do only so much. At a certain point the redundancy of boilerplate documentation must give way to less formalized materials found in social media and discussion boards. But more tacit and experiential knowledge still deserves to be tagged and archived. Last night's all nighter could be just as relevant in broad daylight many cycles from now. The most critical lesson is not to archive every stray thread from every shared curiosity but to insure that discussions and documents are stored separately. Why?

As important as it is to free users from the burden of knowing where content is stored, the ability to search for it in meaningful ways hinges on the ability to search for it in containers that separate documents from discussions. Anyone taking a serious look at how practitioners talk to their peers on email know this intuitively. There is little overlap between the knowledge transfers exchanged with colleagues and those captured in the project outputs delivered to clients.

The practical dimension is this: for your demand-side customers they should be free to search as much as your corpus as your access policies permit. The provider base, however, needs to be sensitized to the impact of where they things. If significant IP goes untagged, it will go unsearched. If an important change to a policy is buried in a folder or library, it may well go unheeded.

The fact that few organizations are structured to handle the question of institutional relevancy means that outside of email there are entire worlds of knowledge capture and discovery that fly below the individual radars of your KM system's less savvy users.

Next dispatch: The internal marketing requirements of enterprise knowledge planners.

The Case for Knowledge Planners -- An SIKM Forum

This past week I was invited to present at the monthly SIKM ("System Integrators KM Leaders") group call hosted by PwC's Stan Garfield and HP's Marcus Funke.

The topic was entitled "Content Supply? Meet Knowledge Demand." It focused on the post web 2.0 imperative to get inside the heads of users on a transactional level -- just because we're selling arguments and buying rationales doesn't mean we can't be as savvy to our own internal marketing as marketers are to moving iconic shopping carts through their virtual stores. Inside the firewall what we've got to move and replenish are cartloads of content.

But in our case not only are the items intangible and instantly perishable. We also have to contend with the fact that the consumers and the producers are actually one in the same -- a fact of enterprise life forever confused by the objectification of our colleagues as the ITspeak term of users.

The talk was presented in four chunks:

1. Voice of customer transcripts – responding to the project requirements of consultants who live in luggage, airports and client conference rooms.
2. How to weave KM into the workstreams of our projects for minimal disruption and maximum benefit.
3. Resulting best practices and KPIs generated from regular knowledge reporting.
4. Slide builds around the screen interfaces reflecting workstreams supported by our taxonomy and provision policies (on supply side) and our search and usage policies (on the demand side).

Before I offer a few specifics and delve into some of the finer points I also want to acknowledge the occupational downside of dense, multidimensional polemics delivered in an impassioned drone. Only a couple of questions were asked and comments passed. The "discussion" literally touched down one hour to the moment the droning began. Hopefully the presentation will be organized well enough to attract a more open exchange than possible over one synchronous conference line (+ slide deck).

I first put forward the Case for Knowledge Planners in an article that run this past winter in Searcher. Basically the rationale is this: Information overload may be a fact of knowledge management life. But could this be a blessing in disguise? We know it as a black hole but for the knowledge planner it can be a golden opportunity by getting to know our colleagues as well as we do our inventories. I started down the KM memory parade beginning with the seminal work Tom Stewart did by addressing knowledge capital in the pages of Fortune in the early nineties. That's when I first heard the now shopworn cliche: “I wish we knew what we know.”

But anyone with access to the usage log of your internal search tool can flip this lament on its side ..."We may not know what we know but we're completely certain now of what we "wish" we knew!"

Being able to measure uncertainty? Approximate a level of doubt? All those queries that end in no hits? Those are not errors -- those are invitations to fill in the blanks.

Another golden KM oldie goes: “right information to right person at right time...”

But what if the right information found the right person ... the timing takes care of itself? Now it’s about having that information find them because it was trapped in advance – not desperately sought the morning of a presentation. The knowledge planner is at the cross section between supply and demand, inputs and outputs, usage and provision. It is more than uploads and downloads though. It is being able to translate aggregates like search log transactions and the metadata contributors use to tag their materials into a shapable and productive outcome -- a dialog between user requests and producer responses.

Documents can do only so much. At a certain point the redundancy of boilerplate documentation must give way to less formalized materials found in social media and discussion boards. But more tacit and experiential knowledge still deserves to be tagged and archived. Last night's all nighter could be just as relevant in broad daylight many cycles from now. The most critical lesson is not to archive every stray thread from every shared curiosity but to insure that discussions and documents are stored separately. Why?

As important as it is to free users from the burden of knowing where content is stored, the ability to search for it in meaningful ways hinges on the ability to search for it in containers that separate documents from discussions. Anyone taking a serious look at how practitioners talk to their peers on email know this intuitively. There is little overlap between the knowledge transfers exchanged with colleagues and those captured in the project outputs delivered to clients.

The practical dimension is this: for your demand-side customers they should be free to search as much as your corpus as your access policies permit. The provider base, however, needs to be sensitized to the impact of where they things. If significant IP goes untagged, it will go unsearched. If an important change to a policy is buried in a folder or library, it may well go unheeded.

The fact that few organizations are structured to handle the question of institutional relevancy means that outside of email there are entire worlds of knowledge capture and discovery that fly below the individual radars of your KM system's less savvy users.

Next dispatch: The internal marketing requirements of enterprise knowledge planners.

The Allure of the Innocent Bystander

Want the ultimate say in the saying? 

Desire the absolute deed in the doing? 

Long to be given the wink of validation? The nod of justification? The blanket approval for every wrestled decision that favors the inevitable costs of your free, free will? 

Power sex? Not even John Edwards is vain enough to seek the counsel of the Almighty on this score. Political capital? Not even Goldman Sachs would go shopping to seal this deal. Blood oil? The repossession of Vladmir Putin's soul would fetch less in the yard sales of tomorrow than a Bush re-election bid would today.  

If we tried to drill our way down to the molten core of our earthly endorsements it wouldn't look like the headlines of recent past. It wouldn't be staged as the imperial replay for pipeline supremacy. It wouldn't play out remotely -- like repayment odds on a sub-prime loan. It wouldn't fly like the rerunning of Repo Man cashing in on all this bad paper.

Just beyond the shadows of self-delusion lies the pinnacle of justification. It's not justice. It's not petrodollars. It's not even a rationale in rallying for or railing against. It's the simple ego proof conclusion that our actions speak for themselves with greater eloquence than we ever could. They have been heard by a jury of our peers and we re now free to go. 

The only guilt on our hands derives from the hands we've been dealt. Whatever the counts of the indictment. No matter the scope of the consequences ... others consider our actions as "one of their own" without knowing us beyond that wink, and a glancing nod.  

The stamp of approval is affixed to those sitting across from us in aisle 15, one divider ahead in the checkout lane, or idling in back of our rear bumper on the same off ramp. Our friends, our enemies, and those that do know us? Their collective inputs are powerless against the sway of the innocent bystander. 

The Allure of the Innocent Bystander

Want the ultimate say in the saying? 

Desire the absolute deed in the doing? 

Long to be given the wink of validation? The nod of justification? The blanket approval for every wrestled decision that favors the inevitable costs of your free, free will? 

Power sex? Not even John Edwards is vain enough to seek the counsel of the Almighty on this score. Political capital? Not even Goldman Sachs would go shopping to seal this deal. Blood oil? The repossession of Vladmir Putin's soul would fetch less in the yard sales of tomorrow than a Bush re-election bid would today.  

If we tried to drill our way down to the molten core of our earthly endorsements it wouldn't look like the headlines of recent past. It wouldn't be staged as the imperial replay for pipeline supremacy. It wouldn't play out remotely -- like repayment odds on a sub-prime loan. It wouldn't fly like the rerunning of Repo Man cashing in on all this bad paper.

Just beyond the shadows of self-delusion lies the pinnacle of justification. It's not justice. It's not petrodollars. It's not even a rationale in rallying for or railing against. It's the simple ego proof conclusion that our actions speak for themselves with greater eloquence than we ever could. They have been heard by a jury of our peers and we re now free to go. 

The only guilt on our hands derives from the hands we've been dealt. Whatever the counts of the indictment. No matter the scope of the consequences ... others consider our actions as "one of their own" without knowing us beyond that wink, and a glancing nod.  

The stamp of approval is affixed to those sitting across from us in aisle 15, one divider ahead in the checkout lane, or idling in back of our rear bumper on the same off ramp. Our friends, our enemies, and those that do know us? Their collective inputs are powerless against the sway of the innocent bystander. 

The Limits of Web Research

One of the hardest lessons to learn about the web as a research tool is the notion that you can track anyone down and find out anything you want to know about them. We are all moving targets and using a non-linnear medium for target practice means we're going to be shooting more research blanks than bulls-eyes.

In my teaching this often takes the form of a student who is trying to stretch a Googling expedition into a positive ID and ultimately a lot of sordid details about someone who is probably not all that well-known for their compromising behavior. There are many obstacles before the public vetting of the dirt-dishing can even begin:

1) People are journeys -- not destinations:
There are 34 Springfields in the U.S. Some people have that many alter egos connected to a diverisfied multiple personality portfolio.

2) The trails they leave -- they may bob but not weave:
The web is not definitive. Try circling back to sourcing one's virtual history or even a current web presence is not about closing loops or riffing on a central theme or obsession. There is no one trail or "go to" site for intimating where the next detour digresses or the former backroad resurfaces as an eighteen lane interstate.

3) The web is more effective as a communications medium -- not a research tool:
It's easier to talk up a potential ally than track down a potential social menace. Making a professional connection is more reasonable than trying to corner a criminal suspect.

So how do we get away from using the web to track a fixed target the way a P.I. stakes out a parked car? Part of that realization is the expectation that cases are not cracked by keyword searches or even traditional document retrieval but by reaching out to potential witnesses, experts, and stakeholders. But before those overtures are made? First lay the groundwork with sound research practices.

That said, more incriminating evidence can be found every day. What turns up expands our notion of an increasingly transparent public domain. We see this as the digital natives begin to outnumber digital immigrants and share personal details in a way that would startle their guarded elders.

But is it us immigrants who are exposing our naivete when we complain about privacy invasions and storm the switchboards of the institutions where an employee's laptop is in breach? Perhaps yesterday's healthy precautions are tomorrow's unfounded paranoias. This is the luxury of the self-important. Should a budding investigator be hot on the trail of some middle manager for their next homework assignment? They may not need to keep a low profile. Because the profile cut by the target in their sights may dip even lower.