Discussion: View Thread

>I contend that what we need most in knowledge management is "recipes."
[I
>don't mean that everything is reducible to step-by-step instructions,
I'm
>just using the language of the example. I mean we need process, or
>dynamic, descriptions.]]<

I forget if I ever introduced myself on this list, but I'm an OD
consultant who just finished my MBA-OB at Boston University part-time.
One of my final classes was called Managing in Knowledge Economy which
was essentially all about Knowledge Management (KM).

The class was taught by Lloyd Baird (OB) who works with N.Venkatraman
(IS) and John Henderson (IS) in BU's Systems Research Center. They will
be coming out with a book soon that have some of the 'recipes or
process' that you speak of. It was fascinating class as they used Just
in Time Teaching (i.e. as they developed a new concept they taught to
us\tested it out in class.)

Here are some of the important things you need to think about when
developing a KM system:

Understand the many different types of KM systems. They wrote one
article identifying at least 9 different types of KM systems. Each are
distinct having different purposes, involving different audiences, and
needing different types of implementation

Understand your company's culture - how do employees learn, would they
accept a KM system, what is important to them, what is their level of
computer use, how is information already shared, what types of
communities of practice currently exist, what is their resistance to
change ... etc.

Understand your company strategies - what are the most important
aspects, what types of information is needed, who has this information,
what information is needed in the future... etc.

Use a cross functional teams to design a system that keeps in mind the
above mentioned. Include among others SR. staff, IS, HR/OD, Line
managers, users, and sometimes even customers, suppliers, and partners.

Much of what happens next greatly depends on what type of system you
install. Some of they key questions for all types include:

Do you need to validate data? If so how are you going to the validate
data?
How are you going to collect data?
How are you going to get people to use it (usually one of the most
important/difficult questions to solve)? (keep in mind your reward
systems and culture)
Who does this information go to? Not go to?
What types of feedback loops are you going to into place?
How are you going to measure your system to know if it is working?
How are you going to make sure confidential info doesn't get leaked?
What format will you use to disseminate the data?
Who will support this (be in charge, own it...etc.)?
How are you going to motivate these people?
When will you retire information if ever?

KM is potentially a very powerful concept, but making it work is very
complicated. There is no simple 'recipe' to making it work, but
answering these and other questions will point you in the right
direction. I recommend reading these Prof.'s book when it comes out.
Hope that helps!


Jon



--
Jonathan Mozenter
Organizational Development Consultant
Co-Director of Greater Boston OD Network Learning Group
617-254-9796
mozenter@bu.edu

In response to Jonathan's comments on knowledge management, I would like
to add some observations on how companies sometimes undermine
the use of the knowledge that is created by resourceful individuals and
project teams. For the past year, I have had my MBA and Executive MBA
students reflect on particularly meaningful work-place projects in which
they have been involved. A common theme is the contrast between the
project team's vision, commitment and energy and the larger
organization's resistance to fully implementing the vision or
unlearning the practices and routines that stand in the way of
organizational performance improvement. I have testimonies of project
leaders implementing highly successful processes to improve their
companies, only to have senior management reject their work and in some
cases the project leaders and team members have suffered loss of
status within their division for upsetting the status quo.

I would appreciate hearing from others who have had experience
consulting to companies attempting to manage knowledge, and learn how
they have been able to overcome barriers to using the knowledge gained
from successful projects.


Robert DeFillippi
Visiting Professor
City University Business School
London


>From owner-mg-ed-dv@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU Sat Jan 16 00:42:19 1999
>Received: from [149.68.1.24] by hotmail.com (1.1) with SMTP id
MHotMailB8699B4114DA0D101709395440118082D49; Sat Jan 16 00:42:19 1999
>Received: from maelstrom.stjohns.edu (149.68.1.24) by
maelstrom.stjohns.edu (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id
<13.6703905C@maelstrom.stjohns.edu>; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 3:18:51 -0500
>Received: from MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU by MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
(LISTSERV-TCP/IP
> release 1.8c) with spool id 16330772 for
> MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 03:18:44
-0400
>Received: from relay1.bu.edu (128.197.153.99) by maelstrom.stjohns.edu
(LSMTP
> for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id
<15.FC4CA5A1@maelstrom.stjohns.edu>;
> Sat, 16 Jan 1999 3:08:42 -0500
>Received: from bu.edu (DIP14-PPP-208.BU.EDU [168.122.14.208]) by
relay1.bu.edu
> ((8.8.8.buoit.b5.ACS)/) with ESMTP id DAA24414; Sat, 16 Jan
1999
> 03:08:27 -0500
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I)
>X-Accept-Language: en
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Message-ID: <36A04861.6A8E7CAF@bu.edu>
>Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 03:06:01 -0500
>Reply-To: Management Education and Development Discussion
> <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
>Sender: Management Education and Development Discussion
> <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
>From: Jonathan Mozenter <mozenter@BU.EDU>
>Subject: Knowledge Management in Academia
>To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
>
>>I contend that what we need most in knowledge management is "recipes."
>[I
>>don't mean that everything is reducible to step-by-step instructions,
>I'm
>>just using the language of the example. I mean we need process, or
>>dynamic, descriptions.]]<
>
>I forget if I ever introduced myself on this list, but I'm an OD
>consultant who just finished my MBA-OB at Boston University part-time.
>One of my final classes was called Managing in Knowledge Economy which
>was essentially all about Knowledge Management (KM).
>
>The class was taught by Lloyd Baird (OB) who works with N.Venkatraman
>(IS) and John Henderson (IS) in BU's Systems Research Center. They
will
>be coming out with a book soon that have some of the 'recipes or
>process' that you speak of. It was fascinating class as they used Just
>in Time Teaching (i.e. as they developed a new concept they taught to
>us\tested it out in class.)
>
>Here are some of the important things you need to think about when
>developing a KM system:
>
>Understand the many different types of KM systems. They wrote one
>article identifying at least 9 different types of KM systems. Each are
>distinct having different purposes, involving different audiences, and
>needing different types of implementation
>
>Understand your company's culture - how do employees learn, would they
>accept a KM system, what is important to them, what is their level of
>computer use, how is information already shared, what types of
>communities of practice currently exist, what is their resistance to
>change ... etc.
>
>Understand your company strategies - what are the most important
>aspects, what types of information is needed, who has this information,
>what information is needed in the future... etc.
>
>Use a cross functional teams to design a system that keeps in mind the
>above mentioned. Include among others SR. staff, IS, HR/OD, Line
>managers, users, and sometimes even customers, suppliers, and partners.
>
>Much of what happens next greatly depends on what type of system you
>install. Some of they key questions for all types include:
>
>Do you need to validate data? If so how are you going to the validate
>data?
>How are you going to collect data?
>How are you going to get people to use it (usually one of the most
>important/difficult questions to solve)? (keep in mind your reward
>systems and culture)
>Who does this information go to? Not go to?
>What types of feedback loops are you going to into place?
>How are you going to measure your system to know if it is working?
>How are you going to make sure confidential info doesn't get leaked?
>What format will you use to disseminate the data?
>Who will support this (be in charge, own it...etc.)?
>How are you going to motivate these people?
>When will you retire information if ever?
>
>KM is potentially a very powerful concept, but making it work is very
>complicated. There is no simple 'recipe' to making it work, but
>answering these and other questions will point you in the right
>direction. I recommend reading these Prof.'s book when it comes out.
>Hope that helps!
>
>
>Jon
>
>
>
>--
>Jonathan Mozenter
>Organizational Development Consultant
>Co-Director of Greater Boston OD Network Learning Group
>617-254-9796
>mozenter@bu.edu


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Robert DeFillippi wrote:

> I would appreciate hearing from others who have had experience
> consulting to companies attempting to manage knowledge, and learn how
> they have been able to overcome barriers to using the knowledge gained
> from successful projects.
>
> Robert DeFillippi

I'm not sure if I introduced myself to this list .. I'm a Ph.D. student
researching University Educational (& Technology) Administration - I have
a background in multi-nat'l corporate development and engineering. I
respond here with an example case to Mr. DeFillippi's question (a very good
one, in my mind) about companies managing to overcome barriers to using
knowledge gained from successful projects. I recently tackled this problem
from the organizational theory and cognitive (learning theory)
positionality with more success than we had expected. It is possible that
if everyone understands the new knowledge, in terms of the commonly
understood core business or organizational objectives, that such barriers
to new knowledge creation and utilization disappear without classical
'management' , in some cases.

The case: Company executives suspected that the products offered by the
firm were not as successful in economic and quality terms as they had been,
and senior management reacted by beginning training and development of
first line managers as part of an overall TQM response to the problem.
"The product" is a complex array of oil/gas well improvement techniques
ranging from $10K to $500K per application. We discovered during training
needs assessments of the Line managers and the engineering product design
groups that there were key engineering product design knowledge bits and
other key product field installation (methodology) knowledge bits that,
once realized (as understandable bits) by both the design and field
management 'groups', this new epistemology promoted the increased
capacity, of both groups, to communicate and to question contingent process
and design issues by both product design and installation managers. By
teaching the Field Management to test product design by using a 'test
pilot' mode of the numerical simulators the design groups use, Field
managers could ask (and did ask) questions that linked field operation
problems to design parameters, helping both engineers and field work avoid
poor results. We tested this on ongoing projects and found a surprising
increase in successful product installation.

This realization of the value of new knowledge implied by an exchange of
information and dialogue (and reflexive critiquing) was something that the
org structure could not easily accommodate in its existing form, (Design
and Operations structural/geographicaland historical differences,
essentially) so on their own initiative, the groups set up informal lines
of communication were on rather technical issues between Field Managers and
design groups as part of normal business activity -- to iterate and
redesign / modify some field installations interactively before they were
actually done. Formally, the institution responded by increasing its
application of this training approach. It is apparently working.

In brief, we assessed the cognitive developmental stages, learning styles
and backgrounds of design and field ops groups, (for they were
significantly different) and provided subsequent iterative, computer
simulation based education via instructional designed specifically for both
groups. Once people realized that they spoke (and could speak) similar
'language' on the design & field logistic issues, solutions that were
otherwise not structurally possible or promoted became more a part of
regular Field management / Design management processes. It's a less
instrumental, more post structuralist approach to 'managing' learning with
technology, but in this case it did work. I am currently studying the way
universities manage policy development on the issues of teaching and
learning technology, and I'm seeing similar problems (with possibly similar
solutions) to both the management of knowledge and the teaching for it, but
it is too early to say much more.

I Hope this wasn't too long, and that it helps,

Gene.

__________________________________________________________________
Eugene G. Kowch, Ph.D. Candidate
SSHRC Doctoral Fellow, Educational Administration
Research Area: University Education Technology Leadership Architectures:
Policy Networks and Communities.
http://www.usask.ca/edadmin/genehome.html

"The world is richer than it is possible to express in any single
language".
(Ilya Prigogine, 1942)

In response to the exchange on knowledge management-
Since this topic has emerged as the new mantra of the major consulting firms,
no doubt managment education will find itself wrestling
with developing a body of knowledge and curriculum implications over the next
few years (remember TQM and BPR?)

Courses appear to be emerging in both the strategy and IS curriculum areas-
In my IS course I use the HBS "Note on Knowledge Mgt" and the KPMG and
McKinsey cases to explore the role of computer networks in supporting the KM
process

Ironically KM is what we do for a living in mgt.education-seeing the business
school as a knowledge management laboratory adds a valuable perspective for
curriculum development and clarifying the role of IT in our delivery systems.

Chuck Morrissey, Pepperdine

Jon,
Do uou know the name (or how to find out) of the book you mentioned that
your professors at BU will be publishing soon?. Would love to track it down
as soon as it is available. Any leads would be appreciated.
Nancy H. Haynes
New Horizons Consulting Group

Jonathan Mozenter wrote:

> >I contend that what we need most in knowledge management is "recipes."
> [I
> >don't mean that everything is reducible to step-by-step instructions,
> I'm
> >just using the language of the example. I mean we need process, or
> >dynamic, descriptions.]]<
>
> I forget if I ever introduced myself on this list, but I'm an OD
> consultant who just finished my MBA-OB at Boston University part-time.
> One of my final classes was called Managing in Knowledge Economy which
> was essentially all about Knowledge Management (KM).
>
> The class was taught by Lloyd Baird (OB) who works with N.Venkatraman
> (IS) and John Henderson (IS) in BU's Systems Research Center. They will
> be coming out with a book soon that have some of the 'recipes or
> process' that you speak of. It was fascinating class as they used Just
> in Time Teaching (i.e. as they developed a new concept they taught to
> us\tested it out in class.)
>
> Here are some of the important things you need to think about when
> developing a KM system:
>
> Understand the many different types of KM systems. They wrote one
> article identifying at least 9 different types of KM systems. Each are
> distinct having different purposes, involving different audiences, and
> needing different types of implementation
>
> Understand your company's culture - how do employees learn, would they
> accept a KM system, what is important to them, what is their level of
> computer use, how is information already shared, what types of
> communities of practice currently exist, what is their resistance to
> change ... etc.
>
> Understand your company strategies - what are the most important
> aspects, what types of information is needed, who has this information,
> what information is needed in the future... etc.
>
> Use a cross functional teams to design a system that keeps in mind the
> above mentioned. Include among others SR. staff, IS, HR/OD, Line
> managers, users, and sometimes even customers, suppliers, and partners.
>
> Much of what happens next greatly depends on what type of system you
> install. Some of they key questions for all types include:
>
> Do you need to validate data? If so how are you going to the validate
> data?
> How are you going to collect data?
> How are you going to get people to use it (usually one of the most
> important/difficult questions to solve)? (keep in mind your reward
> systems and culture)
> Who does this information go to? Not go to?
> What types of feedback loops are you going to into place?
> How are you going to measure your system to know if it is working?
> How are you going to make sure confidential info doesn't get leaked?
> What format will you use to disseminate the data?
> Who will support this (be in charge, own it...etc.)?
> How are you going to motivate these people?
> When will you retire information if ever?
>
> KM is potentially a very powerful concept, but making it work is very
> complicated. There is no simple 'recipe' to making it work, but
> answering these and other questions will point you in the right
> direction. I recommend reading these Prof.'s book when it comes out.
> Hope that helps!
>
> Jon
>
> --
> Jonathan Mozenter
> Organizational Development Consultant
> Co-Director of Greater Boston OD Network Learning Group
> 617-254-9796
> mozenter@bu.edu

Nancy,

My best tip would be to go to the BU school of management web page at
(management.bu.edu) and either look at the systems research center web
page, e-mail the prof. who are authoring the book, and/or click on the
link for books by faculty. They just re did the whole site, so its
missing some info right now. As last I heard no title had been decided
nor was it clear when the book was coming out. Good luck.

Jon

Subject:
Re: Knowledge Management in Academia
Date:
Sat, 16 Jan 1999 17:03:25 -0500
From:
Nancy Haynes <nhhaynes@USCOM.COM>



Jon,
Do uou know the name (or how to find out) of the book you mentioned that

your professors at BU will be publishing soon?. Would love to track it
down
as soon as it is available. Any leads would be appreciated.
Nancy H. Haynes
New Horizons Consulting Group

--
Jonathan Mozenter
Organizational Development Consultant
Co-Director of Greater Boston OD Network Learning Group
617-254-9796
mozenter@bu.edu

On 16 January 1999, Robert DeFillippi wrote:

><snip>
>For the past year, I have had my MBA and Executive MBA students reflect on
>particularly meaningful work-place projects in which they have been
>involved. A common theme is the contrast between the project team's vision,
>commitment and energy and the larger organization's resistance to fully
>implementing the vision or unlearning the practices and routines that stand
in the way of organizational performance improvement. I have testimonies of
>project leaders implementing highly successful processes to improve their
>companies, only to have senior management reject their work and in some
>cases the project leaders and team members have suffered loss of status
>within their division for upsetting the status quo.

>I would appreciate hearing from others who have had experience consulting to
>companies attempting to manage knowledge, and learn how they have been able
>to overcome barriers to using the knowledge gained from successful projects.

I don't have exactly what Robert is looking for, but there's a paper by
Edgar Schein ("Three Cultures of Management: The Key to Organizational
Learning in the 21st Century") that addresses this issue. Schein
postulates that learning failures in organizations may be attributed to the
existence of three subcultures within the greater organizational culture
("operator", "engineering", and "executive"), and two of them "have their
roots outside the organization and are...more fundamentally entrenched in
their particular sets of assumptions." He cites examples similar to yours.
I'm reading this article for my graduate studies in management, but, as I
haven't completed it yet, I can't tell you if Schein offers anything in
what you're looking for. The article is on the Society for Organizational
Learning web site at the following URL:
http://www.sol-ne.org/res/wp/three.html


Glenda Rubin

Just finished reading Schein's paper on the website you posted. Great
resource
Glenda. Thanks for the recommendation. Just in time for use in my
courses in
"Evaluating Human Performance Intervention," which start next week.

Nancy H. Haynes
New Horizons Consulting Group
Cinnaminson, NJ



Glenda Rubin wrote:

> On 16 January 1999, Robert DeFillippi wrote:
>
> ><snip>
> >For the past year, I have had my MBA and Executive MBA students reflect on
> >particularly meaningful work-place projects in which they have been
> >involved. A common theme is the contrast between the project team's vision,
> >commitment and energy and the larger organization's resistance to fully
> >implementing the vision or unlearning the practices and routines that stand
> in the way of organizational performance improvement. I have testimonies of
> >project leaders implementing highly successful processes to improve their
> >companies, only to have senior management reject their work and in some
> >cases the project leaders and team members have suffered loss of status
> >within their division for upsetting the status quo.
>
> >I would appreciate hearing from others who have had experience consulting to
> >companies attempting to manage knowledge, and learn how they have been able
> >to overcome barriers to using the knowledge gained from successful projects.
>
> I don't have exactly what Robert is looking for, but there's a paper by
> Edgar Schein ("Three Cultures of Management: The Key to Organizational
> Learning in the 21st Century") that addresses this issue. Schein
> postulates that learning failures in organizations may be attributed to the
> existence of three subcultures within the greater organizational culture
> ("operator", "engineering", and "executive"), and two of them "have their
> roots outside the organization and are...more fundamentally entrenched in
> their particular sets of assumptions." He cites examples similar to yours.
> I'm reading this article for my graduate studies in management, but, as I
> haven't completed it yet, I can't tell you if Schein offers anything in
> what you're looking for. The article is on the Society for Organizational
> Learning web site at the following URL:
> http://www.sol-ne.org/res/wp/three.html
>
> Glenda Rubin