Library clips

My last post was a review of a paper by Patrick Lambe, and in this post I review yet another paper on the same topic.

The point of this paper, called “Knowledge and Tragedy: or why we shouldn’t share knowledge”, is that sharing, even Just-in-Time sharing is not enough or a complete KM infrastructure, it’s the gap between knowing and acting that is often missing.

We often read about the same thing related to Lesson Learned…which need to be transferred into Lessons Applied.

The phrases below represent just a part of the KM program:

“If only we knew what we know”
“Right information, right time, right place”

These quotes are good but they are a plea, or ideal situation…they seem to highlight more of the distribution and management aspect, ie. describing ideal information management, rather than knowledge management…see my post on informal IM vs KM for more on this.

They are a starting point to get us thinking…but they don’t explicitly speak of real KM or the heart of KM ie. conversation/communication where queries and clarifications can be made, where information can be re-framed into usable contexts, and then applied becoming internalised as knowledge.
From which the output is again information, only waiting to be re-mixed into knowledge for someone else. For more on this thinking see my post It’s not about knowledge sharing, it’s about engagement and context!

Just-in-Time is only half of the story

Patrick uses story as a way to explain and remember this concept.

Artemidorus the philosopher passed on a note to Caesar “Just-in-Time” to avoid death…he gave him the note before Caesar entered the meeting hall where the senate were waiting to kill him (and indeed did).

As usual Caesar gave the note to one of his aides for keeping, as he is a busy man…he nearly got round to opening the note but was constantly distracted as busy men are.

Patrick says:

“Just-in-time knowledge wasn’t quite enough.”

“If we were relieved when Artemidorus turned up with the warning note, we were going as far as most knowledge management goes: getting the infrastructure in place to deliver the right knowledge to the right desktop in time for it to be used.”

And this is where the heart of KM lies:

“We also have to ensure that the recipient is capable of opening up the knowledge, understanding and using it appropriately, and that they have resources to do so”

NOTE: I would use the term “information” rather than “knowledge”

Work is conversation

This rings true with what David Weinberger says in relation to “work is conversation”:

“Business is a conversation because the defining work of business is conversation - literally. And ‘knowledge workers’ are simply those people whose job consists of having interesting conversations.”

David quotes on how conversation is the heart of KM:

“We get to knowledge — especially “actionable” knowledge — by having desires and curiosity, through plotting and play, by being wrong more often than right, by talking with others and forming social bonds, by applying methods and then backing away from them, by calculation and serendipity, by rationality and intuition, by institutional processes and social roles.

Most important in this regard, where the decisions are tough and knowledge is hard to come by, knowledge is not determined by information, for it is the knowing process that first decides which information is relevant, and how it is to be used.”

Patrick says:

“…the greater part of knowledge management lies not in information delivery (where we pay the most attention), but in the knowledge interpretation and deployment skills of knowledge workers…”

Asymmetries of knowledge

Patrick moves on to talk about asymmetries of knowledge (some people knowing what others don’t), basically “knowledge is power”.

“…lack of knowledge, disguise, conspiracy, forgery, misunderstandings, treachery and betrayal, drive the plots of tragedy forward”

He says:

“…in order to succeed, we need to know things that our competitor’s don’t know. We need imperfect knowledge to exist”

…”it can only be shared if sharing moves the plot forward towards triumph and away from tragedy”

The issue here is that this happens within an organisation, where it ideally shouldn’t. The reason for this is covered in my post, “I dont want to share that’s counter to meeting my objectives and reward”…in reference to the model of “well defined measurable objectives and tying them directly to compensation”

To quote myself:

“…this is a strategy to amass an aggregate of personal efficiency ie an incentive to stack a pile of efficient people, at the expense of an effective organisation where the people share what they know with each other so the organisation can adapt, be resilient, innovate, etc…”

Of course there are many other factors that lead to silo’d models…departments competing for resources, politics, etc…silos are natural (we need to bridge, not smash).

Then Patrick gives it the full blow:

“Successful knowledge management in the real world is not about indiscriminate knowledge sharing at all: it’s far more about knowing what to share and when and with whom, what to keep secret, and what to reveal, whom to trust, and whom to avoid”

Our behaviours are servants to the game

This sounds terrible, but it is real in a capitalist society…we are servants of this system, and behave in ways to survive, and beyond…greed!

I do think things are changing, we are moving away from the fetish of fake customer service, to a more real relationship with customers/clients, based on transparency, co-creation, trust, loyalty and being treated as a real relationship, rather than fake customer service.

As long as our industrial structures and models are about compensating for individual action (over collaboration) knowledge hoarding is a model for not only survival, but success.

I say this in relation to the individual department, at the expense of the organisation as a whole.
I say this in relation to the organisation as a whole, at the expense of the industry.
I say this in relation to the industry, at the expense of society.

I really like that capitalism has provided opportunity for freedom, experimentation, innovation; but as a whole the invisible hand model of competition and consumers is flawed (but aren’t all, maybe it’s the players)…it’s absent of the holistic person, and sees them as actors in a game. Maybe this is what religious texts means by the anti-christ…our economic model is leading us more and more away from our spirit/humanity.

And then came the web, and places like the blogosphere, wikipedia and Twitter…but the information/network economy is different from the; “competing for resources”, “attention for consumers”,“tragedy of the commons” economy…but they are also intertwined.

But we need to digest more than information and connecting in networks to survive eg food…the world is not Twitter…not yet anyway

Sorry about the tangent into capitalism…

Knowledge secrecy

Patrick uses a story to describe the nature of “knowledge is power” in an economy based on competition.

He talks about a food business that sells quail products called the House of Quail.

They share some recipes, nutrition and quail information as it’s in their interests to attract and inform customers…creating a world for them.

But they would be foolish to share the recipes they use in their food stall (based on a family history of trial and error), and they would be foolish to share where they source their high quality qualis (based on a lot of research and connections).

Now I agree to not share all your intellectual capital, as we need to survive in a economy based on competition. But, it’s important not to just rely on this as your differentiator.

In today’s economy someone else will open a Quail shop and be able just like you, and without your help, to source good quail and possess amazing family recipes. In fact they may even be cashed up, and buy in bulk so they can offer cheaper quail but still the same quality…and have a better and faster supply chain, etc…

What I’m getting at is that the true value today is not just the quality, affordability and uniqueness of what you do and offer, but the community you generate. The sustainable value is engaged workers, and engaged clients/customers based on transparency, loyalty, trust, co-creation, etc…

If you have these things as well, you will attract a community…a community generates a likeable atmosphere, so much so that you would rather hang out there even though some other place is cheaper or more unique. You would rather hang where you have already established a relationship, where you have a history of fulfillment.

As long as you have conditions to generate a community, you have the number one thing.

Near my work we have an animal welfare information/association place. Now you can imagine that sort of place would have it’s niche community. Several years on I have noticed they now have a cafe, and it was thriving. It’s not in a real good location where there is foot traffic, the place is not really pleasing to the eye, and I’m not sure if they have anything unique on their menu. But I bet the staff are down to earth, honest, respect and chat to their customers in a more real and friendly way (building relationships), etc…

Another anecdote…

I used to work in a tiny video shop that specialised in arthouse and foreign films. Our customers were mostly film buffs and academics…we provided to a niche market. We also had to stock some mainstream stuff to service some locals and to also make sure we generated a profit.
Lot’s of our customers became friends…when they came to the shop we could talk for an hour about film and other stuff, we were very low key and informal…people felt comfortable (at home). So much so that it was a great place for people to hang.
This gave us the idea to open a cafe and sell film stuff eg. scripts, a place for students to write and talk. Why not, we had a community of people in our hands who had passion for film.
If we implemented our idea I bet it would have worked, but unfortunately a major chain video shop opened across the road and killed us. You see, we could not survive on our niche product alone, we needed our mainstream customers, but now they got a better deal from the major chain.

The major chain don’t care about film like our shop, they just care about making money…they don’t have a community feel when you visit, it’s more just consumer transactions…they don’t offer niche films, they just offer what sells. Basically the major chain killed culture. But I’m not having a go at them, it’s just the reality of capitalism, the fact that it has no ceiling, and no holisitic intention for a better society.

Sorry about the tangent again…

Patrick also shares a few other stories: like the warehouse manager that won’t share how things are done, for fear of potentionally being replaced, and the executive who queried about the threat of KM…could it know how he swings a deal, his network of contacts and strong relationships that took years to build.

Patrick comments on the reality of the situation:

“If newer, cheaper and more malleable executives work for long enough with the target of the desired knowledge, eventually they will acquire enough confidence to cut the umbilical cord. They’ll never do the same job…they they’ll muddle through and learn their own way to success once they’ve got the basics. The business will survive”

Some might say it’s a choice: you either hoard so you have an edge, or you share and build a social reputation. When you share you are not just a dynamic performer, but you are also helping everyone else to be one as well, and that is reason for the company to actually hold on to you…it’s doing wonders for celebrity chefs.

Conclusion

This conclusion is outstanding, and reminds me of wise words by some other bloggers that I will share in the next post.

Patrick concludes:

“We assume, naïvely, that only the corporate plot and its aspiration towards triumph matters when it comes to knowledge asymmetries, and that everybody will share knowledge willingly once they understand what the corporate plot is. We forget that individuals and small groups also have smaller plots, smaller tragedies and triumphs, and their own unique aspirations. And they will also use knowledge asymmetries to drive themselves towards success, regardless of what the bigger, more impersonal plots of our superiors dictate.”

Patrick summarizes:

“Caesar’s unopened letter…teaches us…it’s not enough to simply deliver the knowledge, important though that is. The key is whether knowledge is, or can be, acted upon. That means far more emphasis on helping our people become skilled knowledge users.”

“…we don’t have to have perfect knowledge management, nor would we particularly enjoy it. In a competitive world, we simply have to be better at managing knowledge asymmetries than our current competitors are. As it turns out, that also means a greater emphasis on skills: building the experience, intuition and resourcefulness of our knowledge workers.”

“…we need to recognise that the corporate plot occupies only a part of most people’s lives. Knowledge sharing and knowledge secrecy also operate in our personal trajectories through life. When the two conflict, when my interest appears to be compromised by the dictates of my masters, then I will deploy my knowledge asymmetries first in my own defense – if not actively, at least passively. And unless our interests are selfish and cruel, it is right that we should do so.”