Interpersonal Knowledge Sharing:

The Low-Tech, High-Touch Side of Knowledge Management

Objectives

• To present one perspective on the theory and practice of knowledge sharing, a humanistic counterpoint to mechanistic knowledge management.

FV

• To illustrate how knowledge sharing can be encouraged (not managed).

• To open a discussion of best practices in this area.

Agenda

• Overview of NCR

• Status of Knowledge Management at NCR

• Two Models of Knowledge Management

• Sharing Knowledge Over Mail Lists

• Impact on NCR’s Business

• The Art and Science of Fostering CoPs

• Discussion

NCR Corporation

• Revenue: $6 billion

• Employees: 32,000 in 80 countries

• Headquarters: Dayton, Ohio

• Key Offerings:– Relationship TechnologyTM Solutions built on

• Teradata® Warehousing (TD)

• Automated Teller Machines (FSD)

• Retail Point-of-Sale Systems (RSD)

• Consumable Media and Supplies (SMD)

• Comprehensive Service and Support (WCSD)

NCR Corporation

• Strategic Challenge:Transition from a product manufacturer (1880-1990) to a solution provider (1990-2000+).

• New Environment: The virtual workplace

• KM Implications:

?

NCR Corporation

• Strategic Challenge:Transition from a product manufacturer (1880-1990) to a solution provider (1990-2000+).

• New Environment: The virtual workplace

• KM Implications:– Legacy knowledge is both asset and liability

– New knowledge and skills needed throughout company

– Much (most?) innovation occurs in the field, not at plants or headquarters

– Field personnel are physically more isolated

HV

NCR’s Initial Approach to KM

• Corporate KM Champion Assigned (1995)

• Initial Focus - Capture/re-use of knowledge gained in professional services engagements

• Parallel efforts in several business units, particularly customer services

• Corporate team sponsored KAM - the Knowledge Asset Manager (based on Notes)

NCR’s Knowledge Asset Mgr.

KAM “Communities”

Status of KM at NCR

• Business Units are driving requirements and projects

• Informal cross-BU collaboration

• New cross-BU initiative for Professional Services Automation using Changepoint™

• Growing awareness of importance of communities of interest and practice

• New KM Community of Practice founded in January 2002

KM Evolution

KnowledgeSharingCulture

Knowledge Management IS

Connecting the right people, to the right knowledge, at the right time.

ManagedKnowledge

Assets

Knowledge Management is NOT

Managing the capture of explicit knowledge

KM Lessons Learned

• The value proposition must start with your people

• A knowledge-sharing culture is critical to embracing knowledge management

• KM best practices must be integrated with business processes

• Collaboration is key to knowledge transfer

• Recognizing, rewarding and measuring KM best practices must be balanced and consistent.

• Technology serves only as an “enabler”

Today’s Starting Point

Knowledge exists only in human heads.

Data

Information

Chaos

XX

X Knowledge

Wisdom

Justice

Two Ways to Transfer Knowledge

InformationProcessing

Model

CorporateKnowledge Resources

Two Ways to Transfer Knowledge

Personal Communication Model

1

2

Interpersonal Knowledge Sharing

InformationProcessing

Model

CorporateKnowledge Resources

FV

A KM/KS Comparison Matrix

CriteriaInformationProcessing

Model

InterpersonalCommunication

Model

KnowledgeForm

Independent,elemental

Interdependent,integral

DeliveryLeverage

1 : 103 1:100

ContextualRichness

Lower Higher

InnovationPotential

Lower Higher

Asset Stability High Moderate

Value OverTime

Decreasing ?

Cost OverTime

Increasing(Maintenance)

Increasing(Wage Inflation)

AccessMethod

System Interface

Human Interaction

FV

A Model of Associate Competence

Canonical Knowledge:

Theoretical knowledge gained through reading and formal

instruction. Also the approved information and procedures by

which associates are expected to serve customers.

C

Non-canonical Knowledge:

Practical knowledge gained from personal experience or from other people and not yet accepted into the official (canonical) knowledge of the company.

N

* “Express” and apply” are different skills. The former is related to communication, while the latter is focused on implementation.

S

Skills:

The means by which associates express or apply* their canonical and non-canonical knowledge.

Competence Stereotypes

Professional(Graduate/Postgraduate

Degree)

C N

S

Technician(High School Diploma)

C

N

S

New CollegeHire

C

N

S

Others?

Knowledge Transfer Strategies

KNOWLEDGE DOMAIN: NARROW MODERATE BROAD

EXAMPLE: Telephone Fault Diagnosis& Resolution

On-Site System Installation& Maintenance

Enterprise InformationArchitecture Design

·

·

·

CONTEXT:

STRATEGY:

TOOLS:

METRICS:

CCC

Structured KnowledgeCapture and Guided

Rediscovery

· Databases·

Guided Search Interface· On-line Manuals

· Time-to-solve· Escalation levels· Customer sat.

Field CE

On-line Databases &Practitioner Knowledge

Exchange

· Databases· Internet access· Communities of Practice

(CoP)

· Time-to-solve· No. of visits· Customer sat.

·

·

·

PS

On-line Databases &Practitioner Knowledge

Exchange

Databases

Internet access

Communities of Practice(CoP)

Win/loss ratio

Billable time ratio

Customer sat.

Knowledge Transfer Strategies

KNOWLEDGE DOMAIN: NARROW MODERATE BROAD

EXAMPLE: Telephone Fault Diagnosis& Resolution

On-Site System Installation& Maintenance

Enterprise InformationArchitecture Design

CONTEXT: CCC Field CE PS

STRATEGY:Structured KnowledgeCapture and Guided

Rediscovery

On-line Databases &Practitioner Knowledge

Exchange

On-line Databases &Practitioner Knowledge

Exchange

TOOLS: · Databases·

Guided Search Interface· On-line Manuals

· Databases· Internet access· Communities of Practice

(CoP)

· Databases· Internet access· Communities of Practice

(CoP)

METRICS: · Time-to-solve· Escalation levels· Customer sat.

· Time-to-solve· No. of visits· Customer sat.

· Win/loss ratio· Billable time ratio· Customer sat.

APPLICABLE MODEL: Personal Communication

Information Processing

Applying the KS Model

N

S

ProfessionalConsultant

New CollegeHire

CFieldExperience

Mentored Practice

DesignSpec’s

Internet Technology

Information & Communication

- Professional Services -

C

NS

CustomerCommunity of Practice

TechnicalDiagnostician

Para-TechnicalCall Taker

ComprehensiveKnowledge

Solution

Applying the KM Model - 1997- Worldwide Remote Services -

CBR TechnologyN

S

CFieldExperience

DesignSpec’s

Dialog Prompts

CN

S

CoP

TechnicalDiagnostician

Para-TechnicalCall Taker

ComprehensiveKnowledge

Solution

Applying the KM Model - 2002- Customer Care Center -

CKS TechnologyN

S

CFieldExperience

DesignSpec’s

Guided Search

CN

S

Supporting the KS Model

• Continuous Knowledge Sharing– Mailing Lists

– Periodicals (external and internal)

– Regular Symposia

– Communities of Practice

• Just In Time Knowledge Sharing– Mailing Lists

– Expert locator (e.g. AskMe.com)

Mailing Lists

Mailing Lists

NCR’s Web-Archived Mail Lists

• Released in late 1995

• Target users: Field practitioners

• Design bias: Field-to-field communications

• Uneven management sponsorship– Pilot (‘95 - ‘96)

– Production (‘97 - ‘99)

– Orphan (‘99 … )

Mailing List Architecture

Mailing List Architecture

Mailing List Architecture

Mailing List Architecture

Mailing List Architecture

Mail List Statistics

• Released: November 1995

• Total Lists: 525

• Active Lists (<90d): 78 (15%)

• (<30d): 53 (10%)

• Current subscribers:13,000

• Current subscriptions: 50,000 (4/subscriber)

• Cumulative Postings: 62,000

• Contributors: 9,000

• Author Distribution: [51|23|15|7|3|.8|.1]

Keys to Successful KS

• Start with existing relationships

• Provide simple, unobtrusive communication support (participation must be optional)

• Support de facto community leaders

• Publicize (but don’t hype) successes

• Do not impose formal objectives on participation and contribution

• Do not introduce new processes and procedures

• Allow good things to happen...

Mailing List Study - “ATR”

• Created: October 1996; 30 subscribers

• Initial Name: Advanced Tech. Research

• Purpose: News alerts from ATR director

• Signal Event: “Reply All” in December 1996

• First Discussion: 13 Jan 1997 (4 replies)

• Renamed: A Terrific Resource (Jan. 1999)

• Current subscribers: 940

• Cumulative Postings: 13,000+ over 5 years

• Contributors: 1,000+

Problem -> Solution: 14Request for Tip/Experience: 11Competitor/Partner Info: 4General Information: 4Customer References: 2New Application: 1Providing New Advice/Tool: 1Miscellaneous: 1

Total: 38

A Week In the Life of “ATR”

ContentNew Messages: 19 -> Replies: 19

Total: 38

(ca. 7/day)

USA: 24Austria: 2Pakistan: 2Canada: 1China: 1Denmark: 1Hong Kong: 1Hungary: 1India: 1New Zealand: 1U. Arab Emir.: 1

Total: 38

Geography

Business Impact 1 - Prima Facie

The statistics on the previous slides suggest a strong prima facie case for the business value of the mailing lists:

Given a choice, 13,000 busy NCR associates from 50 countries around the world would not continue their subscriptions to and participation in the mailing lists if they did not provide useful information and services.

FV

Business Impact 2 - War Stories

•Supporting new sales “I presented [our CRM solution] to the decision makers of a bank in Hong Kong. We won that deal due to some key messaging and positioning of our product compared to our competitors. I posted my presentation on the CRM List. A number of responses indicated it would help them position us against our competitors in the future.” [Australia - Value: Not disclosed]

•Solving customer problems“In Dec 01 we upgraded a large Teradata site. A hidden problem popped up all of a sudden which was a very critical issue for business users at the site. A quick shot to ATR revealed a known issue elsewhere in the world and 24 hrs later a patched version could be deployed.” [Austria - Value: $1.8M annually]

•Improving NCR solutions“The ss-fbd-emv mailing list was fundamental during the development of the FBD EMV Application Kernel and in obtaining the first EMV Level 2 approval for an ATM Application in the world.” [Europe - Value: US$ 5 million over 3 years.]

Business Impact 3 - ROI

• Initial cost: $75 K + $15 K (HW)• Ongoing costs: $60 K ($10 K/yr.)• Value of:

– Deals won $ 1 M

– Time saved $ 1 M

– Deals influenced $ 1 M

– Customers retained $ 1 M

– Competitors thwarted $ 1 M

Σ = $ 5 M

(.01% of NCR’s revenues over

six years)

Business Impact 3 - ROI

• Initial cost: $75 K + $15 K (HW)• Ongoing costs: $60 K ($10 K/yr.)• Value of:

– Deals won $ 1 M

– Time saved $ 1 M

– Deals influenced $ 1 M

– Customers retained $ 1 M

– Competitors thwarted $ 1 M

Σ = $ 5 M

(.01% of NCR’s revenues over

six years)

• Pro Forma ROI: 33:1

• The “MasterCard analysis”: Priceless

Definition of Community

A Community of Practice is an informal network of people engaged in a particular profession, occupation, or job function who actively seek to work more effectively and to understand their work more fully.

Formal Organization

Communities and Organizations

Formal Organization

Communities and Organizations

Community Orientation

Community of Practice

Community Ecosystem

Community of Practice

Community Ecosystem

Personal Networks

Community of Practice

Community Ecosystem

Personal Networks

Formal Teams

The Invisible Key to Success

“Communities of practice are the shop floor of human capital, the place where the stuff gets made.

… “They're like professional societies. People join and stay because they have something to learn and to contribute. The work they do is the joint and several property of the group--cosa nostra, ‘our thing.’"

- Tom Stewart Fortune 5 August 1996

Reflections on Community - 1

The problem is that corporate types don't know from community. They think network. They think conference. They think in safe, gray office metaphors that don't rock the boat. Their only question is, "So, how are you better than NetMeeting, Microsoft's conferencing software?"

- Chris Tacy, Underdeveloped NYT Cybertimes 2 July 1997

Reflections on Community - 2

• Learning is social, but not all groups learn

• It is possible to:– Seed new communities

– Enhance existing communities

– Link formal and informal learning

– Align community and organizational objectives

Thereby increasing communications and knowledge sharing effectiveness

The Community Life Cycle

1 Potential

4 Established

2Nascent

Reformed5

3Developing

The Community Life Cycle

1 Potential

4 Established

2Nascent

Reformed5

3Developing

Conclusions

• Knowledge sharing is essential to KM

• Knowledge sharing is a natural part of natural community behavior

• Communities can be seeded, fostered, guided, and supported, but not managed

• Successful communication technologies are simple and convenient

• Knowledge sharing is incomplete and messy

• The ROI on simple technologies can be very high

FV

Discussion

• Thoughts on the KS/KM models?

• Other examples of ways to support KS?– Policies? - Research?

– Processes?

– Technologies?

• Other examples? Counter-examples?

• Impact of emerging technologies– Wireless communications

– Real-time language translation

– Others?