tham, david (2004, nov). "a would-be nanopreneur’s thinkerings on knowledge". in david gurteen...

7/23/2019 Tham, David (2004, Nov). "A would-be nanopreneurs Thinkerings on Knowledge". In David Gurteen (ed.), Global

1/17

I was once asked at a conference to define a knowledge

worker. I started by drawing the distinction between manual

work, information work and knowledge work. Manual work

was done mainly with the hands. It could be highly skilled

but it was often repetitious and gave little scope for the

manual worker to take the initiative and work differently.

I argued something similar for the information worker

the manual element had gone but many information

oriented jobs, although skilled were process driven. People

tended to be limited in their creativity by the demands of

the process. And then knowledge workers, it seemed to

me, had the most freedom they got to decide to some

extent what they actually did and to a larger degree how

they did it.

At KM Asia last year, TomStewart gave his definition of

a knowledge worker that was pretty close to my own ofa few years before Someone who gets to chose what

he or she does in his or her job each morning

But for me, today, this is still not sufficient. Another

person who has influenced my views on knowledge work

is Michael Schrage a few years go he said this in an

interview with CIO Magazine:

I think knowledge management is a bullshit issue. Let

me tell you why. I can give you perfect information, I can

give you perfect knowledge and it wont change your

behaviour one iota. People choose not to change their

behaviour because the culture and the imperatives of the

organization make it too difficult to act upon the knowledge.

Knowledge is not the power. Power is power. The abilityto act on knowledge is power. Most people in most

organizations do not have the ability to act on the knowled

they possess. End of story.

The point here is that the ability to act on knowled

is power which leads to my own definition of

knowledge worker:

Knowledge workers are those people who have tak

responsibility for their work lives. They continually stri

to understand the world about themand modify the

work practices and behaviors to better meet the

personal and organizational objectives. No one tells the

what to do. They do not take No for an answer. They a

self motivated.

The key is about taking responsibility. To my mind knowled

workers cannot be coerced, bribed, manipulated or reward

and no amount of money or fancy technology will incentiviz

themto do a better job. Knowledge workers see the benefof working differently for themselves. They are not wa

slaves they take responsibility for their work includin

the whole and drive improvement.

What I like about this definition is that it is independe

of your type of work you can do predominately manu

information or knowledge work in my original sense a

still be a knowledge worker.

So a question for you to what extent do you thi

you are a knowledge worker by this definition?

David Gurtee

EVIEW

GLOBALKNOWLE

DGE

G

Taking responsibility for your work

IN THISISSU

GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE REVIEW November 200

Appreciating the invisible 2

A puzzling question 3

Stop selling the100% solution to experts 4

Transparency rules, OK? 5A would-be nanopreneursThinkerings on Knowledge 6

Why creative thinkingshouldnt be left to chance 8

Making learning aseffective as possible 10

Who is hiring KMprofessionals in Asia? 1

Tapping into the wisdomof crowds 1

Briefing 1

The MORE WITH MOREimperative 1

TFPL page 1

Businesses fail toshare information 1

Dealing with anunhelpful cultureThis issue sees the return of some contributors

and the introduction of some others, who we

hope and trust will soon become familiar.

We are sure that you will enjoy all the

articles and doubtless some will resonate with

you more than others. Perhaps if I had one

article which really struck a chord with me it

was Victor Newmans not invented here (NIH).

Victor is an old friend and one of the most

innovative thinkers on knowledge management

over the last decade.

I am sure we have all been victims of a NIH

culture sometimes from an individual, maybe

even from a whole department or culture. Yousuggest something and you know you can

forget any chance of the notion being taken

on board.

So do do you overcome NIH? According to

Newman timing is everything. Anyone who

wants to break down a NIH culture should not

demolish the delicate relationship capital

built up by making a frontal assault. You have

to bide your time, introduce ideas slowly and

give people space to get use to new ideas.

Peter Williams


2/172 Global Knowledge Review November 2004 www.globalknowledgereview.com

We tend to measure work by its outcomes reports, designs,

deals, products and often don't look at the process that

leads to them. And even if we want to see the process,

it's often hidden: in peoples heads, in project communications

distributed over hundreds of emails, in drafts of

documents and notes locked on personal hard drives, and

in conversations that vanish into thin air

Why is process important? Because it's learning from

stories of construction, alternatives not chosen, tricks

invented on the way, best practices and mistakes that

make a difference in today's markets that expect innovation

and customer care.

Invisible participation

When there is a discussion about communities of practice

it is often about the value of exchanging ideas and

problemsolving. Active involvement in conversations is

appreciated and supported, while lurkers are often perceived

as 'free-riders' who benefit fromcontributions of others

without adding much value themselves. Usual metrics for

judging community success often do not take into

account that lurking is a form of participation

legitimate peripheral participation that has its own

value.

Listening and reading is learning. It is getting to know

community norms and language, picking up trends and

staying updated, learning about others and their

conversations. All this leads to an awareness of context

that makes it much easier to become an active participantwhen the right moment comes. Non-active participation

is also about creating a larger audience for any conversation

that can motivate experts to share and about giving space

to others by being silent.

Invisible learning

Learning takes a variety of forms. Courses, seminars or

mentoring programs are probably those that come to

mind first. These forms could be referred to as formal

learning, i.e. planned and controlled by an organisation.

In practice, such 'organisationally controlled' learning

only a tip of the 'learning iceberg': up to 80% of job

related learning is informal and driven by individua

themselves. This learning takes many forms starting wit

well-planned personal learning projects to the serendipit

of coffee-table conversations and ideas implicitly picke

up though lurking in a favourite discussion forum.

Researchers studying informal learning often find tha

it is so natural, so embedded in doing work or communicatin

with others, that even learners themselves don't acknowledg

it as learning. However, driven by learners immediat

work needs or long-termpassions, this 'invisible learnin

can often be more powerful than formal learning.

Invisible netWORK

Interpersonal relations are becoming more and mo

important for learning, coming up with new ideas, stayin

connected with informal communication flows (that a

often more meaningful than official communications), an

getting work done. While job descriptions for to

management or marketing positions often indicate tha

developing 'insider knowledge of an industry' or 'person

client base' is an important part of the job, this is rare

the case for engineers or front-line employees.

Time and effort spent doing netWORK (Nardi, Whittake

& Schwarz, 2002) building and maintaining person

networks is not reflected in time sheets and hardly ev

taken into account during performance appraisals or proje

evaluations.There is more that is invisible out there: ideas befo

they are articulated in conversations or written dow

best practices embedded into everyday work, social network

stories and myths that represent the real organisatio

hidden behind the organisational chart and corporat

policies, and so onThe challenge of knowledg

management or 'just management' in this case is t

discover and appreciate these invisibles and to shift fro

managing only what can be easily seen and measured t

supporting and fostering what really matters.

Appreciating the invisible

Lilia EfimovaRESEARCHER

TELEMATICA INSTITUUT

I work as a researcher in areas of

workplace learning, collaboration and

knowledge management. In my work I

try to bring together my experiences

of facilitating learning and managing

change, my interest in technologies

and my passion for understanding

how people work in knowledge-

intensive environments.

Additional readingMcGee, J. (2002). Knowledge work as

craft work,www.mcgeesmusings.net

Nonnecke, B., & Preece, J. (2003). Silent

participants: Getting to know lurkers

better. From Usenet to CoWebs:Interacting with Social Information

Spaces.

Cross, J. (2003). The other 80%,

www.internettime.com

Nardi, B., Whittaker, S, Schwarz, H.

(2002). NetWORKers and their activity

in intensional networks.Computer

Supported Cooperative Work, Volume 11,

Issue 1-2, 205-242.

blog.mathemagenic.com/invisible

Lilia explains how she is becoming more and more convincedthat knowledge management is about facilitating the invisible

Netherlands


3/17www.globalknowledgereview.com Global Knowledge Review November 2004

Recently I was asked by a person new to knowledge

management, How can information technology be used

to support knowledge-centric initiatives? As Kenny

Everett said in his eponymous TV show this query is so

complex in its simplicity yet so simple in its complexity .

I have been asked this question so many times I thought

it was time to give it serious thought and devise a considered

answer. Here goes, but before I start I have a request. When

you read this I want you to interpret information technology

as widely as possible; include not only computers but

books, documents, pictures, art, tape recordings, paper and

any other technology that has the capacity to store

information for later retrieval or to process it in some way.

The principal KM activities are performed by people. ITis

used to enhance our personal capabilities. Consequently

the computers principal components are aptly named

after those very human activities they enhance: memory,

processing, communication, logic, networking etc.

Art of KM

I liken the use of ITby a knowledge manager to a hammer

and chisel in the hands of a sculptor of marble. IT is an

important tool, for like the hammer and chisel (or any

tool), it is an extension of you and can performfunctions

that we humans alone cannot. Likewise the sculptor

guides the tool to create an image that exists in their mind.

Just as ancient civilisations left behind imperfect traces

of their lives, ITconstantly leaves behind artefacts from

our lives. These are distant reflections of knowledge activities,to be interpreted in the future by others, either imperfectly

or as the creator intended. We all use these technologies

and artefacts in different ways according to our different

knowledge needs. We combine themwith our personal or

shared knowledge repositories to enrich our decisions, our

actions and our lives. We use it as a tool to extend many

human capabilities.

Science of KM

The use of ITin knowledge strategy is based on extending

the knowledge capabilities of the individual or the group.

These are constant themes in the scientific literature. If you

want consistency of knowledge (for customer or internal

use) or want to emphasise knowledge re-use then create

a central knowledge repository that is easy to add to and

access. Usually this is a combination of information

technologies including the simple pen and paper. If you

want to maximise the use of personal knowledge

resources then emphasise technologies that assist in

communication and finding those resources. If your aim

is to maximise knowledge creation then use technologies

that enhance collaboration and make available appropriate

internal and external knowledge sources (both experts and

expertise). If your strategy is protect your knowledge then

partition and secure your information resources.

The riskiest knowledge strategies are those without a

vision of the outcome. Blindly applying technology to a

knowledge outcome may or may not result in your

intended outcome with varying consequences. My

research into knowledge re-use, for example, found that

central repositories are sometimes made inaccessible to

those who might contribute to themthe most. Contracted

experts on an ERP help-desk in a large government

organisation were excluded frommaking additions to the

central knowledge-base because of ITpolicy prohibiting

full access to temporary staff. Similarly, junior staff (those

who need the most advice) may be culturally inhibited

fromusing online communication mediums to ask advice

of more senior experts. The literature is full of social sciencestudies that demonstrate the repressive impact of people

on the use of tools designed to augment their abilities. But

what about using technology to measure knowledge transfer

fromone person to another?

I recently asked two leading neuroscientists fromSan

Diego if there is a measurable brain signal that indicates

when one person does not understand a concept

explained by another. The answer is no but there is a

measurable signal that occurs when you realise you have

made a mistake. Well its a start.

A puzzling question

Science and art:Greg looks at the intereaction betweenIT and knowledge strategy

KG

Greg TimbrellRESEARCHER, LECTURER ANDCONSULTANTIN

KM ATQUEENSLANDUNIVERSITYOF

TECHNOLOGY (QUT)

Greg left his job as a knowledge

manager in 1999 to join academe

and pursue a doctorate (almost

finished). Greg has worked mostly

in the consulting sector and

government in a career spanning 25

years mainly in information systems.

He has published and spoken on KM

all over the world and is currently

pursuing KM research projects in

call centres, online communities,

and the IT professional services

sector.

Australia



One of the best pieces of advice I was given in corporate

life was to stop trying to sell 100 % solutions to experts,

especially when working in global, cross-functional teams

across the organizational matrix. My mentor told me that

unless they are scared enough to listen, they will never

forgive you for being right and for knowing something

they dont. I found myself wondering what the costs of

having to reinvent the obvious locally were within our

business, and how much resource was being invested in

replicating the obvious that we could more productively

invest somewhere else. Just how much was localised ego

that couldnt see the global perspective actually costing

us? This article is designed to share some of the secret

Knowledge Activist techniques for building a knowledge

culture that works across national and technical boundaries.

There are several distinct problems involved with trying

to work with highly-educated technical experts; problems

that are often categorised as Not-Invented-Here (NIH)

behaviours. The difficulty is that we can get trapped into

an "Aint it a shame" mode that accepts this block to the

sharing of knowledge as though we were discussing the

weather, instead of developing tactics to overcome it.

Three NIH models

NIH-1 is when experts will not allow a problemto be

expressed in a language or formthat is outside the language

of their particular expertise or experience. This leads to

the intellectual Catch-22 of audience alienation through

the language of the solution. This is because the languageof the solution, the name given to the technique, quite

literally comes from"another place" that is alien by virtue

of the fact that in order for the solution to exist, the problem

that it was connected with had to be acknowledge and

understood, and a solution developed from that

particular context. It is this "otherness" around the language

of the solution that means that a solution fromanother

context or business-sector can take up to three

implementations before it sticks. Hence the difficulty of

transferring good or what appears to be "best-practice"

fromone organisation into another even when its a

obvious life-saver. An "Invented-Here" partial solutio

that often works is to facilitate a teamfroma recipie

organisation into building a prototype solution to th

problem, and only afterwards exposing themto the gener

solution that you already had in your back-pocket. It do

seemas though experts cannot visualise, recognise

understand a solution until they have gone through th

pain of trying to invent it for themselves. The techniqu

of a master at this point is to deliberately fail to give yo

generic solution a name, so that they can name it themselv

and begin to own it when they begin to spread it aroun

the organisation.

NIH-2 is that you must never present technical exper

with a finished product to sign off in short order, even

your solution is technically correct just because you yourse

are an expert in your field. As my mentor put it: "they w

never forgive you for presenting themwith a 100% solutio

so just dont do it. Only ever give thema 30% solutio

that defines the solution, and design a 70% space tha

they can fill with their own contribution withou

making it too obvious that you have defined the solutio

for them. The beauty of the 30/70 rule is that of creatin

a vacuumthat naturally draws individuals own contribution

expressed in their own language.

NIH-3 , the third problem, is that the moment you t

to teach a problem-framing technique that is outsid

their field of expertise they will automatically rubbish

A solution is to appear to invent a technique in real-timI learnt the hard way that although root-cause analys

was the best approach to understanding the causes

failure, because it came fromthe automotive context

had to be dismissed if formally introduced with an explanatio

of its pedigree. The ultimate solution turned out to be, t

introduce the technique using repetitive questioning (nev

"why/ why"/) and to use post-its froman already-use

pile apparently left froma previous meeting.

A word of advice: stop selling the100% solution to experts

Victor NewmanINDEPENDENTCONSULTANT

Victor is Pfizer's former Chief

Learning Officer (2000-2004), and

Visiting Professor in Knowledge

Management and Innovation to the

Open University Business School.

Victor now consults privately. Victor's

leadership of innovation transformed

Pfizer's global best-practice and R&D

productivity. Victor has a prevailing

interest in the psychology of

implementation, derived fromdiverse

and intense consulting experience

within all industrial sectors.

Victor discusses how to replace Not Invented Here" withInvented here

United Kingdom

K


5/17www.globalknowledgereport.com Global Knowledge Report November 2004

Organisations are all under more official and unofficial

scrutiny today than ever before. And it is set to increase.

On the one hand, a great deal of regulation and legislation

is addressing the issue of reducing the possibility of corruption

and trying to ensure that we do not suffer another Enron;

on the other hand, the speed and reach of communications

in the networked marketplace ensure that organisations

walk the talk, that they truly practise what they preach.

Or are exposed for not doing so (one danger being that

they are falsely accused, but that is a different issue).

But transparency, I feel, goes far beyond the core issue

of governance and corruption, both at the corporate and

national levels, critical though these are. It is about corporate

culture; corporate and brand values; product simplicity;

systemusability; the balance between security, privacy

and convenience; building alliances and dialogue; risk and

informed choices to name but a few. And technologies

such as the internet, credit/debit cards, biometrics, radio

frequency identification (RFID), Global Positioning Systems

(GPS), genetics and others are all contributing to

growthin transparency.

Transparency shifts the boundaries of risk, changes our

perceptions of it and requires us to manage our response

to it. For example, how do we manage risks that must

have previously been there, but we either chose to ignore

or simply were not aware of? The current problems of

pension fund deficits with the fall in stock markets are a

case in point. I amnot a pensions expert, but given that

pension funds have, for many years, been heavily relianton equities, and we have had previous stock market falls

if not crashes, surely we have been in a similar position

before, but did not know or were not told. Now, because

we know about pension fund deficits, we have created a

vicious circle of worry: companies reveal a pension fund

deficit which drives down their share price, which in turn

devalues other pension funds.. etc.

Enabling consumers to make informed choices is another

mantra of todays transparent marketplace, and rightly so.

But people do not always know how to manage the

necessary knowledge and information, nor do they necessarily

understand how to evaluate risk, or fully understand the

consequences of their decisions. Not only that, making

informed choices will become more and more complex.

We are moving to a world where personal information

about lifestyles, actions and choices in real time plus other

information about skills and abilities, health and genetic

predisposition to diseases are increasingly available. In the

UK, we are already seeing the emergence of new forms

of services with contracts based on actions car

insurance with premiums calculated in response to where

you drive your car; health insurance which includes

reductions for people who lead healthier lives. These are

the first signs of more transparent services, where actions

and risks are being made a more explicit part of the

agreement, but so too are responsibilities.

Finding ways to live with the new rules of transparency,

and how to manage the knowledge and information, risks

and responsibilities, decisions and their consequences will

provide opportunities, challenges and threats. Among other

actions, we will need to:

Develop new metrics for understanding the wider impacts

of decisions, costs and risks

Create services which help people to manage and use

knowledge and information effectively to assess risk and

make decisions. Price comparison websites are a start

Help people develop the skills that enable themto

understand risk and how to take decisions

Have public debates which acknowledge the emotionalas well as the rational arguments, concerns and options,

and respond accordingly. Debates around genetically

modified (GM) crops in Europe and the use of the combined

Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccine are cases in point

Generate corporate cultures where openness, dialogue

and collaboration can flourish

Find new ways to address the increasing litigiousness

of societies worldwide

Develop international frameworks for implementing

international agreements.

Transparency rules, OK?

Increasing transparency is one of the critical trends affectingbusinesses, governments and consumers today: and we aintseen nothing yet!

United Kingdom

G

Sheila MoorcroftKNOWLEDGEFORTOMORROW, TODAY

Sheila Moorcroft is a futures research

consultant with over 15 years

experience, specializing in scanning,

identification of issues and their

assessment, and scenario

development, especially the business

implications of changing values and

lifestyles. Previously, she was a

Director of Applied Futures where she

worked with clients in retailing,

financial services, healthcare and

travel, looking at new product

development and business strategy.

Prior to that she spent ten years at

SRI International providing strategic

research services to clients

throughout Europe. She regularly

talks at conferences and contributes

to management training courses.



As a young seeker of knowledge, I began my career more

than a decade ago as a radio producers assistant who

quickly learnt that the most malleable thing on earth was

the human imagination.

Combining words, music and other sound bites, radio has

an endearing quality that has enabled it to withstand

competition for audiences fromother mass media greats

such as television and the internet, and co-exist in

symbiosis with them. This endearing quality is radios ability

to create limitless visualisations in the minds of its audience

through narratives and descriptions to imagine possibilities

of what might have been; what is taking place right now;

and what could happen in the future. Often, one word is

all that is needed to signify an idea or vision.

NanoKnowledge is just such a word. NanoKnowledge is

not about nanotechnology alone. Nanotechnology may be

a sprawling idea that cuts across so many disciplines, including

engineering, physics, chemistry, biology, and materials science.

The concept is that by manipulating matter at the

molecular level, literally re-arranging atoms and molecules,

you can create new materials and products with extraordinary

properties e.g. fibres stronger than steel yet at a fraction of

its weight, chemical detectors that can sense a trace molecule

of a toxic gas, precision-guided smart drugs, and

computer memory chips 1,000 times more powerful than

any in existence today.

On the other hand, nanoKnowledge is about the building

blocks of knowledge that help us visualise and make sense

of the bigger picture. Its about learning where we areable to take bits of knowledge, formthemtogether and

create amazing things fromwhat began as a single idea.

NanoKnowledge looks beyond the technology, to the

source of the dynamic know-how people which gave

birth to new notions, like nanotechnology.

The concept of nanoKnowledge is actually quite simple:

by stimulating continuous learning and development among

individuals in an organisations workforce through new and

innovative ways, people create new ideas, products and

services we call this innovation that become the building

blocks for that organisations success and future.

Proponents of R&D technology say that nanotechnolog

may give rise to the next industrial revolution, but befo

that happens, nanoKnowledge will bring about a learnin

revolution.

Sounds like a plug? Think again.

Dr Mihail Roco, Senior Advisor for Nanotechnology at th

National Science Foundation in the US, estimated that b

2015, the global market for nanotech-based products w

reach US$1 trillion and employ some 800,000 workers

the US and two million worldwide.

Harvard Business Reviews senior editor Gardiner Mors

wrote that nanotechnologies will eventually disrupt, transform

and create whole industries. The question isnt whethe

your industry will be affected, but when and how.

So why cant nanoKnowledge have a similar impact beyon

the technology arena?

Deciding to set up nanoKnowledge as my very own firm

was a big leap forward for me, having worked for the mo

part of my career for multi-national corporations, start-u

entrepreneurs and even the Singapore government.

Singapore, entrepreneurs are a rare breed indeed, not t

mention the ones who make it without any financial he

fromthe Singapore government or other related associatio

I recall my first adventure in knowledge management a

a knowledge manager for a Singapore-based internation

hotel and resorts company which at the time manage

some 38 properties in 17 locations around the world.

The company had set up a Knowledge Centre facilitwhich was unique given the nature of the company, an

had hired me to implement a global intranet-based knowledg

management system. Here is an excerpt frommy person

journal one week after I first joined the company. No re

names are used here and I have changed the company

name to Company X(see Figure on next page):

Three years on (and one CEOlater), I decided it was tim

to leave my cushy job at company X to venture on my ow

Thus nanoKnowledge my very own consultancy firm

was born. But not before I had been tasked with putting

A would-be nanopreneursThinkerings on Knowledge

David C ThamFOUNDER

NANOKNOWLEDGE

David specializes in corporate

communications, human capital

development and knowledge

management consultancy. His diverse

experience in HR and communication

has made himone of Asia's preferred

strategists for implementing human

capital and knowledge management

initiatives using practical, cost-

effective means.

Soft assets matter most today. Ideas. People. TeamworkCommunities. Passion. Values and knowledge. That is whaAlan Webber, editor, Fast Company reckons. David agrees

Singapore


7/17

place a million dollar new intranet systemand spent many

long hours and headaches (arrgh!) trying to convince (read:

change manage) the management of company X that

knowledge management was the way forward and that KM

is not just about technology but about people and what

impassions themto come together, share and innovate the

ideas they have in their minds.

Peter Drucker in Managing in a Time of Great Change

wrote that Knowledge has become the key economic resource

and dominant and perhaps even the only source of

competitive advantage. Yet, competitive advantage is not

only the sumof the intellectual parts of an enterprise; it is

the speed of summation, which is referred to as return on

time. Through nanoKnowledge, I envisage a revolution in

the way we look to knowledge for competitive advantage

that goes beyond technology and products.

In a knowledge-based economy, nanoKnowledge

signifies the critical element of business strategy that will

allow organisations to accelerate the rate at which they

handle new market challenges and opportunities. It does

so by leveraging its most precious resources collective

know-how, talent and experience.

NanoKnowledge is, however, not altogether a simple

issue. Nanotechnologists will, of course, claim it as their

own. But it is not a technology, although technology should

be positioned to facilitate it. It is not a directive, although

strategic leadership is imperative. It is not a business

strategy, although one aligned with the fundamental principles

of knowledge management must exist. NanoKnowledge is

based on the premise that an organisation is able to take

stock in its greatest, most valuable yet individualistic

organisation asset, namely, its People.

It is within this framework that organisations must first

be able to challenge age-old adages by no longer relyingon core products but on core competencies. That is where

the competition really begins. The organisation that can

harness its nanoKnowledge is the organisation that truly

understands Success in a Time of Great Change.

And then can we appreciate Rudyard Kipling who wrote:

They copied all that could follow but they couldnt copy

my mind, and I left emsweating and stealing a year and a

half behind. At the very least, if you havent been

thinkering with nanoKnowledge, it may be time for you to

find out how now.

www.globalknowledgereview.com Global Knowledge Review November 2004

Singapore

Personal Notes on Company Xs organisational knowledge culture (c. Aug 2001)Day 1:

Wow! Its my first day. But none of the managerial staff think that orientating new staff, even a fellow manager an

colleague, is important. A junior executive (management support staff) apologises and takes the initiative to show m

around. I dont even have an idea of what my CEOlooks like other than that he isnt Asian and that he has a pot bel

like Santa. There are so many people to meet in the corporate office alone. All of a sudden Imso not looking forward t

having to know all the names of the general managers of the properties that are based overseas.

Day 2:

It seems there is a lack of corporate vision among some managerial staff. There is a tendency towards self-importanc

among senior (i.e. veteran) staff and this hinders the learning ability of newer staff who would be more effective to th

company if they were able to attain or surpass the knowledge level of the former in a shorter time. There is a lack of a

effective communication network and knowledge resource pool among managers due to the size of the organisation

and this can create unnecessary delays in inter-departmental information exchanges.

Day 3:

Staff do not appear to be well-trained in effective time management habits and each person appears to have his/her ow

compass direction, i.e. pre-occupied with the burden of accomplishing his/her own work rather than working togethe

as a teamto accomplish the companys objectives. Thus, there is often a lack of co-ordination when meetings are arranged

e.g. certain staff members may arrive late for a department meeting because they are attending to seemingly more urgen

and important matters, even though sufficient notice was given in advance for the meeting. Staff who do turn up earl

or on time for meetings end up waiting and valuable work time is lost in small but incremental quantity. This in turn ma

adversely affect the morale and enthusiasmof these staff who do make an effort to come early or are punctual. If le

unchecked, such a cycle may leave an undesirable impact on organisational culture. Worse still, if staff come early or o

time only because of the rank or seniority of the meetings proposer this results in attendance to please and appease

the boss rather than attendance to obtain/share the information necessary to improving overall work performance. Th

lack of co-ordination may be due to the lack of communication of meeting agenda. Hence staff are not able to prioritis

the meeting activity above their other activities.

Day 4:

There is a high level of adherence to administrative paperwork. As a result, valuable time can be spent searching fo

required information fromfiling cabinets. Despite the general adherence to documentation, there are signs that certai

departments may lack systematic documentation, e.g. the use of company Xs intranet systemis presently crippled becaus

not enough staff usernames and passwords have been released to create an online community among the staff angenerate web traffic. There is also no uniformsystemof indexing between departments and throughout the compan

Furthermore, there is no obvious tagging systemfor existing and new information incorporated into the intranet.

Day 5:

Presently, most, if not all, of company Xs computer workstations use the Microsoft Windows 95 version 4 Operatin

System. Windows 95 is documented to have a high tendency to crash thereby causing the loss of data and incurrin

additional cost for data recovery and/or troubleshooting. The impetus to harness information technology has obviousl

not been very strong within the company and it is currently vastly under-utilised. I do not have sufficient information a

the current time to identify the reason for the lack of Operating Systemupgrades since 1995.

KG


8/17

USA

8 Global Knowledge Review November 2004 www.globalknowledgereview.com

The 9/11 Commission Report declared that it is crucial to

find a way of routinizing, even bureaucratizing, the exercise

of imagination. And so in August 2004, US Congress

called hearings to discuss the intelligence communitys

failure of imaginationand the requirement for imagination

and creativity going forward.

As the head of an education foundation that advocates

the value of applied imagination, I was pleased to see this

focus in the House of Representatives Committee on

Intelligence hearings. Unfortunately, it took the 9/11 attacks

to raise a serious national conversation about the importance

of imagination. Its a well-overdue conversation and one

that should continue.

Contrary to some of the testimony on August 4, imagination

and judgment are not mutually exclusive. Mr. Mark Lowenthal,

assistant director of central intelligence, said that intelligence

requires discipline, not simply flights of fantasy. In fact,

both are necessary for effective and productive creative

problem solving. Creative thinking does not mean an

absence of judgment. Rather it requires a disciplined and

dynamic flow between imaginative generation of ideas,

solutions and actions and critical evaluation in each of

those phases.

Developing ones creativity and imagination is not an

untested area. And it is not simply the realmof artists,

Hollywood-types and geniuses as was often implied in

the Congressional testimony.

Following World War II, multidisciplinary researchers

and practitioners began developing ways for stimulatingcreative behavior and applying imagination in industry,

education and psychology. Three leaders in this endeavor

include one of the founding principals of advertising agency

BBDO, Alex Osborn. In the late 1940s, he began

articulating creativity as something that can be nurtured

and developed for producing more innovative outcomes.

In 1950, as president of the American Psychological

Association, J. P. Guilford addressed his colleagues about

the lack of research in creativity, thus launching the

formal academic study of creativity. Following that

period, educator E. Paul Torrance began exploring at th

University of Minnesota how to deliberately develop creativ

talent in children and adults.

Creativity is present and available in all persons. Ho

that creativity is expressed varies widely, depending o

the individual. We all can become trapped by function

fixedness, which blocks our ability to take risks, thin

outside of the box and ask new questions. We all get stuc

in our habits of thought. But nearly everyone can lea

to tap into more of their imagination to deliberately app

creativity to real-world problems.

Creativity and imagination are not simply the doma

of the Good Guys. Creativity can be used for good or fo

evil, which is why there is a strong element of ethics abou

creative thinking. Many have argued that the Nazis campaig

was a masterful example of creative thinking. And it wa

Al Qaeda has been extremely innovative in how the

organize, plan and execute their terror. We simply canno

afford to be unimaginative.

This is why people must deliberately learn how to imagin

what might be, define the right problem, generate solution

create solid action steps for implementing thos

solutions, and evaluate results. Each of these phases is

fluid dance between imaginative, divergent thinking t

generate many problems, many solutions and many action

and analytical, convergent thinking to evaluate th

problems, solutions and actions.

Divergent and convergent thinking should not happe

concurrently, as they so often do when groups attemcreative thinking and problemsolving. This is like steppin

on the gas and the brake in the car at the same time

you use a lot of gas, but go nowhere. Rather, these tw

types of thinking should be separated by deferring one

judgment so that the generative thinking happens first

and then the judgment and evaluation follows.

Creative breakthroughs can and do happen by chanc

But if this kind of thinking is taught, creative outcome

can happen by choice not only in fighting terrorism, bu

for developing a country that deliberately chooses t

Why creative thinking shouldnt beleft to chance

Steven DahlbergGENERAL MANAGER

CREATIVEEDUCATION FOUNDATION

HADLEY, MASSACHUSETTS

Steve is general manager for the US

based Creative Education Foundation.

He's taught creative thinking at two

universities, and edits the 'ageing as

exile?' blog. He's currently exploring

creative ageing/retirement and

creative communities/cities.

Creativity by choice, not by chance: developing imaginationin the intelligence community

Additionalreading

Imagination is Everything

By Robinder Sachdev, Founding

Principal, The Imagindia Institute at

New Delhi

Diverse, Not Divided

By Christopher Farrell, Contributing

Economics Editor, BusinessWeek


9/17www.globalknowledgereview.com Global Knowledge Review November 2004

think creatively personally, professionally and globally.

Doing so will produce innovative ideas for new products

and industries, will build stronger and inclusive communities,

will engage people in meaningful work, and will educate

children in a life-long skill that can be applied to any

endeavor.

How can creativity and imagination specifically be applied

to improving the intelligence community? They can have

better outcomes if they apply a solid process for imaginative

thinking in the right culture with the right people and

leadership. Creativity can be taught, nurtured and applied

by focusing on creative development in these areas:

People:Teach creative thinking skills and behaviors

that encourage divergent thinking, convergent thinking

and deferral of judgment. Encourage attitudes of

curiosity, risk-taking, tolerance for ambiguity and

openness.

Processes: Teach a complete process for creative

problemsolving not one that only endorses either

brainstorming or analytical thinking. Instead, one that

applies both imagination and judgment consistently

throughout the process of problemfinding, idea finding

and solution finding.

Culture: Creative leadership within the intelligence

community can set a culture for encouraging

imagination. Those leaders need to personally possessattitudes that encourage creative thinking and allow

for creative problemsolving. They also need to create

the conditions that motivate others to do the same.

Outcomes: The results of people applying creative

thinking skills and processes will lead to innovative

solutions including imagining the way that

terrorists might strike next, integrating diverse intelligence

across agencies or managing the individual intelligence

workers.

In 1977, creativity researcher Sidney Parnes said that

research has shown that all of us can learn to better

understand and appreciate our own creative potential, as

well as to nurture it more fully in individuals and groups

for whom we have responsibility. This is the exciting

challenge of our age to help more and more people in

our society to achieve the delicate balance of productive

creativity.

This is still our challenge not just for fighting

terrorismbut for engaging people in meaningful activity

so that they can contribute their creative thinking and

efforts to making the world a better place.

USA

KG


10/1710 Global Knowledge Report November 2004 www.globalknowledgereport.com

I certainly do not find it surprising that, in the past few

years, the focus on Learning and Learning Organisation

(reflected by the view that: "Effective learning is the only

sustainable competitive advantage") has been extended

into the whole new industry called Knowledge Management.

Obviously, if you are concerned with learning it is natural

to ask the question what are we learning? And perhaps

even more importantly: What ought we learn? This

development has coincided with the widespread use of

computers that has created massive new challenges from

the 'information explosion'.

The more change that is going on in society the more

important it is that we make sure that our learning is as

effective as possible. That is the only way we have any

chance of being able to equate change with progress. An

underlying assumption of the word 'learning' is that we

are all trying to do things better. We are trying to improve

things. We are trying to make progress. Of course, the

concepts behind the words: 'improve', 'better' and 'progress'

are powerfully values driven.

How often do we seem to be either obsessed with

technology, or so focused on the experience of the here-

and-now, that the issue of Wisdomis usually ignored,

despite the link within the widely used pyramid of: data,

information, and knowledge, that ends with Wisdom.

On the other hand it can be argued that it is even more

important to turn that pyramid on its head and recognise

that we start with Wisdom, and that provides the framework

within which we manage knowledge, and so on throughinformation to data. Without an effective base at one

level, it is impossible to manage effectively the next layer

up. It is also quite justified to argue that knowledge is the

application, or use, of information. And that Wisdomis

the way we integrate information/knowledge with our

values into our decision-making processes.

Of course, Wisdomis one thing, being wise is quite another.

Being wise is certainly more than the ability to recycle

Wisdom; it involves the ability to apply Wisdomconvincingly

in practice, avoiding the danger of: "Those who are arrogant

with their wisdomare not wise." Anon.

If we can agree on what we mean by Wisdomwe ca

then ask: How do we learn it? And How do we ensure tha

it is learned more effectively? Wisdomis not easily taugh

if it can be taught at all, but it is learned somehow. As fa

as I know, there is no evidence of a Wisdomgene. But w

do need to explore the apparent paradox: "Why do w

appear to be spending more and more time focused o

learning information/knowledge that has a short shelf

life, and less and less time on knowledge that overlap

more closely with long shelf-life Wisdom?"

Over recent years there has been a vast amount o

literature on the critical subject of knowledge manageme

but, with a few notable exceptions, the word 'Wisdom'

rarely mentioned. Any effective knowledge manageme

strategy should both start, and end, with a sol

foundation in Wisdom. All that means is that people an

values really are vitally important. And, of course, it is th

low priority given to this issue that is the underlyin

reason why most knowledge management programm

are not as successful as we would like themto be.

As a final thought, perhaps it all amounts to:

Where is the Wisdomwe have lost in chaos and complexity

Where is the knowledge we have corrupted in 'Knowledg

is Power'?

Where is the information we have lost in informatio

overload?

Where is the data we have lost in answering the wron

questions?(after T.S. Eliot).

Making learning as effective aspossible

Dr. Bruce LloydPROFESSOROFSTRATEGICMANAGEMENT

LONDON SOUTH BANKUNIVERSITY

Bruce spent over 25 years in industry

and finance before joining London

South Bank University a decade ago.

He has a degree in Chemical

Engineering an MBA fromthe London

Business School. He has written

extensively on strategy and futures

related issues.

Notes:1 Wildridge, V. et al (2004) How to create

successful partnerships a review of the

literature. Health Information and

Libraries Journal, 21 (Suppl.1), 3-19

2 Mattessich, P.W. et al (2001)

Collaboration: What makes it work.2nd edn. Saint Paul, Minnesota: Amherst

H. Wilder Foundation.

3 Gray, B. (1989) Collaborating: Finding

common ground for multiparty problems.

San Francisco: Josey Bass.

This piece is based on an earlier

version published in EAHIL Newsletter

to European Health Librarians, August

2004, No 68

Bruce asks whether Knowledge has any value withouWisdom

United Kingdom


11/17www.globalknowledgereport.com Global Knowledge Report November 2004 1

China has gone through explosive growth making it the

world's fastest growing economy and hot spot for foreign

investments. There is real pressure now for Chinese

organizations to develop organisational capabilities to

compete in an increasingly borderless world. It is interesting

to note that highly-developed and richer countries

around China are stressing that they intend further

transforming themselves becoming "knowledge-based

economies offering value-added services". The move aims

to maintain their competitive edge in a market with China

next door. If China produces everything, the thinking goes

in Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong, what is

left for us? How is this transformation into knowledge-

based economies reflected in the job market?

Despite the increasing awareness of knowledge economy

and the socio-economic changes in the region, there seems

to be no or little demand for professionals specializing in

information and knowledge management related functions,

people who specialise in knowledge transfer and organisation,

R&D, application and development of know-how,

learning and mentoring; generally highly qualified and

experienced professionals who contribute to the growth

of knowledge capital in organisations and nations. Are

all these skills held by managers in other operational

functions? Initial talks with recruiting agencies and search

in job databases did not help to answer this question.

Looking more closely at jobs in more "classical"

functions for information and knowledge professionals,

such as in information resource management, recordsand content management, information providers and

intranet/portal managers, we find that these are less frequent

in most Asian countries than in Western countries. One

of the explanations may be that information is not considered

a resource that needs to be organized (contrary to the

perception in most Western countries, information is not

a commodity in most of Asia); another explanation may

be that there are very few university courses on information

studies, library and information science or related fields.

There are a few degree courses in Knowledge Management

at various universities now, but this is a rather recent

development. Overall, there is no tradition of academic

research in information and knowledge related subjects.

Another category for information and knowledge

professionals can be described as people-related

functions, i.e. (Online) community managers, CoP facilitators,

expertise locators, idea connector and mentor/coached

for knowledge transfer. These jobs dont even exist in the

(official) job market, but there are some organisations which

are experimenting with these type of job functions in China

notably in knowledge-rich or high-tech companies. (These

developments will be discussed in another column.)

The third category of job for information and

knowledge professionals are those related to Intellectual

Capital, i.e. specialists in valuation of intellectual capital,

information auditors, IC accountants and information

quality managers. These are indeed rare animals not

only in Asian job markets, but arguably also in most Western

countries. There is of course a growing number of intellectual

property managers and corporate lawyers, who could, if

they were not largely restricted to the legal department,

contribute to the management of the knowledge-base of

the whole organisation.

Perhaps the answer is indicated in this comment by a

senior official of the Academy of Social Sciences in

Beijing: "We shouldnt compare Chinas economy with

leading economic nations; China is currently in a phase

comparable to Manchester capitalismin the industrial

age in the UK or Wild West in the US." (Quoted at a publictalk in Hong Kong in 2003)

During that economic phase, neither the UK nor the US

had a broad range of information and knowledge

professions....So with this perspective the absence of KM

professionals in China may simply reflect the current

economic maturity of the job market.

Who is hiring KM professionals inAsia?

There may be growing awareness of the knowledge economybut this isnt yet filtering through to the job market

Waltraut RitterDIRECTOR

KNOWLEDGE ENTERPRISES

Waltraut is the Director of

Knowledge Enterprises, a research

and advisory company based in

Hong Kong . She has been involved

in KM assignments since 1989, and

led projects in a wide range of

industry and business sectors, with

a focus on R&D intensive

organizations. Besides her work, she

researches and teaches KM at the

HK Polytechnic University and the

Hong Kong University. She also

chairs the HK Knowledge

Management Society.

KG

Hong Kong



Canada

James Surowieckis book The Wisdomof Crowds has provoked

a great deal of controversy for espousing and providing

compelling anecdotal evidence to support a blasphemous

idea in a society with a cult of leadership and almost-

unlimited reverence for grey-haired cognoscenti:

Any large group of modestly informed, independent,

diverse individuals will consistently and significantly

outperform any expert (or small group of experts) in

solving problems or making decisions.

The book is so delightfully written that the implications

of this message take a back seat to the entertaining and

astonishing stories of how collective wisdomhas triumphed

over the greatest and most experienced minds on the planet.

But those implications, for business managers in general

and for those who work in the field of knowledge management

in particular, are profound:

If there were an effective way to tap into the

collective intelligence of large numbers of people (and in

a large organization, all employees or all customers

would probably constitute a more-than-adequate crowd

for this purpose), the value and need for both senior

management and outside consultants would be greatly

diminished, perhaps even eliminated entirely.

In the absence of such collective intelligence, it is

very possible, maybe even likely, that sub-optimal

decisions are being made and sub-optimal solutions

implemented every day in business organizations, with

serious or even catastrophic impact on the business success.

The cost of not knowing is immense: Bad purchasing,hiring, promotion and new product development

decisions, incurring unnecessary litigation, loss of a key

customer or contract, entering into a bad deal and missing

out on a great one, are just a few examples.

Knowledge Management professionals have the

skills, focus, and access to the resources needed to create

an organizational ability to tap into the Wisdom of

Crowds. They are uniquely positioned to take advantage

of the incredible opportunity that Surowieckis book suggests

is there for the taking, and to significantly reduce the cost

of not knowing.

There is nothing remarkably new in the aspiration t

gather collective intelligence: Lew Platt, former CEO at H

coined the now-famous expression "If only HP knew wh

HP knows" a decade ago. But most KM practitioners too

this to advocate the codification of everything that everyon

in the organization has learned and written down, just

case that knowledge was useful again, and the design o

search engines and community of practice spaces to increa

the likelihood that, if it was, the people needing tha

knowledge might just be able to find it.

But Dave Snowden has often made the point that eve

if the needed knowledge could be found, the loss o

context that occurs in the codification process often rende

that knowledge unusable, dangerous, or even unrecognizabl

What Surowiecki is talking about is just in time knowledg

not just in case knowledge. It is the result of a knowledg

process that Ive coined knowledge canvassing the ubiquitou

and intuitive process of, when you dont know the answ

to something, picking up the phone or walking down th

hall and asking someone you think might know th

answer. Ive long been an advocate of developing mo

formalized knowledge canvassing processes that cou

identify the best people to call, and simultaneous

canvass a larger number of people to get addition

perspectives.

But Surowieckis book has emboldened me to thin

about casting a much broader net in the canvass. What

we were to create a new process that would automaticacanvass everyone in the company and every current an

potential customer of the company, whenever there w

a critical decision to make or a critical problemto solve

Heres what I think such a process, based on the classic

decision-making process model used by organizations lik

NASA, might look like:

Suppose, for example, the problemis the failure of a ne

product to meet market expectations. The proce

identifies four points in the decision-making proce

where crowds could add value:

Tapping into the wisdom of crowds

Dave PollardFOUNDER, MEETINGOFMINDS

TORONTO, CANADA

Dave was the Canadian CKO and

Global Director of Knowledge

Innovation at Ernst & Young from

1994-2003, following twenty years as

an Entrepreneurial Services leader. His

new business, Meeting of Minds,

offers Knowledge Management,

Business Innovation and

Entrepreneurship advisory services

Dave asks what if we were to create a new process that wouldautomatically canvass everyone in the company and everycurrent and potential customer of the company

page 1


13/17www.globalknowledgereview.com Global Knowledge Review November 2004 1

1. Qualifying and ranking the issues, aspects or components

of the problem(in our example, is the new product failing

in all or only certain markets?, Were the expectations

unreasonable?, etc.)

2. Qualifying the root causes of the problem(in our

example, they could include poor pricing, bad timing, poor

marketing, competitive disadvantages etc.)

3. Qualifying and ranking alternative solutions that address

the root causes (in our example, if poor pricing was the

#1 rated root cause, solutions might include lowering the

price, changing to distribution channels where the existing

pricing is more acceptable etc.)

4. Critiquing and validating the proposal to implement

the solution(s).

At each applicable stage in the process, employees,

customers and prospective customers, most of themnovices

at decision-making, would be canvassed for their

opinions: Are these the right alternatives to consider, and

if so, in what order of priority. The Wisdomof Crowds

answers could be benchmarked against the answers of

both internal experts (marketing managers in our

example) and external experts (marketing consultants in

our example). My moneys on the crowd, and would have

been even if I hadnt read Surowieckis book.

This raises all kinds of interesting questions and opportunities,

of course. Some things to consider:

The model above assumes that crowds need some

limits to the alternatives they consider; that the assessments

they make must be selections froma finite list of alternatives.Surowiecki explains that crowds are brilliant at guessing

the number of jelly-beans in a jar (the average guess is

almost always very close), determining the best retail price

for a new product, or even pinpointing the location of a

missing submarine in the Pacific Ocean. But what about

more open-ended problems? The crowd may be smart, but

are they also imaginative, creative, capable of inductive

reasoning and inference? Can the crowd solve the problem

of TiVos struggle with profitability, or the inability of China

to produce quality products, or the inability of pharmaceutical

companies to make as high a margin on drugs that cure

killer diseases as they make on Viagra, or the dearth of new

products and ideas in the banking, insurance, and residential

construction industries? Can they give us some ideas on

the best ways to combat global warming, or help the SEC

predict which company will be the next Enron?

How do you reward or motivate the crowd to participate

in the problem-solving and decision-making process? As

much as we want to help our employers and suppliers

make good decisions, we are already surveyed to death.

How much should we pay employees and customers to

participate? Do we game the systemso that only th

participants who come closest to the crowd consensus ge

paid? Or is the recognition of being acknowledged as th

wisest in the crowd, the guy who always guesses the righ

number of jellybeans, reward enough?

Surowiecki shows what anyone who has worked i

the brokerage industry already knows: that the highly

paid stock market investment analysts and economists don

do any better than the average Joe at predicting wher

markets are going. Could broad recognition of this fac

create a crisis of confidence in markets, and in business i

general? And what will all the displaced experts, consultant

gurus and executives do when their competency prove

to be overpriced and unneeded?

The opportunities for using collective wisdomt

reduce the cost of not knowing is not limited to th

private sector: Could the Wisdomof Crowds have told u

that there were no WMD in Iraq, or warned us that th

9/11 attacks were coming? Could it have predicted th

Great Blackout of 2003, SARS and Mad Cow outbreak

or the precise route of the 2004 hurricanes? While thes

may seemimprobable tasks for amateur crowds to solv

some of the successes in Surowieckis books are just a

amazing and incredible. What if we all knew what we a

know?

I confess to being something of an evangelist on th

subject: Ive written about it so often that when yo

Google "The Wisdomof Crowds", my weblog How to Sav

the World ranks behind only the books publisher and Amazoin the results. But creating the infrastructure to captur

collective wisdom would be inexpensive, and unles

Surowieckis theories turn out to be discredited when they

put to more demanding tests (which I dont think w

happen) the development of canvassing processes an

technologies would seemto present enormous opportunitie

for companies large and small to reduce cost of failure an

risk, and to innovate more effectively. These opportunitie

might even be enough to spark a resurgence in respec

and demand for knowledge management.

Canada

K

SolutionTeam

Wisdomof crowds

Gather Facts &

Assess Unknowns

For top-rankedComponents

For qualifyingRoot Causes

For top-rankedAlternatives

ArticulateIssue

Components

Qualify & RankComponents

QualifyRoot Causes

Qualify & RankAlternativeSolutions

Critique/ValidateProposal

IdentifyRoot

Causes

IdentifyAlternativeSolutions

ConfirmDecision& Propose

Implementation

ModifyProposal

ImplementDecision


14/17

Briefing

14 Global Knowledge Review November 2004 www.globalknowledgereview.com

Companies wrestle to implementan effective content strategyCompanies are failing to address their content requirements

by only concentrating on the technology and processes

issues, leaving themselves in danger of having out of date

and irrelevant content on their websites.

Over the past five years, content has catapulted up

the priority list for major companies. Key drivers for

this change include significant growth in commerce

and customer management through digital business

channels, plus demand for more effective knowledge

management within companies due to the proliferation

of business channels.

Inevitably, companies seeking improved content

capabilities have invested heavily in content management

systems. However, many of these same companies now

recognise that attaining success with Content requires

attention beyond managing content with better systems

and processes. Instead, all stages of content must be

addressed, from origination through to publication,

reviewing ownership, governance and working practices,

as well as taxonomy, categorisation, systems and processes.

For many companies, looking at all of these elements

holistically represents an overwhelming challenge.

Poor data quality will seriouslydamage business healthDriven by the needs of external compliance regulations

and internal corporate governance requirements,

businesses are having to ensure data accuracy. This hasbeen combined with the fact that more businesses are

deploying enterprise-wide Business Intelligence (BI)

applications that are allowing staff, partners, and

customers to view and manipulate data. Wherepower

users could manage rogue data, these new users are

unable to do so and present the risk of compounding

the problem. Over the next year, analyst company

Butler Group predicts that the issue of data quality and

ensuring data integrity will shoot up the corporate and

IT agenda with most organisations discovering that they

lack the ability to diagnose just how bad their data

Butler Groups Report on Data Quality and Integrit

makes the following points and recommendations:

The only way to improve data quality is for the issu

to be owned by the business. IT departments ma

enact the solution but lack the capability to addre

the problem. A board-level mandate is required t

effectively push this through with the CIO acting a

the intermediary between the business and the

department.

If you do not have a focused data quality strateg

in place then you have to assume that you have a da

quality problem. However, an enterprise-wide strateg

is only needed for identifying the areas of the busine

that are affected by poor data, and those whose nee

is greatest. Technology solutions should only then b

applied to these areas as the cost and complexity o

ensuring high quality data throughout the organisatio

is both prohibitive and unnecessary.

Investment in data quality can have positive Retur

on Investment (ROI). It is not just something that w

satisfy the auditors but is also an opportunity to driv

added benefit, making processes more streamlined.

Google Search ApplianceGoogle Search Appliance recently launched

Europeenables organizations to deliver Google-qualit

search results on their intranets and public website

The company claims the product enables custome

and employees to find the products and informatiothey need.

The Google Search Appliance provides fast, relevan

search results for companiesintranets and websites

up to 28 languages,said Dave Girouard, general manag

of Googles enterprise business.European companie

can now easily deploy the Google Search Appliance t

provide the same reliable search results on their intrane

and websites as they expect from Google web searc

while minimising the time and management effo

required.

NEWSDanger fromcontent

Damaging business health

Improving search

effectiveness

Content Strategy, Poor Data Quality, Google Search Applianc


15/17www.globalknowledgereport.com Global Knowledge Report November 2004 1

If our companies are not breaking up bureaucracy, continually

innovating, creating new products, services and markets,

we are in trouble. We exist in an era of unprecedented

change where the contexts of our working environments

are shifting dramatically.

Adding fuel to the fire, our leaders have chanted the

misguided mantra of more with less for years without

truly understanding the consequences of these actions.

More with less was intended to do more with fewer resources.

The downside is that it also promotes fear and

intimidation for employees with smaller budgets, downsizing

and the creation of a "ME" environment.

More with less tends to focus us towards interventions

in our respective work areas that result in a naive

disregard for the organization as a whole. This fragmented

approach leads us away fromwhole systems alignment.

In essence, more with less promotes the development of

organization silos and the sub optimization of work, while

increasing our cost structures fromthe inefficient use of

resources, particularly when it comes to people.

This organizational behavior is reinforced by a more

with less culture that rewards individuals for short-term

gains and misalignment. Over time the outcomes

manifest into long termpain, for the fortunate; and for

the unfortunate, company extinction and the loss of jobs.

"We are entering the era of ideanomics."

Alan Greenspan

Change the mantra, attitudes, actions

More with More is a conceptual expression to guide

organizations beyond our current state of thinking about

strategy, structure and the alignment of human intellect

to create sustainable value. Its not about using more people,

more budget or more resources, its about optimizing the

resources we have, particularly our people. Its about

using the intellect of every single individual in the organization

irrespective of title, position, location, education and gender.

Its not about fear and intimidation but teamwork and

partnership to create a shared future.

This change does not happen in isolation. There are specific

prerequisites that must also be present to enable the

development and alignment of intellectual capital.

Characteristics of More with More:

Understanding our organization as a whole systemin

which everything is interconnected

Intellectual capital development is a key component

within the company strategy

Appreciating the value potential of every individual

within the organization

Cultivating a culture that promotes the three Ts that

underpin the development of intellectual capital,

Truth, Trust and Transparency.

More with More views the organization as a whole

(system) with interdependent and synergistic components.

Thinking about the organization as a systemencourages

the alignment of resources, processes and people. Intellectual

capital development is the principal engine for growth.

As a strategy it guides the company to focus on two discreet

yet synergistic components. The first focuses on our existing

(and highly competitive) market space. The intent is to

reinvent the organization so that it recognizes and

predicts shifts while empowering the organization to adapt

and capitalize. Secondly it strategically aligns resources,

(people, systems and structures) to focus on continuous

creation, fromend to end across the system.

People have an innate ability to learn, to innovate and

to create. We probably would not be here if our ancestors

did not have these traits! Irrespective of a persons placein the organization, they can make a contribution as humans

come pre-wired for innovation. We must let people think

outside their cubicles and job descriptions.

For people to fully participate they have to believe what

they hear fromour leaders. There are three principles that

support the people side of intellectual capital development,

truth, trust and transparency. Speaking the truth leads to

trust and trust is preserved when communication is

transparent. Actions act a means of validation. Its that

simple.

The MORE WITH MORE imperative

A conceptual expression to guide organizations beyond ourcurrent state of thinking about strategy, structure and thealignment of human intellect to create sustainable value

Fred VailFred Vail is responsible for the

design and implementation of

intellectual capital development

programs. During 2004 Fred was

instrumental in the development

and launching of Gulf SoL

(www.gulfsol.org) a fractal for the

Society for Organizational Learning.

In 2003 Fred was nominated by

Harvard University, to participate in

the Learning and Innovation

Laboratories (LILA) and in 1999 and

2001 he was listed in Whos Who in

the World for outstanding

achievements in his field.

Previously Fred was executive

director of United Telesis and a

manager with Price Waterhouse in

London.

Frederick holds a Masters degree in

Business Administration with

distinction fromthe University of

Hull, England.

Saudi Arabia

KG


16/17

TFPL Ltd., 17-18 Britton Street, London EC1M 5TL, United Kingdom

tel: +44 (0)20 7251 5522 fax: +44 (0)20 7251 8318 email: [email protected]

www.tfpl.com

tfpl

Knowledge Management Assistant 30kA leading provider of specialised offshore legal services requires a knowledge management assistant tojoin its Cayman Island office. You will work closely with practice team leaders in the delivery, managementand maintenance of the firm's standard documents, precedents, know-how, and library collections. Youwill index standard documents, precedent materials and help maintain the library. You must be

information qualified and have worked in a professional services environment. Ref:GK17445West Indies Legal

UK Industrial Products Knowledge Manager 34-37kA large international consultancy requires a knowledge manager to work within the global i ndustrialproducts division to develop and support local knowledge sharing initiatives and act as a local contact forknowledge management issues and enquiries. You will communicate and promote knowledge managementinitiatives and co-ordinate industry training for IP practitioners. An understanding of knowledgemanagement principles and enthusiasm to develop your knowledge in this area is a must.Effective communication skills and the ability to deliver presentations is essential. Ref: GK17857London Consultancy

Knowledge Specialist NegA knowledge specialist is required for a government agency with an intellectual property focus.Responsibilities include capturing and mapping initial information requirements to access externalinformation sources; producing a document scheme for documents and correspondence to comply withFOI; developing a taxonomy for integration to corporate taxonomy and responsibility for the developmentand administration of the intranet site. You will have two years' experience of working with knowledgeand content management solutions and previous experience of developing taxonomies. Ref:GK17513Aberdeen Government

UK Energy, Utilities Knowledge Manager 34-37kA leading city based consulting firm requires a knowledge manager to joinits energy and utilities group.Acting as a local contact for KM issues and enquiries you will develop and support local knowledge sharinginitiatives including working with engagement teams throughout the UK and the KM community. You willbe required to contribute to the development and maintenance of the global industry content strategy.You will have knowledge management experience within a consulting environment and must have theindustry experience.Ref: GK17856London Consultancy

Group Product Information Manager 40-50kA cutting edge back to back distribution firm requires a group product information manager to takeresponsibility for managing product information lifecycle and ensuring secure and structured managementhigh quality product data for publishing is carried out. You will have direct line responsibility for a team ofup to 15 people who will assist you in maintaining quality of data whilst developing content processes andsetting data product standards. You will have in-depth experience in a senior capacity from a information/ content management environment Ref: GK17867Northants or Oxford Engineering

To apply for any of these positions please [email protected] or call on +44 (0)20 7251 5522

TFPL is the leading information and knowledge

specialist company

TFPL has provided recruitment, training and

advisory services to public and private clients of all

sizes since 1987

TFPL has an in-depth understanding of knowledge

management and how it brings benefits to

organisations

TFPL can:

advise on creating the conditions for successful KM

recruit KM professionals

define roles and competencies

offer diagnostic tools to assess KM and IM skills

provide public access and in-house training for KMprofessionals and teams

KM thought leadership

TFPL organises CKO Summits to challenge thinking and

formulate new knowledge strategies

Executive reports of these summits are available to

download on the tfpl website

TFPL runs two KM networking bodies: the Bath Club for

leaders in the public sector and Knowledge Leaders in

Law for the legal sector

For more information please contact Carmel Boland

[email protected]

tfpl - the specialist information and knowledgemanagement recruitment service

tfpl is an IDOX plc company


17/17

Businesses fail to share information

Survey highlights the need for more efficient documentmanagement in the workplace.

Subscribe toGlobal Knowledge Review for 135/

140/US$170 for 10 issues per yeaGlobal Knowledge Review offers you unrivalled access to thought leaders in the fields of knowledge, learning, creativity, innovation

and personal development. Each issue will bring you leading edge thinking from top knowledge professionals around the world

together with the latest news from the knowledge industry.

To receive your personal pdf copy of GKR, simply print out the form below, and then send it together with your payment to:

Your Personal Details

Method of PaymentI I enclose a cheque made payable to Bizmedia Ltd.

I Please invoice my company. Please advise if the address to which the invoice should be sent

is different fromthat shown.

I Please charge the following credit card (Visa/Amex/Mastercard)

Card No: IIII IIII IIII IIII

E i D t II / II

Bizmedia Ltd, Royal Station Court,

Station Road,

Twyford, Reading,

Berks,

RG10 9NF UK

Tel +44 (0) 118 960280 Fax +44 (0)118 960281

Or subscribe online: www.globalknowledgereview.com

Purchase Order No:

Name of Cardholder:

Signature:

Title: Prof/Dr/Mr/Mrs/Ms First name:

Surname:

Job Title: Department:

Organization:

Tel:

Address:

City/Town:

Post/Zip Code: Country:

Fax:

Email:

URL:

REVIEWK

GLOBALKNOWLEDGE

G

Businesses are failing to share

information because they are not

effectively implementing company-

wide document management

systems, a survey by Ricoh has

revealed.

Endpiece

Of the 503 participants involved in the survey, 59% hadaccess to documentation on a company-wide level, whilst34% only had access on a branch or departmental level

and 6% had no access at all to information, indicating

that many businesses are not realising the full benefits of

an integrated document management infrastructure.

Ricoh says that by failing to standardise on a single

document management systemthroughout the business,

companies are effectively limiting information sharing. It

claims that interoperability is essential for organisations

to communicate effectively both within and between

departments, branches and divisions.

Without the means to control information across the

whole business, the sharing and retrieval of documents is

made complicated, and that could ultimately reduce

employee productivity and weaken the company's

competitive advantage.

A quarter of respondents indicated that their primary

source of documentation was electronic. The remaining

three quarters still relied on paper or a combination of

both methods, suggesting that many organisations are

still dependent on inefficient and time-consuming methods

of storing, managing and viewing documents.

The survey analysis concludes: "Changes to working

practices have increased the demand for real-time access

to information. Without putting in place systems that can

adequately respond to these demands, companies will

find themselves left behind by their more forward

thinking competitors."

tham, david (2004, nov). "a would-be nanopreneur’s thinkerings on knowledge". in david gurteen...

Documents