Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
This is a great question. The Knowledge Aware approach directly helps remove biases from the process by detecting and visualizing the biased opinions.
- Detecting the bias opinions (as the system collects data about what others are doing, it recognizes that data and is then reviewed and possibly revised), and
- Visualizing the bias opinions (the Knowledge Aware approach is a high-velocity system that offers a variety of points of views and points out the differences in opinion and biases are revealed. The Knowledge Aware approach has only one Gold Source of knowledge).
There are a few ways smaller tidbits of knowledge doesn’t get lost with the Knowledge Aware approach.
First, Knowledge Packets are entirely capable of capturing ‘tidbits’ as much as ‘big deal’ lessons. Knowledge Packets can be ‘typed’, meaning there can be a ‘type’ of knowledge packet devoted to capture smaller grained learnings, or tidbits. the ‘typing’ of the Knowledge Packet appropriately sets the expectation of the author and re-user of the content of the knowledge packet as a tidbit, and these Knowledge Packets may follow less stringent rules for publishing.
Another way, tidbit knowledge can be captured is alongside an existing but related Knowledge Packet. Typically, each knowledge packet carries with it a ‘discussion database’ and in this discussion, users can contribute tidbits that are relevant to the core Knowledge Packet. The authors of the Knowledge Packet may wish to incorporate those tidbits into the Knowledge Packet itself based on merit.
The Model-Centric approach is an emerging technique. This approach is about creating knowledge that disseminates knowledge to end-users and overcomes a lot of the Document-Centric problems, but is still limited.
Pro:
- It can distribute knowledge to the end-user efficiently
- Knowledge is delivered in the flow of work
Cons:
- Requires the model (it takes time and expense to create)
- Requires non-domain expertise (not everyone is great at document knowledge how it should be documented)
- Difficult to distribute updation and maintenance (there are multiple experts that can cause issues)
- Likely requires duplication (requires more work and you lose a gold source of truth)
- Inherently ancillary (not all knowledge is relatable to knowledge, so it requires a second place to store knowledge)
The People-Based approach is based on the idea that people can be connected with people. People who need knowledge can be connected with people who have knowledge.
Pro:
- Extremely efficient process for knowledge transfer and allows user to ask questions to gain a deeper understanding
Cons:
- Unavailability – Velocity (relies on the person being available)
- Point of View Bias (knowledge is biased to that one person who shares that information)
- Lack of Recall – Transient Decay (knowledge is forgotten)
- Leakage as employees leave or retire, knowledge is lost
- Social reticence (people don’t always want to share their expertise)
The Document-Centric approach is the most common Knowledge Management approach. It is when experts write down what they know, and they store it in a document vault. Users find the knowledge by searching for it in a search engine.
Pro:
- Easy to document knowledge
Cons:
- Knowledge is difficult to find or is uncaptured
- Knowledge is not accurate and is not up to date
- Knowledge is hard to understand and not actionable
- Knowledge is verbose and incomplete
- Knowledge lacks end-user’s trust
We find that most reasons organizations fail with their Knowledge Management strategy for a number of reasons. Here are some of the top reasons:
• KM is not introduced as a change program
• The KM team does not have the right people to deliver change
• The KM team preaches only to the choir
• Only parts of the KM solution are implemented
• KM is never embedded into the business
• There is no effective high-level sponsorship
• KM is not introduced with a business focusMore information on the common failure reasons, can be found on Nick Milton’s blog post below:
• “Top 7 reasons why KM implementations fail”
• “22 KM Success Factors and 22 KM Failure Factors”ISO Standards are documents that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used to consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes, and services are fit for their purpose.
The Knowledge Management Standard is:
– A set of standards for a KM management system
– An attempt to ensure that KM is managed with a degree of management consistency
– An attempt to help people avoid the pitfalls of the past
– An aid for self-audit and self-examination rather than a requirement for accreditation
– Put together by unpaid volunteersThe Knowledge Management Standard is not:
– A standard way to do knowledge management
– An attempt to make everyone do KM the same way
– A consultants’ charter to print moneyTo learn more about the Knowledge Management ISO Standard (30401), visit https://www.iso.org/standard/68683.html or watch the pre-recorded IKAA webinar, “Knowledge Management Standard,” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mq8ItIvqRw.
ISO Knowledge Management Standards serves as a template and your organization defines what you do and how you do it. The standards should be taken as an opportunity to stand back and ask, “could we do better?”
You can use the standard as a guide to avoid common pitfalls. It will provide you the following:
– What’s different about KM
– Principals
– Where to begin
– What you need to consider
– What you should put in placeCan also use the standard to audit yourself to prove compliance to your team, management, organization, and clients. If you follow the requirements today, you can claim that you are up to international standard – without an audit.
To learn more about the Knowledge Management ISO Standard (30401), visit https://www.iso.org/standard/68683.html or watch the IKAA webinar, “Knowledge Management Standard,” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mq8ItIvqRw.
