Category: knowledge by design

Posted on

Stop Talking About Knowledge Management. Start Showing Its Impact

(This post was originally shared on my LinkedIn Profile.)

Your organisation doesn’t have a knowledge management problem. It has a credibility problem.

You can launch the most elegant KM programme, design the cleverest framework, or build the sleekest knowledge platform. But if nobody sees how it changes the way work actually gets done, they won’t care. And why should they?

The organisations that genuinely embed knowledge management aren’t the ones with the loudest programmes. They’re the ones where people notice that knowledge moves, decisions get made faster, and reinvention stops happening.

Here’s how that actually occurs in practice.

1. Anchor to outcomes, not terminology

Stop leading with “knowledge management.” Lead with the outcome your organisation desperately needs: faster decision-making, reduced reinvention, onboarding that doesn’t take six months, compliance that’s actually defensible, or customer responsiveness that beats your competitors.

The frameworks work behind the outcomes. Make them invisible. When a senior leader notices that new hires are productive in weeks instead than months, or that a decision gets made because the right knowledge actually arrived, they start valuing what made it possible. They just don’t call it “KM.”

2. Build credibility through small, visible wins

Don’t launch a programme across the enterprise. Pick one team—preferably one where knowledge clearly gets lost or repeated—and work with them quietly.

Document what changes: time saved, mistakes avoided, ideas that moved between people. Then let their story travel.

Peer testimony is infinitely more powerful than a pitch from the programme office. People trust other practitioners. They’re suspicious of consultants.

3. Make trust the visible difference

Here’s what I’ve observed: organisations that fail at KM typically have a trust problem they don’t know they have. Information gets hoarded. Knowledge is buried behind permission structures. Sharing is punished or seen as losing advantage.

You can’t recognise knowledge management in that environment because the conditions for knowledge to actually travel don’t exist.

The organisations I’ve seen shift? They model something different. Generosity. Honesty. The willingness to say “I don’t know” without it costing you. Inquiry before judgment. These aren’t soft skills. They’re the infrastructure that makes knowledge move.

And if you’re driving KM, you have to model them first.

4. Celebrate the human story, not the system

People don’t care about your knowledge base. They care that they’re not reinventing the wheel at 3 p.m. on a Friday, or that someone remembered a client context that completely changed the conversation.

Recognition happens when you celebrate the person who shared as much as the knowledge that was shared. When you tell the story of how an idea travelled across teams and landed somewhere unexpected. When you highlight the person who documented their thinking so clearly that six months later, someone else could understand the reasoning behind a decision.

Make knowledge sharing visible as a human thing, not a compliance requirement.

5. Make it a leadership conversation

KM recognition happens when your executive team starts talking about knowledge as how we work here—not as a project sitting in a corner.

This means asking leadership questions:

  • Are decisions documented in a way that the logic is actually recoverable?
  • Do people have permission to ask questions without it being seen as weakness?
  • Is failure treated as learning, or is it buried?
  • Do you privilege speed over understanding, or vice versa?
  • Does your culture reward knowledge-hoarding or knowledge-sharing?

These aren’t KM questions. They’re leadership questions. But they’re the ones that determine whether knowledge management actually takes root.

6. Measure what actually matters

Forget knowledge base articles indexed. Forget training completion rates. Those metrics measure activity, not impact.

Track what actually shifts:

  • How much faster are people becoming capable?
  • Are the same questions still cycling through support?
  • Do ideas travel between teams that normally don’t connect?
  • Are decisions getting revisited repeatedly, or is the reasoning clear enough that people move forward with confidence?

Be rigorous about it. “We saved time” is vague. How much? For whom? What else did they do with the time they reclaimed?

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: Recognition follows credibility, and credibility comes from solving real problems quietly and consistently.

The organisations that genuinely “get” knowledge management didn’t get there through programme launches and change management initiatives. They got there because someone in a position of influence—often a team leader, sometimes a practitioner—demonstrated that knowledge actually matters to outcomes. And that became the way things worked.

Stop announcing KM. Start showing what happens when knowledge moves the way it should.

Posted on

AI Won’t Replace Knowledge Management. It Will Finally Force Us to Take It Seriously

(This post was originally shared in my LinkedIn Profile.)

For decades, knowledge management has been the organisational discipline that everyone agreed was important and almost no one invested in properly.

We built SharePoint graveyards. We created knowledge bases nobody searched. We ran “lessons learned” sessions whose lessons were never applied. And when things went wrong — when the expert retired, when the project team disbanded, when the same mistake happened for the third time — we shrugged and called it institutional memory loss, as if it were a natural disaster rather than a preventable one.

Then came AI.

And suddenly, knowledge management isn’t a nice-to-have. It’s the foundation everything else depends on.

AI is only as good as the knowledge it can access

Here’s what the AI vendors won’t tell you in their sales decks: a large language model deployed inside your organisation will reflect the quality of your organisational knowledge. Feed it outdated policies, inconsistent documentation, and tribal knowledge that lives only in people’s heads — and you’ll get confident, fluent, wrong answers at scale.

The organisations rushing to implement AI copilots and knowledge assistants are about to discover something KM practitioners have known for years: garbage in, garbage out is not a technology problem. It’s a knowledge governance problem.

AI doesn’t fix broken knowledge ecosystems. It amplifies them — for better or worse.

The sudden urgency is real — and welcome

I’ve sat in enough boardrooms to know that the argument “we need to capture institutional knowledge before people leave” rarely moved budgets. Neither did “we’re duplicating effort because teams can’t find what exists.”

But “our AI tool is producing unreliable outputs because our knowledge base is a mess”? That one lands differently.

AI is creating the business case for KM that practitioners have struggled to articulate for years. Not because AI is a KM solution — it isn’t — but because AI makes the consequences of poor knowledge management immediately visible and commercially painful.

That’s not a crisis. That’s an opportunity.

What AI actually makes possible

Used thoughtfully, AI tools offer genuine advances for knowledge work:

  • Surfacing what exists — AI-powered search can finally make organisational knowledge findable, cutting through the folder structures and file naming conventions that defeated traditional search.
  • Capturing tacit knowledge — Conversational AI can assist in eliciting and structuring knowledge from subject matter experts in ways that don’t require them to become writers.
  • Reducing the burden of contribution — One of the biggest barriers to knowledge sharing is the effort it takes. AI can lower that friction significantly.
  • Connecting dots across silos — AI can identify relationships between knowledge assets that no human would have the bandwidth to spot.

None of this happens automatically. All of it requires human judgement, governance, and strategy to work.

The human element isn’t optional

Here’s where I’d push back on the more breathless AI narratives: knowledge is not just information. It includes context, relationship, experience, and meaning — the things that make information useful rather than merely available.

AI can retrieve. It cannot always discern. It can summarise. It cannot always judge what matters. It can generate. It cannot replace the wisdom that comes from having lived through something.

The organisations that will succeed with AI-augmented knowledge management are those that treat the human and the machine as partners — where AI handles the retrieval, synthesis, and surface-level generation, and people contribute the judgment, the curation, and the culture that makes knowledge genuinely shared.

The moment KM has been waiting for

I started my career arguing that knowledge management deserved more strategic investment. I’m still making that argument — with AI more executives are “getting it”.

AI has done what years of best practice frameworks and maturity models couldn’t: it has made knowledge management urgent.

That urgency is an opening. The question is whether organisations will use it to build something sustainable — genuine knowledge cultures, sound governance, human-centred practice — or whether they’ll bolt AI onto the same neglected foundations and wonder why the results disappoint.

The technology is ready. The case is made. Now comes the harder work.

Posted on

Knowledge vs. Learning vs. Information vs. transfer

I just recently received an email about disaster preparedness, it contained a scan of a document that the person who sent it to me had received. What does this have to do with KM?

Nothing and everything.

The point the person who sent me the scanned document was making was that he had received this document in the middle of summer, while people were away on vacation, it was poorly produced, there didn’t seem to be an electronic version available, and he believed that if any of these floods, fires, earthquakes etc. ever happened (or maybe that should be when they happen), he wouldn’t be able to remember the information in the document (which was about 10 pages long), and if he remembered that he had received this document, he wouldn’t be able to find it again.

Again, so what you say? What does this have to do with KM or learning or information or anything at all?

Well, if we are doing knowledge management, or learning management or information management we need to be concerned about how knowledge/information gets transferred and shared. How do the users want to receive it? What is their environment like? What circumstances will they be using this information/knowledge in? Who is going to be using this knowledge/information.

If we don’t design our systems and processes with the users in mind, all of the users, not just some of the users, they won’t use the knowledge/information and then what good is all the effort we put into implementing our KM/Learning/Information program?

Posted on

The KM Silver Bullet

KM is a lot of things to a lot of people.

It seems everyone wants the silver bullet, the one “right” answer to the question of how to be successful in KM.

Or they want the one “right” answer to the question of what is KM and what’s included in KM.

Well let me save you a lot of time and heartache, there is no one right answer, the answer is, it depends.

It depends on your organization’s strategy, objectives, culture, industry, regulations, size, budget, risk profile, staffing profile, technology strategy.

Figure out what KM is to your organization and create a strategy that supports that definition, that’s the silver bullet.

Posted on

Published: Designing a Successful KM Strategy

Advance copies of our book, Designing a Successful KM Strategy are now available from our publisher, Information Today, Inc.

It will officially be published in mid-January, so if you buy it before that, you get 40% of the regular price.

successful-km-strategy-2

I did a workshop based on the book at KM World, on Nov 4th, that was well received, as well as a couple of book signings–it was great to talk to everyone about the book and how it can help them regardless of whether they are just starting with KM or at a point where they are re-evaluating their strategy after implementing KM for a few years.

Information Today has also made a chapter available for preview, you can access it here https://books.infotoday.com/books/Designing-a-Successful-KM-Strategy/Making-the-Case-for-a-Knowledge-Management-Strategy.pdf

Nick (my co-author) also has some helpful links up over on his blog at https://www.nickmilton.com/p/blog-page.html

I hope you enjoy it. Be sure to get in touch if you have any comments or questions.

(Left to right) Ian Thorpe, Stephanie Barnes, Patti Anklam, Connie Crosby at KM World book signing for, "Designing a Successful KM Strategy"
(Left to right) Ian Thorpe, Stephanie Barnes, Patti Anklam, Connie Crosby at KM World book signing for, “Designing a Successful KM Strategy”

 

Posted on

KM Standards vs. Principles

Wow, it’s been a long time since I posted a blog; I’ve been busy working with new clients and I just haven’t had any earth-shattering KM thoughts to share; no ba in my schedule lately.

[Aside: I wrote this for a side-project that I’m working on, so it may eventually appear somewhere in another format.]

There seems to be a lot of talk about KM standards lately, so here are some initial thoughts I had…

What does “standards” mean? According to Wikipedia, standards are “any norm, convention or requirement.”

What does “principles” mean? Again, according to Wikipedia, principles are “a law or rule that has to be, or usually is to be followed, or can be desirably followed, or is an inevitable consequence of something.”

How are they different? Principles are abstract, whereas standards provide something to be compared to/measured against; standards are more tangible.

How are they the same? They can both be used to provide direction, guidance, and/or insight into a situation.

As with everything we have to come to a common understanding, a common lexicon. We have to figure out what terms and ideas mean in our own context and in the context of the organization or group that we are working with.

Does KM need a common lexicon? Yes

Do we need a common understanding of what KM is? Yes

Do we need a common understanding of what isn’t KM? Yes

Should we be inclusive or exclusive? I believe inclusive, knowledge is a system, and it has many interconnected parts, excluding a part means we don’t have an accurate picture of what is happening. If one of the goals of knowledge management is to improve an organization’s efficiency and effectiveness with its knowledge, isn’t  it better to have an understanding of the whole system rather than one pillar of that system. Decision making will be that much better for understanding the system; innovation will be that much more successful for understanding the system. While having a more holistic view may be more challenging it will result in more comprehensive solution; a solution that is more workable and accepted.

Do we need hard and fast Knowledge Management rules to live by? No. Knowledge is a system, an organization is a system. In order to be successful we must be able to adapt to the needs and requirements of each system. There is no one “right” way to “do” KM. KM has to be adjusted to the culture and nature of the organization. There are similarities among KM implementations, but no two implementations are identical, because the needs of each organization are not identical.

KM has to be by design to be successful.

Design thinking is characterized by being purposive; human centered; a balance of analytical and creative; uses abductive reasoning, i.e. inference from best available explanation; and iterative, it uses prototyping and play testing to achieve success.

Here’s how these principles are applied in knowledge management:

Purposive: we look at the organization’s strategy, goals, and objectives and assess how knowledge management best supports those activities. The knowledge management strategy outlines how the organization’s goals and objectives are furthered through the application of knowledge management activities.

Human centered: the best knowledge management implementations consider the people of the organization, e.g. how they work, what makes their work-lives easier, what the culture of the organization is like and works with those requirements to make the organization more efficient and effective in its knowledge processes and activities.

A balance of analytical and creative: KM should be a balance of analytical and creative. It should capture knowledge and make it reusable, but it also needs to leave space, ba, to allow for knowledge creation. This space can look like lots of different things, e.g. giving employees 10% of their time for projects they want to work on/explore, foosball tables, basketball courts, gyms, art/creativity space, and communities of interest; activities that encourage different connections to be made.

Abductive reasoning: this sums up the belief in KM in general. It can be very difficult to prove a causal link between improved knowledge activities and improved organizational performance, metrics and ROI continue to be a significant hurdle for many organizations. However, anyone who has experience with implementing knowledge management successfully knows that efficiency and effectiveness in an organization are improved through the use of knowledge management activities.

Iterative: successful KM starts small and grows. It starts with an over-all strategy and plan, but then moves to pilots, which bring in small parts of the organization, so that lessons can be learned and adjustments made as the people, process, and supporting technology are implemented across the organization.

In conclusion, KM needs principles, a common lexicon, and a common understanding of what is and isn’t KM, but it does not need standards.

Posted on

Knowledge Management, Creativity, and Innovation: Part 2

Talking about design and balance and creativity and knowledge management makes me happy, joyful even. Bring on the joy.

In Part 1 I talked about how important TIME is knowledge creation and reuse, creativity practices that allow us to take knowledge and either transform or apply it in order to create something new. What does it mean to design time for this into our activities?

Well…

Design thinking is characterized by being purposive; human centered; a balance of analytical and creative; uses abductive reasoning, i.e. inference from best available explanation; and iterative, it uses prototyping and play testing to achieve success.

Here’s how these principles are applied in knowledge management:

Purposive: we look at the organization’s strategy, goals, and objectives and assess how knowledge management best supports those activities. The knowledge management strategy outlines how the organization’s goals and objectives are furthered through the application of knowledge management activities.

Human centered: the best knowledge management implementations consider the people of the organization, e.g. how they work, what makes their work-lives easier, what the culture of the organization is like and works with those requirements to make the organization more efficient and effective in its knowledge processes and activities.

A balance of analytical and creative: KM should be a balance of analytical and creative. It should capture knowledge and make it reusable, but it also needs to leave space, ba, to allow for knowledge creation. This space can look like lots of different things, e.g. giving employees 10% of their time for projects they want to work on/explore, foosball tables, basketball courts, gyms, art/creativity space, and communities of interest; activities that encourage different connections to be made.

Abductive reasoning: this sums up the belief in KM in general. It can be very difficult to prove a causal link between improved knowledge activities and improved organizational performance, metrics and ROI continue to be a significant hurdle for many organizations. However, anyone who has experience with implementing knowledge management successfully knows that efficiency and effectiveness in an organization are improved through the use of knowledge management activities.

Iterative: successful KM starts small and grows. It starts with an over-all strategy and plan, but then moves to pilots, which bring in small parts of the organization, so that lessons can be learned and adjustments made as the people, process, and supporting technology are implemented across the organization.

Make sense?

Now here’s another piece: We create knowledge through right-brain activities, which is then managed through knowledge management activities. Knowledge management activities can also help us put the pieces together in a different way (with new and existing knowledge) to create a new picture. We do this through:

  1. Leaving space for creativity and discovery and “rearranging the pieces” (right brain);
  2. Organizing and sharing our learnings so that they can be reused by the next person/team/group (left brain).

Have your worlds collided?

Do you see how this collision of the worlds of creativity, innovation, and knowledge management work together?

Do you see why I care and am positively joyful about this collision of worlds to make connections, meet new people, learn new things and share what I know with others?

Do you care?

Posted on

Knowledge Management, Creativity, and Innovation: Part 1

“Knowledge Management, ho hum, who cares? I have more important things to worry about than some esoteric discussion about knowledge. I have a job to do.”

I know that’s what they’re thinking with the glazed-over look in their eyes as they search around the room to see who else is around that they can talk to.

I’m not going to tell you why you should care; I’m going to tell you why I care.

I like to make connections, meet new people, learn new things and I like to share what I know with others. I like to make my job as easy as possible, and I like to help others do the same thing. I like to learn from my mistakes and not make the same mistakes repeatedly.

So, you’re probably thinking, where is she going with this? This isn’t knowledge management; this isn’t creativity; this isn’t innovation.

And to that I say, “ah, but it is.”

One definition of creativity says:

  • It is the reorganization of experience into new configurations;
  • A function of knowledge, imagination, and evaluation.

In other words, the use of knowledge. Knowledge is about holding information learned through experience or study. Knowledge management wants you to do something with that knowledge.

Sometimes that “thing” is something routine, like an answer for someone who’s called a customer support desk. Sometimes it’s something non-routine, like solving a problem, completing a project, or creating a strategy. Sometimes it’s something brand new, like improving out-patient experiences at a hospital by the whole process. Or like the creation of the iPhone.

Knowledge management behaviours are actions that support these activities. They are the left-brained processes that enable these things to happen, whether they are routine, non-routine, or brand new. Knowledge management is not technology, it is not esoteric, it is practical and necessary to live our lives, and to do our jobs.

I am an accountant by training. This training (and subsequent experience) helped me develop my left brain — it’s a lot of process, and numbers, and guidelines. It also introduced me to the idea of knowledge management. We didn’t call it that at the time, but we were expected to re-use the previous year’s audit or tax file: we had checklists to follow to make sure we didn’t miss anything, and we were supposed to talk to whoever had worked on the file the year before, if possible. Another knowledge management activity was the need for time to learn and plan: learn from last year’s file and plan for the current year’s. The knowledge management strategies made us quicker completing the current year’s audit/tax than the year before, which meant the fee to the client stayed the same (client happy) and our earning power went up (boss happy). Efficiency and effectiveness.

So where do the creativity and innovation come in? TIME.

TIME is what is necessary to create new knowledge. The reorganization of experience into new configurations through the use of knowledge, imagination, and evaluation are right-brain activities: creativity and innovation practices. Designing time into our processes and activities to create new knowledge or finding existing knowledge is the key success factor.

And time is what we’re run out of, more on design in Part 2.

 

Posted on

ColaLife Documentary

I will write more about this later, but I wanted to get some initial thoughts down tonight, while it’s fresh in my memory.

I was lucky enough to be invited by a friend to attend a University of Waterloo Alumni event this evening. At the event they were screening the Canadian premiere of ColaLife a documentary about an organization that is “is working in developing countries to bring Coca-Cola, its bottlers and others together to save children’s lives by opening the distribution channels which Coca-Cola uses, to enable ‘social products’ such as oral rehydration salts and zinc supplements to use similar routes. We began with the concept of using space in Coca-Cola crates – but have extended into a range of innovations, some based on Coca-Cola’s expertise and networks – but many based on questioning the status quo.” (This comes from their webpage, here https://www.colalife.org/about/colalife-about/)

It was a fantastic story about trying to save the lives of children, but for me it was also a story of creativity, innovation, and knowledge management and design thinking. Why? Because ColaLife wasn’t afraid to think outside of the box, to say who is getting their products into remote regions in Zambia and how are they doing it? CocaCola, that’s who. How? Shopkeepers want to carry their product because they can make money selling it, so they transport it “the last mile” from a distribution centre to their shops. (Knowledge management–sharing knowledge/best practices from CocaCola.)

ColaLife then designed their packaging to fit in the space between the tops of the bottles in the case, so that they can be packaged together. They also had some innovations in how the oral hydration salts and zinc were packaged to make it easier to mix and taste better for the children who had to take it (design, creativity, and innovation).

What you also need to know is that it took 20+ years to get this made. Why did it take so long? It needed social media to get the word out and get the right parties involved, that’s why. (Knowledge management, and innovation).

When I heard the 20 years and social media part I thought: serendipity, everything coming together at the right time at the right place. But what if you could make “serendipity” happen more often? What if by taking a more purposeful approach to creativity, innovation, and KM you could help your organizations and all organizations generally, make connections quicker? Wouldn’t that be a good thing?

What are you doing to make that happen?

Posted on

Knowledge Management by Design, part 2

Design thinking seems to be everywhere lately, but it seems to me that KM has always been “by design,” at least it was if it was done successfully.

Design thinking is characterized by being purposive; human centred;  a balance of analytical and creative; uses abductive reasoning, i.e. inference from best available explanation; and iterative, it uses prototyping and play testing to achieve success.

How are these principles applied in knowledge management?

Purposive: we look at the organization’s strategy, goals, and objectives and assess how knowledge management best supports those activities. The knowledge management strategy outlines how the organization’s goals and objectives are furthered through the application of knowledge management activities.

Human centred: the best knowledge management implementations consider the people of the organization, e.g. how they work, what makes their work-lives easier, what the culture of the organization is like and works with those requirements to make the organization more efficient and effective in its knowledge processes and activities.

A balance of analytical and creative: KM should be a balance of analytical and creative. It should capture knowledge and make it reusable, but it also needs to leave space, ba, to allow for knowledge creation. This space can look like lots of different things, e.g. giving employees 10% of their time for projects they want to work on/explore, foosball tables, basketball courts, gyms, art/creativity space, and communities of interest; activities that encourage different connections to be made.

Abductive reasoning: this sums up the belief in KM in general. It can be very difficult to prove a causal link between improved knowledge activities and improved organizational performance, metrics and ROI continue to be a significant hurdle for many organizations. However, anyone who has experience with implementing knowledge management successfully knows that efficiency and effectiveness in an organization are improved through the use of knowledge management activities.

Iterative: successful KM starts small and grows. It starts with an over-all strategy and plan, but then moves to pilots, which bring in small parts of the organization, so that lessons can be learned and adjustments made as the people, process, and supporting technology are implemented across the organization.

Is your knowledge management by design?