Knowledge management. More important than ever in a VUCA world. But also more difficult than ever.
In a fast-paced data- and knowledge-driven world, we hear many pointed statements like "we want to learn directly from real-time data" or "all our applications should be self-explanatory". Granted, these premises are valid and exciting. But, organisational contexts are becoming more interconnected and complex. This does not reduce the need for effective knowledge management.
Many organisations face major challenges in the area of knowledge management because they are not yet able to deal adequately with the increased speed. For example, in software projects, it is difficult to keep documentation synchronised. Because the reality is in the code which may have to change quickly from time to time. Nevertheless, knowledge management remains essential. Otherwise, knowledge gets bogged down in the organisation. With the result that it is then just hoarded again implicitly and distributed. In a complex world that operates with vertical teams, t-shaped skillsets and short decision cycles, good knowledge management is more important than ever for a powerful organisation.
No sooner has knowledge been documented than it is already out of date again. An omnipresent challenge. What should be documented?
It makes sense to first create a consensus within the organisation on this matter. Again, the requirements vary from organisation to organisation. In certain industries/domains, there may even be legal requirements to consider.
To create a common understanding in the organisation, one can be guided by the following four dimensions:
Strategy: What knowledge is of strategic importance to the organisation? The strategically relevant knowledge should be documented. This dimension provides the incentive to rather document too much than too little.
Horizon: Is the knowledge relevant in the medium to long term? Cycles are getting shorter and shorter these days. Accordingly, it is more difficult and also more costly to keep short-lived knowledge up to date. This dimension tends to reduce the scope of the knowledge to be documented.
Multiplication: Can the documented knowledge be multiplied? If the documented knowledge can be easily shared and applied, the usefulness of the documentation also increases. For example, an FAQ can be thought of that significantly reduces the support effort when rolling out new software.
Interest: Do the documenting and consuming stakeholders have an interest in keeping the knowledge up to date? Documented knowledge that is seen as "of little value" by the stakeholders involved has a hard time. Here the circle can be closed - how strategically relevant can the knowledge then be? But nevertheless - there may be situations in which one also has to document "unattractive" knowledge. In such cases, one then needs a binding process and at the same time should limit the documentation to the minimum.
These four dimensions help to define what should be documented.
Who should document knowledge? Typically, people who are knowledge holders should document. Relatively obvious? Yes, but the challenge is once again in the details…
If knowledge is to be documented and maintained, it also needs time and focus. There can be several anti-patterns that prevent successful knowledge management. We look at two of them to illustrate who should document knowledge.
No time: No time is probably the biggest opponent of sustainable knowledge management. Rarely is time organically allocated to knowledge management in organisations. Once you have identified which knowledge you want to document, you have to create space for the documentation. If this does not happen, knowledge is documented robotically and is not maintained.
Empire building: There are knowledge holders who like to document knowledge. But if only certain people actively pursue this task, it can lead to "empire building". The specialists build up their documentation according to their own structure and sometimes even develop a claim to dominance. As a result, other people are not allowed to contribute or, in some cases, the documentation is reduced to absurdity because the knowledge is not comprehensible for the actual target group.
Positive patterns can be derived from these two frequently encountered anti-patterns:
The best people to document are those who know the most. However, these people must be actively given the time to do so. Conversely, if the time for knowledge documentation does not seem to be sufficiently valuable, something must have gone wrong with the definition.
The documentation of knowledge must not be a singular act. It needs a shared structure and the documented knowledge should be jointly reviewed. Depending on the size of the setting, it may therefore make sense to give one person an additional role to empower the documentation process.
Which tools should be used? It is better to start too small than too big. Many organisations tend to make the process of knowledge management too complicated. This does not have to be the case.
In the past, knowledge was documented in a library or archive. Thankfully, technology has given us new possibilities over the last 20 years, ranging from a simple word document on SharePoint, to fully developed Wikis with questionnaires and video tutorials.
Word files on SharePoint can work but come with challenges. You have to know explicitly where to find what. Which can be rectified with a "Table of Contents-Word". All OK, but manual, error-prone, implicit and difficult to multiply. In such settings, it becomes particularly time-consuming if the structure of the documentation has to be changed. On the other hand, the entry barrier in this system is low, since practically anyone can operate a Word document. Conclusion: It can work, but is hardly sustainable.
There are various stages of expansion from this starting point. One can move from Word to One-Note - but this does not solve many basic challenges. I would advise a wiki as a tool for knowledge documentation in most settings. Depending on the requirements, size and IT affinity of the organisation, different constructs are possible. If you are deeply in the Microsoft ecosystem, then SharePoint is a good choice. If you are looking for a somewhat simpler alternative, you can use Confluence. Note here: Organisations with a development department in particular often already have Confluence without actually knowing it. And if you want to expose the wiki to customers, it can make sense to use an existing framework like Wiki.js, XWiki or MediaWiki.
How deep and extensive one wants to go in terms of content is then again up to the setting and also the willingness of the organisation to invest.
How to make knowledge management sustainable?
In this article, we have looked at some positive patterns:
What should be documented - to generate interest in knowledge.
Who should document knowledge - to create the right incentives to document knowledge.
What tools to use - to make the process of documenting knowledge engaging and simple.
With all these patterns considered what now can go wrong?
These are good and positive conditions, but they do not ensure structure and consistency. A role is needed to coordinate the knowledge management process. This role should not document knowledge itself - it cannot be a specialist in everything - but it must channel the knowledge in the organisation. You can think of this role as a Scrum Master. The person is not an "administrator" but a "leader".
How does this understanding of the role manifest itself?
The role must understand and represent the concerns of the knowledge consumers - so that relevant knowledge is documented. The role must establish consistent and shared rules for documenting knowledge with the knowledge documenters - so that knowledge is documented correctly and in a structured way. The role must coach the knowledge documenters and also require them to do so - so that the documented knowledge is constantly refreshed. In smaller organisations, this can be seen as a part-time task. In larger organisations, it needs the full focus of one person. It depends on how much the role still contributes/can contribute materially itself.
If the mechanisms considered in this article on knowledge management play together, the chances for the sustainable success of a knowledge management system are good.
An important topic - please do not neglect it.
