The Trouble with Knowledge Management

At a meeting last month and someone shared an interesting observation; i.e. “70% of all KM strategies have failed.” As bad a figure as this is, I suspect the overall failure rate is actually closer to the 90 percentile given the degree to which we rationalise our efforts in hindsight, selectively tout good aspects and neglect to encompass the whole longer-term
picture..

I’ve heard many a strategy spruiked as a major success by practitioners, but conversations with the troops on the ground often tell a very different story. (I too, have been complicit in this type of behaviour in the past … guilty as charged your honour!)

Having worked (or at least been employed) in the “knowledge management” field for 10 years now, I’ve seen many a noble endeavour designed to get meaningful knowledge-transfer happening. I can’t help but think however, one of the key areas in the transfer of knowledge has been largely ignored throughout the journey.

Anyway, the point I’m laboriously moving toward is, that maybe it is radically different thinking that is needed to achieve the kind of successes that we envisage and are so fond of making Powerpoint presentations about. My humble contribution to this is, I concede, a rather simple thought and one therefore that has perhaps been overlooked
for this very reason.

We spend millions on IT systems to capture, store and disseminate ‘stuff’. We endlessly attempt to codify “what we know” into different forms of media for those who might benefit from it, so they can completely ignore it. We set up communities of practice to connect the unconnected and link our structural silos. We endlessly promote the
virtues of Web 2.0 and social media as the panacea of all our knowledge ills. We do all sorts of things in the name of KM it seems – except tackle potentially the most productive and lowest hanging of all our fruits …. our meetings.

In terms of knowledge-transfer and decision-making our meetings are potentially our most potent method because we:

have the right subject matter experts invited and in attendance,
if they are in attendance, they should be there with intent, and
they are in a face-to-face setting where the most meaningful communication should be possible.

Why then are our meetings so unmemorable and unproductive? And more importantly, why don’t we do anything about it?

There are a number of methods doing the rounds that focus on improving meeting processes and many of these work quite well but the real key to effective meetings is addressing the thinking that takes place within those processes. Now, this is one area where I can, with hand on cold heart, claim to have a good degree of success using the
parallel thinking methods of de Bono’s “Six Thinking Hats.”

Not all meetings require such facilitation, I suspect a great deal could be run simply and efficiently if the participants could simply develop some tolerance and empathy for opinions that differ from their own. However I routinely use parallel thinking when:

there are strongly held views
there are challenging issues at hand
there are diverse perspectives on offer
the conversation is rambling and unfocused, and
when time is short

Contrary to popular belief there is rarely any reference made to hats or colours in a meeting and I find that skeptics who like to dwell on this aspect are those who do not understand the methodology and are unwilling to learn it. Unfortunately, when this is raised I do myself no favours by didactically explaining that “one needs to be sufficiently
adult enough to understanding why such “seemingly” childish concepts are used.” (Simply put, the hats and colours create ‘mental hooks’ for the language and methods to embed and exist in the mind.)

Anyway I digress, what I really should be making reference to are the substantial quantifiable outcomes I can direct their attention to, that we have managed to save in such meetings that the usual meeting modus operandis have failed to deliver, particularly when we have incorporated some lateral thinking techniques to gain some traction on some of the more difficult issues.

Now that’s my primary way of dealing with the difficult issue of meetings and there are other efficient ways of doing so as well – I’m just wondering why they are not absolutely mandated and being put into use?

0 members like this

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of The Edward de Bono Society to add comments!

Join The Edward de Bono Society

Comment by Franis on March 21, 2011 at 11:31: There are a number of ways to make people feel they are important. You might use some of those ways that don't involve money. Or you might use ways to hold up the value of the proud religion of Humblism, so people quit the arrogant bullpucky displays. Bringing in a comic works wonders. People have a totally different attitude if they're laughing - and laughing at themselves is where you want them.

Make resistance futile. People are very familiar with the value of what they are giving up. What is a mystery is what they may gain in the balance until they commit themselves and do something. Highlight this mysterious quality - because mystery is an attractor. So what you're dealing with is a skill to help people feel as if it is a good thing to jump off the edge, take a risk on faith, etc. This is a mood, a show to induce people to agree with you - for a bit. You want them suspending their old routines long enough to get the benefit of what you're going to show them.

I once asked an excellent speaker how to motivate people to pay to learn something they had no idea they wanted yet. She said to tell them a story. Your own story is the most interesting and believable.

The other means is to take care in the way you use language, to reflect the advantages of having already done what it is you are selling to them. Walk your talk.

Emotional reasoning is driven by what is familiar, so using carefully selected metaphors are appropriate.

Another means is testimonial, and this can be gotten by reviewing what drives people to make a move in the direction of being open to your presentation.

Then there is, giving a taste - a sample of what they have to gain if they commit to learning what you have to offer.

Gawd, I'm beginning to talk like a social marketer.

7 Ways To Appeal to Those Who Could Care Less & Wanna Show Off To Each Other Rather Than Learn Anything New

At one point here in the past, I made a list of the reasons people buy stuff. There were eight of them. Eight is quite a few possible attractions for you to capitalize on. Not sure if it's still around, but I do hate to repeat myself.

Oh, enough already. Tell me if this does anything for you before I go on...

Comment by Phil Bachmann on March 20, 2011 at 20:55: Frank,

Using your figures below says to me that that the employer ends up paying more to his staff than either to you or the publishers of the manuals.

Bit sad really, when staff are effectively saying "I must be paid more for the day than the people associated in training me."

Reducing the cost of the manuals may have little effect other than helping those staff think that they are even more important than they already imagine they are.

Comment by Frank Connolly on January 3, 2011 at 2:30: I agree with you 100% Dennis, however allow me to put on my black hat temporarily.

The commercial realities are far more complex. The bottom line here is if I was to simply market the "marquis" thinking products and say they cost top dollar take it or leave it, I'd be out of business in no time. We may have the best product in the world, but it is how others perceive it, not us.

Perceptions are all. If the tools are as yet, not perceived as the best going around in the mind of the potential trainees, then that is their reality. We need to be able to "bring them along" rather than put a stake in the ground and say it's the best product and you will pay top dollar for it.

Unfortunately too, purchase decisions are often left to very linear thinkers in HR and their decisions are all to often based around price and what they know and understand.

Training the tools, as you've indicated is about adding value, but unless your foot is in the door there can be no value added for anyone.

Now, I have a number of green hat strategies to counter this and have been successful to an extent, but again, we could all be so much more successful if those driving the business did more thinking about how to best get the tools into use, and manuals costing up to $200 per trainee is not a means of doing this.

Comment by Franis on January 2, 2011 at 22:23: Used to be a part of a regular David Bohm style Dialogue group. It was really interesting when a new person would join. At first they would talk and talk. It was as if they were really craving the attention of the rest of the group listening to them. Where do we really get that experience in the world - without having to compete for it? Finally after they had the attention of a bunch of people, (after a month or so of weekly meetings,) they would turn into a great listener, but they had to go through the process of having people listen to them "holding forth."

It's not a matter of "ego stroking" to crave to be listened to - it's a basic need for recognition and meaning that our social environment doesn't provide.

Kim Jones wrote in answer to this question:

I’m just wondering why they are not absolutely mandated and being put into use?

I think it's got a lot to do with 2,480 or so years of GG3 thinking. Just ask yourself how did "argument method" get mandated in the first place?
It caters to the base human instincts of attack and defense! Hopefully
it won't take quite that long for dBT to establish its own mandate; at
least with those for whom the benefits and successes of using it have
been apparent.

Comment by Frank Connolly on January 2, 2011 at 5:21: I'm touching wood Kim! But not holding my breath.

I fear not all the blame lies with those GG3 thinkers and those in a position to take on the training. The cost of the manuals remains excessive and as such provides a real disincentive to trainers. I recently quoted on a job and manuals constituted almost 60% of the total cost. So its very understandable that the methods don't get the appropriate exposure because wherever possible trainers will opt for other methodologies from which they can derive commercial benefit from their effort rather have their hard-earned disappear elsewhere.

I find it only reasonable to pay for a valuable resource but when the cost out-strips the value it makes it very difficult. If the manuals were to halve in price then the propagation of the methods would more than double! It seems to me that ironically there is not very sound thinking behind a business model that is an impediment to those in the best position to advance it.