February 2004 Archives

This article appeared in the May/June issue of KM Review and was written by Professor Harry Scarborough of Warwick Business School. The article discusses 4 types of knowledge behaviours identified: web, ladder, torch and fortress.

The article starts by describing the situation at an anonymised European bank trying to implement its vision of unifying the bank around centrally linked knowledge sharing processes and communications, which ended up with over 150 separate intranet sites being created by the various divisions who quickly became protective of their individual sites. Scarborough says

...failed to bridge the "knowing-doing gap" which prevents so many organisations from turning the knowledge they possess into effective decision making and action.

Scarborough and his team conducted over 30 case studies with global corporations and identified four knowledge behaviours:

Knowledge Behaviour	Definition	Intervention
Web	Knowledge connects people with others in social network	CoPs exploit existing social networks to facilitate sharing
Ladder	Knowledge is shared in the pursuit of success	Create "elite environment", in which knowledge sharing is linked to winning the competition
Torch	Knowledge is shared by following the leader	Create role models for knowledge sharing. Reward through symbolic means and reinforce messages
Fortress	Knowledge is a source of protection against external threats	Build cross-functional teams to build trust between silos. Trust comes through collaboration

The Knowledge Web occurs in situations in which knowledge is valued because it connects people to each other. These behaviours are found within many environments - eg community of R&D scientists collaborating to interpret a batch of results. However, in all these cases, knowledge sharing depends on the network of trust and friendship [aka social capital, although that term is not mentioned in the article] that develops between individuals.

Social networks are the primary filter through which we interpret information and share knowledge. They are more likely to be localised clusters of relationships...Social networks are so powerful that they remain the key factor in knowledge sharing and determining how knowledge is shared

Scarborough illustrates the importance of the social network with the example of a major pharma firm which used SNA to identify communication and knowledge sharing gaps.

The Knowledge Ladder describes situations in which "the application of knowledge is driven by individual competition and the desire for status." This is common within consultancies [no...surely not]  where the "individual's expertise is the key to advancement". There is a story about a smallish consultancy firm whose consultants were guilty of hoarding knowledge. To get round this, the company instituted a new system for allocating projects where consultants were forced to bid for projects, and were forced to market their knowledge and skills internally. [Note - I don't really understand this - asking consultants to bid for projects seems like a surefire way to ensure hoarding, as hoarding reduces competition].

In a Knowledge Torch environment, corporate leaders have presented knowledge sharing as a key value of the business. Here, sharing knowledge has 2 values - the practical value of helping to solve problems, and the symbolic one of following a strong and respected leader. Situations where this is important include the management of technical and scientific groups, as well as project teams and task forces. It does depend on a strong and respected leader, otherwise there is no symbolic value to the members of sharing knowledge.

The Knowledge Fortress reflects the desire to maintain the status quo: the opposite of innovation. Knowledge has become a defence against external forces - by refusing to share knowledge with outsiders control is maintained. Scarborough shares an interesting story from the National Health Service [and you can easily imagine that this culture is endemic within the NHS - probably where all the money disappears to] where a new process that would have resulted in considerable efficiencies and better patient care was not adopted by most hospitals because work would have to be shared with people outside the hospital - there was no trust in the other groups. The key to fixing this behaviour is to find ways of generating and increasing trust amongst the various "factions"- eg by creating cross functional teams.

Interesting article, but really this is all about trust. Organisations that have a successful knowledge web will be, I'm sure, organisations that have a high level of internal trust - trust that the knowledge shared will be used properly, won't be "stolen" or used against the sharer, etc etc etc. The other 3 types have issues with trust, and this is what needs to be solved for knowledge sharing to be effective.

Denham Grey with an interesting post about the competencies needed for effective KM - I would add patience and a thick skin to that list. Knowledge-at-work: Knowledge competencies

by Rob Cross/Laurence Prusak
HBR June 2002

My Comments: A really interesting article although I have my reservations as to whether company managers/executives would really be interested in/have the time to manage these effectively in the current economy/environment.  These things are often seen as a 'nice to have'.  If a company had hard evidence that these networks were effective in the workplace, then they should probably think about investing in specific individuals with the time, drive and enthusiasm to manage these and measure ROI. 

This article helped me to understand how communication is not just about sending the message out to everyone and hoping that it sticks with the majority!  Also some lessons to learn in terms of improving productivity/retention/motivation.

Here are what I see as the key points/interesting bits to this article:

BACKGROUND

"It's not what you know it's who you know".  Informal networks are becoming the source for obtaining information and getting work done.

These social networks are poweful political tools.  Managers can use them to discredit or favour business initiatives.

Many companies see these networks as the 'invisible enemy' that keeps decisions from being made and work from getting done.  This can lead to networks being ignored/under utilised.

The article argues that it is possible to develop informal networks systematically.  HBR analysed informal networks at over 50 large organisations over a 5 year period and identified common roles that play a key part in the productivity of an organisation.  These roles are:

1.  CENTRAL CONNECTORS
- Link people with people
- Not formal leaders
- Know who can provide critical information

2.  BOUNDARY SPANNERS
- Connect an informal network with other parts of the company and other organisations
- Consult with, and advise individuals from all business units
- A rare breed as they have breadth of intellectual experience and wealth of social contacts and personality traits whcih allow them to be accepted by different groups
- Network analysis can determine whether these people are making the right connections.

3.  INFORMATION BROKERS
- Keep different subgroups together to avoid segmentation
- Similar role the the BS but do this within a social network
- Indirect associations
- Departure of and IB could tear the network apart

4.  PERIPHERAL SPECIALISTS
- Anyone can turn to them for expertise
- They possess specific types of information/technical knowledge
- Executives often think this is a bad role as they are 'expendable'
- They are often new hires who are trying to 'get connected'
- Often loners

ISSUES

- These roles are often invisible to senior managers
- Senior managers misunderstand links between people
- Often too many informal networks in an organisation

RESOLUTIONS (HOW TO MANAGE SOCIAL NETWORKS)

- Bring them into the open (through social network analysis which maps out relationships)
- Ask the right questions of the right people (If you are having problems getting data from one business unit then ask yourself whether the Central Connector is hoarding information, if the unit is isolated and whether the boundary spanners are talking to the right people outside the group).

CONCLUSION

HBR found that people with strong personal networks - such as the key role players listed above - are more satisfied with their jobs and stay longer within the company.  Working with role-players will also improve their effectiveness, boost productivity and help executives retain the people who make their organisations tick.