Printer Friendly Version

In the first part of this series I discussed the theory behind knowledge sharing and introduced the three main hurdles that must be overcome to implement a successful knowledge sharing initiative: technology, process, and culture.

I mentioned that technology, while a possible impediment to knowledge sharing, is the easiest of the three to overcome. If technology-based tools — such as traditional parent-child intranets or peer-to-peer wikis, blogs, and klogs — are properly used, they can be a huge asset to an organization's knowledge sharing initiative.

But this initiative needs to occur on two levels: technology and human interaction. It's the commingling of these two elements that creates a complete knowledge sharing system — and people tend to forget that. They forget that knowledge sharing goes much deeper than technology. And while technology can greatly improve a cooperative knowledge community, it can't solve the problems of an uncooperative one. If employees are unable or unwilling to share knowledge at the basic human level, all the technology in the world won't convince them to do otherwise.

What everyone needs to understand is that technology is merely an enhancement to human-based knowledge sharing — it's meant to compliment social interaction, not replace it. In order for a technology-based knowledge sharing system to succeed, there must already exist an underlying sense of community and cooperation within the organization. Without it, you're merely building a solid structure on top of a swamp.

In this second and final part on my look at the facts and the myths of knowledge sharing, I shift the emphasis away from the technology behind knowledge sharing systems to the employees who contribute to an organization's overall knowledge assets.

Process: Define a Business Process-Oriented Goal

Knowledge management can be implemented within an organization to serve a general purpose (such as corporate e-mail does) or it can be implemented to solve a specific problem. Both mandates may result in the same end-product — a corporate knowledge sharing system — being implemented, but its acceptance within the user community may be very different.

It's the users' perception of the system that may ultimately determine whether it succeeds, and in certain situations, whether it even gets done. Many promising knowledge sharing systems, and intranets in general, end up failing because they were created without an explicit, business-process-targeted goal. It's difficult for employees to get excited about contributing to a system when wishy-washy and overly generic mandates such as "to improve corporate collaboration" or "to share information among departmental workgroups" are given.

In order to grab the interest of those who will be participating in the development of a knowledge sharing system, the mandate must target a specific, real-world problem that employees can relate to. By doing so, you're providing employees with direct context — a practical application for the knowledge sharing system.

This mentality is very similar to our motivation to learn something new when we were studying our trades in school. For example, it was often difficult to learn a new programming language simply for the sake of meeting the requirements of the curriculum. Cracking open that back-breaking textbook and reading chapter after chapter was an exercise in tedium. But when asked to write a program with a clearly defined goal, many students picked up the new language out of a practical need. We had a problem to solve and we were motivated to build something to solve that problem.

Culture: Understanding the Mindset of the Organization

There's probably no greater influencing factor to the success or failure of an organization's knowledge sharing initiative than that of the collective culture and mindset of the members who comprise the knowledge community. Unfortunately, corporate culture is the least predictable element of a knowledge sharing initiative.

It may seem — especially to those who have ever struggled to implement an IT system in an environment unwilling to accept it — that a degree in behavioral science or industrial and organizational psychology is required to figure out the dynamics of corporate culture. Why would identical systems flourish in one company and flounder in an other? Why would they bear such different results? It's because the wrong measuring stick is being used to gauge success. The true measuring stick in system acceptance lies not with the system itself, but rather in those who use it. While the systems may be identical, the users and the culture of the organization are not.

Before you even begin to consider the knowledge sharing medium, you need to have a firm understanding of the collective mindset of your workers and the organization's fundamental culture. A corporate culture that's not conducive to knowledge sharing at the basic interpersonal level won't be changed by covering up the problem with a layer of technology. In fact, this extra layer of technology on top of a non-communicative corporative environment may complicate matters and even make things worse.

Knowledge sharing goes much deeper than technology and must be built on top of a solid foundation of internal cooperation. The use of technology should be viewed as the highest point in any knowledge sharing initiative. Before we can reach that point we need to ensure everything leading up to it is in place.

So what are these negative psychological and behavioral factors in organizational cultures that can jeopardize your knowledge sharing initiative?

• Job security: The belief that your job will be more secure as long as you're the only one knowledgeable about a certain topic, or if you're the only one capable of doing a particular task.

• Gaining personal advantage: Holding knowledge for ransom from those not in-the-know and using the old "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" bartering system.

• Competition and internal rivalries: Hoarding knowledge in order to best colleagues.

• Knowledge as power: The belief that the more you know, the more well-regarded and indispensable you will be.

• Fear of non-recognition: Afraid that someone else will take credit for your work.

• Fear of accountability: Afraid that someone will misuse your knowledge and you getting blamed for it.

• Loner attitudes: Refusing to actively seek out information from colleagues, preferring to figure things out on your own.

• Fear of incompetence: Afraid to ask for help for fear of being made to look as though you're not pulling your own weight.

• Non-cooperative knowledge bearers: Reluctant to approach knowledge bearers who will give you a hard time for interrupting them.

• "Wasting" time: The idea that "knowledge sharing helps others, not me," and that it will take valuable time out of your own busy schedule with little personal reward.

It's important you don't allow whatever negative cultural influences that exist within your organization to paint an overly grim and cynical picture of corporate life. In most cases these counterproductive behaviors are the exception, not the norm. While these behaviors are extremely difficult to predict, there are ways to minimize their impact on your knowledge sharing initiative and even to effect a real positive change within your organization.