Knowledge Management
I have found a properly-devised comprehensive approach to KM, in the context of culture and business operations, can accomplish the goals of typical KM programs without needing “Knowledge Management.” What?! It is a subtle distinction, but many leaders have achieved KM objectives without calling it anything. They simply bake it into the culture and business operations. The key is compressive thinking as in the diagram below. Not just focusing on knowledge and its life cycle, without a specific connection to results.
COMPREHENSIVE THINKING
WHY
A business reason is needed to obtain priority and funding to accomplish most anything in a company. KM can struggle here. Articulating solid business reasons is key, and this is done by linking directly to a company’s stated business objectives, CEO vision, or workforce conditions.
WHAT & HOW
What is needed for KM is driven by the “why,” naturally, but also by the existing conditions in the company – existing collaboration infrastructure, culture, policies, and related efforts (complementary or conflicting). How KM is accomplished includes typical project management techniques, but also depends on the support from the company's leadership, and from potential implementation partners.
RESULTS
Tangible business results must be separated from activities. While an activity such as designating critical expertise across the company is good and it looks like a “result” of knowledge management, it should be noted as an activity. It can be a “leading indicator” of results. But results would be business problems solved, cycle time reduced, capacity created, or budget/EAC reduced as a result of utilizing that designating expertise.