Conversations
with Dr. Dede Bonner
CKO/CLO
Competencies
Whatever the Nomenclature, the CKO
Is the Key to the Learning Organization
Editor's
note: This
is a synthesis of the "Conversations with Dr. Dede Bonner"
held in May, 2001 as part of the AOK STAR SERIES. Each month
one of our four discussion groups enjoys the visit of a KM luminary
as guest moderator. During the course of 11 months, the STAR
SERIES will have delivered the best "conference" of
the year to the desktops of AOK members around the world for
a fraction of the cost of a physical conference and with the
convenience of continuous education that is at the right place
at the the right time. Please
Join AOK and participate in these knowledge exchanges as
they happen in the future.
Table of Contents (Click on list item to
go directly to each topic)
 Introduction
of Dr. Dede Bonner
Jerry
Ash, AOK chief executive:
In virtually every for-profit and not-for-profit organization
there is a new professional known by many titles but whatever
the nomenclature it means "chief knowledge officer (CKO)."
Wherever there is a CKO, there are multiple knowledge managers
(KMers), and they are attempting to lead a kazillion people now
called "knowledge workers."
It is said these
people are the keys to success.
Of course, that
said, it goes without saying that these people are college-educated,
highly-trained, seasoned professionals with extensive track records
and a personal knowledge base about knowledge management.
You know I'm kidding.
The profile of a
knowledge "professional" in the first decade of the
next millennium is, well, all over the map. There are actually
a few knowledge professionals out there who have a stellar performance
record. On the other end of the scale are people who are "accidental
chief knowledge officers," or "inspired volunteers"
who know they have some of the skills necessary, who believe
in KM, and who want to grow beyond the bounds of their own disciplines
to practice the interdisciplinary art of KM.
In short, KM is
not yet a discipline because it is too young.
But unlike other
disciplines, knowledge management must become one much faster
than all other disciplines which came before it - because, it
is the discipline of the Knowledge Age, which progresses at warp
speed.
That is my prelude
to my introduction of Dr. Dede Bonner, who is introducing the
knowledge discipline to students at four universities in the
U.S. and Australia and to audiences at conferences around the
world, most notably gatherings of Chief Learning Officers (CLOs)
who have sensed their potential as the knowledge leaders of the
new economy.
Dr. Bonner is editor
of the best selling book - In Action: Leading Knowledge
Management and Learning. Her findings during 17
KM case studies are presented in this book.
Dr. Bonner's expertise
in KM includes work for Fortune 500 companies and membership
on several executive advisory boards on KM and education. Currently
she is on assignment at the Curtin Institute of Technology in
Perth, Australia, one of four universities where she is an active
faculty member. The others: the University of Virginia, George
Washington University and Marymount University.
But on the front
lines of KM, she is also busy developing (in partnership with
another company) new assessment instruments - one for assessing
organizational readiness for KM/CKOs/CLOs and another to assess
"job fit" for wannabe CKO/CLOs.
Previously, Dr.
Bonner was a manager and political analyst for the U.S. government
where she wrote daily situational reports for the White House
and Congress, directly contributed to the President's international
speeches and briefed Congressional committees.
To help start the
AOK "Conversations with Dede Bonner," she submits these
thought questions:
- Do we need CKO/CLOs?
- Who and where are
they currently in businesses?
- How to best utilize
these positions?
- Should they be
home grown or become new, emerging professions, complete with
executive search firms hot after the best ones?
- What are the most
important skill competencies and personality characteristics
for CKOs and CLOs?
- How are the two
professions different? Similar?
- What other position
titles correspond to CKOs and CLOs?
- Is it possible
to be one and not have the formal job title? Or even know you
are a CKO or CLO?
- Do we need certification
programs for CKO/CLOs?
- If so, what needs
to be taught and where (universities versus private associations,
etc.)
- Are organizational
learning and knowledge management merging together?
Dr. Bonner will
be corresponding with us from Perth, with her final messages
coming enroute back to the U.S.
We are once again
pleased that a busy KM thought-leader has fit the AOK membership
into a very busy schedule. Please join me in welcoming Dr. Dede
Bonner to the AOK table now and engage in the conversations often
through May 25.
Back
to top
Overview
of KM State of the Art
Jerry
Ash: Hi,
Dede. I thoroughly enjoyed our conversation by phone this weekend
and look forward to facilitating the e-mail discussions with
you on the other side of the world and with the members of AOK
who are scattered in more than 50 countries between the two of
us.
My introduction
of you has already revealed my "take" on the subject
of KM competencies and you have given us an excellent list of
"discussion starters."
I wonder if you
might begin the "conversations" with your overview
of the "state of the art" of knowledge management.
Hopefully it will include the "good, the bad and the ugly."
That's a big order, I know, but give us a quick overview with
stories that illustrate. Then, over the next two weeks, we can
consider the needs and search for the answers.
Dede
Bonner:
Thanks to Jerry for inviting me to participate from Perth, Australia
in this stimulating discussion. I also want to thank AOK members
in advance for their interest and involvement with this topic.
Knowledge management
isn't new and it doesn't happen in a vacuum. The need to tap
into what others know and to share that information with a group
goes back to the days of inventing the wheel and discovering
fire. Communication is the key.
But two things are
relatively new. First, as never before, organizations need a
system and structure to capture and share knowledge for maximum
effectiveness in this ever-increasingly complex world of information
overload. Second, as never before, the stuff between peoples'
ears, "knowledge", is a truly valuable commodity from
the perspective of ensuring bottom-line financial success and
competitive business advantages.
I learned from my
two-year research study of best practice KM organizations that
one of the key conditions for organizational success with KM
initiatives is having a "dedicated" resource as the
focal point for knowledge and/or learning. This dedicated resource,
or key person, has many job titles around the world, including
knowledge manager, learning leader, Chief Knowledge Officer (CKO)
and Chief Learning Officer (CLO).
Because these professions
are so new, there are also as many variations of goals, roles
and responsibility levels as there are different people to fill
the jobs. For simplicity's sake, CKOs and CLOs are umbrella terms
to represent all types of knowledge and learning leaders.
The first generation
CKO/CLOs can be characterized as home grown senior specialists,
such as IT, engineering or training, but may lack the savvy,
credentials or experience as strategic thinkers. Executive search
firms are now recruiting for the second generation, and often
seeking people outside the hiring companies.
In general, CKOs
tend to be more technically oriented, and may have come from
the IT side of the house. CKOs often are the champions for KM
from a strategic perspective. CLOs are often recruited from the
ranks of the marketing or training departments, and are focused
on organizational culture, learning and initiatives such as e-learning
systems.
What CKOs and CLOs
share, regardless of their industry or organizations' specific
goals, is the need to elevate these positions high enough in
the org chart so they won't be hijacked by a silo mind-set or
special interest demands of one highly vocal group of people.
I'm interested in
clarifying these professions, defining the key differences between
them, and seeking to institutionalize them into "real professions,"
the kind that people go to school for, apply for internally,
etc. on a regular basis. The historical parallels are the evolving
professions of CIOs, CFOs and CTOs.
To encourage further
discussion, here is my most immediate question:
Who in this membership
has direct experience with knowledge and/or learning leadership
(CKO/CLO, etc.) to share with us? 2. What do you think are the
differences between CKOs and CLOs? 3. The similarities?
Back
to top
Translating
KM into Hard Currency
Jack
Vinson, PhD, Pharmacia Corporation:
Dr. Bonner, welcome aboard the AOK train. It's always a pleasure
to look down the tracks with our knowledge management thought-leaders.
While I am not going
to address your thought questions, they have generated some of
my own thoughts. Based on recent readings and my own general
feeling about knowledge management, I think the CKO position
is there to help create focus in the company. The core of the
CKO's job is to make knowledge sharing work in the company -
to spread the good practices in a small group to practices of
the entire company. This is why the position needs to exist at
such a high level.
The more I read,
the more it becomes clear to me that knowledge management rarely
has anything to do with technology. Good knowledge workers have
known this all along. Personally, I have learned and grown the
most when interacting with other scientists and professionals
at events outside my cube farm, where most of my technology sits.
I can then take conversations back to my cube and apply the ideas,
but the actual knowledge sharing happens around the coffee pot
and during the between-session conversations. Of course, knowledge
sharing happens at work, but this generally does not happen while
sitting in front of my computer.
So what is the role
of the CKO (or whatever they are called in your company)? They
need to get the knowledge workers excited about talking and sharing
their ideas with their colleagues. Certainly, there are some
aspects of technology that can help, but the primary need is
to show people that there is value in communicating with one
another.
Dede
Bonner:
Thanks for your thoughts. Jack. I agree with you that the person
in the CKO position needs to help create KM focus, find ways
to help people share knowledge - especially tacit knowledge -
more effectively, and "get knowledge workers excited about
talking and sharing their ideas with their colleagues".
However, based on
my experiences and observations, I also think CKOs need to be
able to translate KM into hard currency and bottom-line results
for their companies. The CKO positions/people that survive layoffs
are the ones who can translate their enthusiasm and vision into
a concrete, detailed action plan.
I'm interested in
your reactions and from others. Specifically, how can CKOs best
show their own value to their companies?
Back
to top
Communicating
KM Value Is Key
Clare
Robson, Health Intelligence Manager, North Wales Health Authority: Dr. Bonner, as a self-confessed
addict to knowledge management related research, I have just
had my latest "fix" by reading Jerry's preparation
for your conversations. I have now read the reviews of your book
In
Action: Leading Knowledge Management and Learning which
I am just about to request from the British Library. I like to
think of myself as a pragmatist and I am naturally drawn to any
resources, which offer practical advice or information about
the experiences of others. I am therefore looking forward to
reading about the 17 case studies from the pioneer organisations
documented in your book.
Your promotion of
the roles of Chief Knowledge Officer and Chief Learning Officer
as both being essential confirms to me that the time I have recently
devoted to researching the concept of the "Learning Organisation"
has been well worth the effort. I am currently preparing two
management briefings (on Knowledge Management & the Learning
Organisation) as part of the virtual National Electronic Library
for Health Project (UK). The aim of the briefings is to provide an introduction to
issues of current concern, together with an action point list
for follow up, and pointers to contacts and further sources of
information.
I have, during the
past two years, developed a considerable interest in all aspects
of knowledge management, however until recently I knew very little
about learning organisations. As I struggle to identify and join
together correctly the essential pieces in the KM "jigsaw'"
certain "pieces" seem to be more vital than others;
such as communications, knowledge roles, learning organisations
and web-based technology.
I am beginning to
conclude that in answer to your question number 11: "Are
organizational learning and knowledge management merging together?"
that there is a clear overlap where it is often difficult to
see where one ends and another begins. I have been trying to
"sell" the concept of KM to my own organisation with
some success (if only an acknowledgement that KM is new and needs
to be considered). It seems much easier for organisations to
understand the concept of a learning organisation which can replace
or further develop existing personnel training and development
programmes, rather than to begin to understand what KM is all
about.
Of equal importance,
however, I have also identified the need for a sound and comprehensive
communications strategy to support the development of both learning
organisations and KM. During my first ever visit to the AOK website,
I was pleased to see the importance which Jerry gave to communications
in his white paper - "Communication
Missing from KM's Core Strategies":
Effective communication
is essential to the success of any KM program. It is also essential
in a decentralized, flattened organizational structure that can
no longer depend on command and control from the top down to
achieve corporate goals and objectives.
When considering
the roles and areas of specialization related to KM, I have found
the KM Skills Map produced by TFPL, most useful, comprehensive
and of great practical value.
I am looking forward
to reading your book and your conversations with AOK members.
Back
to top
Can You
Describe KM to Your Grandmother or a Martian?
Dede
Bonner:
Clare, thanks for your message. I agree with your premise that
organizational learning is an "easier sell" than KM.
I'm interested in your thoughts and from others on how they "sell"
either organizational learning (OL) or KM to other people.
It's like the old
formula for simplifying something. Ask yourself: could you describe
this easily to your grandmother (or someone from Mars)? If not,
which is often the case with KM, then I think we've got a problem.
In fact, I think
that if we collectively (the KM and organizational learning communities)
don't find a better way to explain KM and/or OL to grandma (and
to our busy CEOs), we risk loss of positive energy, and perhaps
even credibility. I, for one, don't want to see KM or OL go the
same way as TQM (Total Quality Management) went in most organizations,
which was out the window.
What
are your reactions to this?
Back
to top
Organizational
Characteristics: Top-Down or 'Skunkworks'?
Denham
Grey, CEO, Grey Matter Inc.:
Greetings Dede. Firms seem to be evenly divided in their strategy
for moving forward into the knowledge age and successful projects
do not vary with choice of a top-down (read CKO / CLO) or skunkworks
as the dominant strategy, at least, that is what my sample suggests!
This leaves me wondering,
how do you beat the odds? What organizational characteristics
point the way to firms that will benefit from appointing a knowledge
luminary and where should this (appointment) be avoided at all
costs?
Dede
Bonner:
Thanks for your note, Denham. Here is a summary of the organizational
conditions of successful KM initiatives that emerged from my
study of 17 best practice companies, which ranged from IBM Global
Services to a small hospital in Pennsylvania:
1. Supportive senior
management, 2. A rapid expansion mindset, 3. Culture of high
trust, 4. Belief by CEO downward that learning and knowledge
are key competitive advantages, 5. Strong customer-service orientation,
6. Supportive IT structure and programs, 7. Integrated business
units (not silos), 8. Systematic strategic planning, 9. Dedicated
knowledge/learning resource (CKO, CLO or similar), and 10. Measurement
tools and standards in place.
These conditions
are explained in more detail in the book: In Action: Leading
Knowledge Management and Learning (available from http://www.astd.org
or http://www.kwork.org/Store/featured.html#Bonner
and in an article I wrote called, "Enter the Chief Knowledge
Officer" for the February 2000 issue of Training and Development
Journal (ASTD).
Back
to top
Knowledge
Job Fit for a Organizations of Varying Missions
Jerry
Ash: Denham
appears to be inferring that the high level CKO/CLO position
probably means top-down, hierarchical initiative. Some think
the ignition point for KM ought to be up-down from the middle
or bottom up from the grassroots. How do these executive positions
(CKO/CLO) fit in an organization that is trying to flatten itself?
Dede
Bonner:
In my research of knowledge and learning leaders I discovered
two categories of characteristics that organizations typically
need for the successful appointments of CKOs or CLOs: 1. supportive
organizational values, including supportive senior management;
and 2. supportive organizational structures and systems, including
integrated business operational units and measurement tools and
standards.
It's been my observation
in working with "pioneer" CKOs and CLOs, that the companies
most likely to benefit from appointing knowledge/learning leaders
are the ones with the most to gain from KM incentives. For example,
a multinational oil and gas firm needs a comprehensive knowledge
base and knowledge sharing practices to support its expensive
drilling operations and avoid costly mistakes. In this example,
where a centralized approach to knowledge sharing clearly benefits
all members of the oil and gas community, having a CKO or CLO
is imperative to ensuring competitive business advantages.
There are also situations
where a CKO or CLO should be avoided, such as in companies that
create a CKO/CLO post without instilling the job with the kind
of authority it needs. Strictly speaking, CKOs need to be nearly
as powerful as the CEOs to be effective on a truly global basis.
Another example are the companies that define CKOs strictly as
the controllers of the intellectual capital rather than as the
managers of strategic development operations for KM.
But even the smallest
firms need to leverage their knowledge in today's competitive
marketplace. Perhaps the head of a single-person-operation may
not call himself or herself the "CKO", but this person
still needs the same mindset for KM and learning.
Perhaps other list
members have specific examples of situations where a knowledge/learning
luminary appointment should be avoided at all costs or hasn't
worked well.
I've also studied
the organizations that use bottom up strategy on creating KM/OL
initiatives. I believe that in certain circumstances, such as
a hospital staff's very real and direct need for pooled information
for saving the lives of trauma patients, "bottom up"
also works well. The problems with the grassroots approach are
sustaining it, making a widespread organizational impact, and
finding ongoing funding.
Back
to top
'Committed'
Companies Will Consider CKO/CLO Essential
Jerry
Ash: How
do these executive positions (CKO/CLO) fit in an organization
that is trying to flatten itself?" I understand that to
be a different question than Denham's original one.
Dede
Bonner:
In response to Jerry's question, I believe a key role for the
current first and second generation of CKOs and CLOs is to prove
their worth at their organizations' bottom lines.
This is something
that has not always been focused on by current CKOs/CLOs, but
is critical to institutionalizing and standardizing these positions.
Of course, if the organizations' top management is only paying
lip service to KM and/or OL, then these executive positions won't
succeed the budget and personnel cuts. An organization with KM
as a true priority won't be as anxious to cut their new CKO/CLO
executives than one which isn't fully committed to making KM
really work. In other words, in a committed company, CKOs and
CLOs will be deemed the essential personnel at cut-back time.
Back
to top
Interpersonal
Skills Critical Attributes
Troy
Pomroy,
Technical
Projects Manager,
Q-Industries:
From my perspective one of the things that distinguishes IT people
from KM people is their involvement in day-to-day affairs.
To clarify, in many
businesses and associations with whom I've worked meetings or
approval processes that attorneys or financial staff participate
in also include persons with a KM title to participate in the
action. In other words legal and money issues are as important
as process & technology issues - but title aside, what skills
does it take to function with business functions like accounting
and legal? I mean, realistically, how do you sell management
on the value of a single KM position, let alone several or a
department?
Dede
Bonner:
Every single CKO and CLO I've worked with emphasizes the need
for strong interpersonal skills and the ability to influence
people as critical attributes for their positions. They see these
complex skill sets as their tools to "sell" the value
of both KM in general and themselves specifically as KM champions.
They would say these are the skills they use to be skillful enough
to influence business functions such as the accounting and legal
departments.
Back
to top
Helping
KM Grow from a Melting Pot of Silos, Individuals
Joe
Katzman, Communications And Technology (C.A.T.) Consulting: Dede Bonner wrote: "What
CKOs and CLOs share, regardless of their industry or organizations'
specific goals, is the need to elevate these positions high enough
in the org chart so they won't be hijacked by a silo mind set
or special interest demands of one highly vocal group of people."
Yes and no. People
reading that statement may be inclined to adopt it as a guideline
for how the CKO should direct KM efforts - and if so, they may
be making a big mistake.
As Geoff Moore notes,
the Innovation Adoption Cycle is such that innovators may benefit
substantially from exactly that kind of sole-silo focus - followed
by a "bowling pins" strategy that takes the whole solutions
developed and tweaks them for use in other environments facing
similar challenges. Recall Ash Sooknanan's
tools, initially developed for the IT department only . .
. .
Most organizational
clients do not fall into the "early adopter" psychographic,
and in my experience trying to develop KM solutions for everyone
just ensures that everyone sees the results as substandard.
Dede wrote: "I'm
interested in clarifying these professions, defining the key
differences between them, and seeking to institutionalize them
into "real professions," the kind that people go to
school for, apply for internally, etc. on a regular basis. The
historical parallels are the evolving professions of CIOs, CFOs
and CTOs."
The difference being
that I don't believe CKOs and CLOs will exist in 15 years, just
as you don't see a lot of SVP Quality positions today. Alain
Godbout, whose work is excerpted in the last AOK newsletter,
goes further: he says the CKO "never really existed"
(LL#7).
I'll turn that question
around, therefore: What makes a CKO more similar to a CIO or
CFO than to the "VP Quality" folks of the 80s? What
makes KM a full-fledged and discrete discipline like Finance,
rather than a cross-organizational hygiene issue like quality?
Dede wrote: "Who
in this membership has direct experience with knowledge and/or
learning leadership (CKO/CLO, etc.) to share with us?" And,
" What do you think are the differences between CKOs and
CLOs? The similarities?"
Differences: Background
in terms of where they come from, and to some extent which industries
they're in. CKO as a role may lean toward codification, while
CLO is technically more about innovation . . . but how many CLOs
have a New Product Development background? Which ensures that
CKO/CLO is pretty much six of one, half dozen of the other.
Similarities: Both
are seen as cost overhead by their organizations, and usually
appointed without an enabling infrastructure of dedicated implementers
necessary for success. In both cases, lack of connection to the
front lines and operational responsibility often hurts them as
much as it helps them.
On a related topic,
in Issue #23 of AOKEZine, Jerry writes that KM initiatives are
recession-proof and uses the DestinationCRM article to
back in up. He writes:
"The lessons
are as valid for all of KM as they are for CRM."
With respect, Jerry,
I can't imagine a more dangerous piece of advice to KM champions.
CRM is recession-proof because better customer relations are
a #1 CEO priority in recessions, and the specific equation of
CRM better customer care seems true by definition. KM benefits
neither from the focus nor from the positioning, and in fact
is likely to be a primary target in recessions. I'm seeing that
already.
The message is clear,
and KMers should make no mistake: deliver immediate, measurable
business value to the operating units, or keep your resume polished.
That's KM reality in a recession.
Jerry
Ash: I hear
you, Joe. We cheerleaders sometimes fail to notice the score!
Back
to top
Variations
in CKO Job Descriptions; Future Solid
Dede
Bonner:
In response to Joe Katzman's posting: I think we are both right.
There are huge variations in how CKO jobs are currently defined
(or not) and organizations' knowledge needs. A focus on pure
innovation isn't for every company, just as a centralized knowledge
leadership that is designed to be "in charge" of knowledge
assets is a poor excuse for disseminating a knowledge sharing
mindset at all levels of the company.
However, I do think
you are wrong about the existence of CKOs 15 years from now.
So does respected business strategist, Tom Peters, who predicts
that the current CFO and CIO functions will be blended and evolve
into CKO jobs over the next 10 years. I doubt if tomorrow's CKOs
closely resemble the current first generation ones. However,
11 percent of Fortune 500 companies now employ CKOs, up from
virtually no positions five years ago (source: Internetweek,
August 14, 2000 issue). Peter Drucker, management guru and an
early advocate for knowledge work, predicted "knowledge
managers" to be one of the top 10 growth jobs in a Time
magazine article last spring.
I couldn't agree
with you more, Joe, that KMers (CKOs and all others) need to
"deliver immediate, measurable business value . . . that's
KM reality in a recession" as I reasoned above in my other
post.
Back
to top
Catch-all
Titles (All the ''Os') Don't Reflect True Depth of Job
Debra
Amidon, ENTOVATION International:
Welcome to the AOK community and for providing some direction
on how to manage the overall process!
In our previous
discussion (see Conversations with
Debra Amidon), we explored what I call the Knowledge Value
Proposition, with leadership coming from Finance (i.e.,
managing intellectual capital), HR (managing social capital)
and IT (managing technological capital). Regardless of the perspective
from which one comes, all three must be balanced. These are similar
to the three sub-movements - and respective leadership - of the
knowledge profession. I was able to make the case that a better
term than CKO or CLO might be Chief Innovation Officer - responsible
for the overall process that cuts across (and includes) all functions
and business units in the "innovation system."
When I first met
Leif Edvinsson (then VP for Intellectual Capital, Skandia A.F.S.
and referenced in Fortune magazine as the first CKO in the world),
I told him that I did not believe that he was a CKO (see Conversations with Leif Edvinsson ).
Rather he was a Chief Innovation Officer - responsible for the
performance metrics, learning behavior and technological infrastructure
in which knowledge is created, shared and applied to business
purpose or economic vitality. He agreed, and asked that I explain
why. What resulted was his supplement on the Power of Innovation and his initiative to
convince Sweden to declare the 'year of innovation.' The first
Intellectual Capital Report for a Nation was published; and the
links for a common language of the enterprise and a nation's
economy were born.
I believe that the
leadership can come from any function in the 'community of knowledge practice', but that
how they manage the collaborative process is the secret to success.
We have great evidence now that companies are developing some
explicit focus; and as long as it operates at a high enough level
to garner credibility and with enough of a listening philosophy
to learn from the knowledge of every constituency (inside and
external to the firm), there is a chance for great success.
My bias is that
- whatever it might be called - the focus is one of "bet-your-business."
I'd be interested in examples of companies that have integrated
the knowledge practices into the real business strategy of the
firm?
Dede
Bonner:
In response to Debra Amidon's posting, I agree that the terms
CKO and CLO are catch-alls that don't reflect the true depth
and scope of these emerging positions. The roles, responsibilities,
and position titles are just evolving and there are almost as
many variations as there are incumbents. Chief Innovation Officer
as you suggested certainly makes sense.
Back
to top
CKO as Focal
Point for SWOT Analysis
Paul
Cripwell, J.P. Cripwell Associates:
Just to put my thoughts out there, this is what first came to
mind when reading these dispatches.
The CKO should be
the focal point of SWOT analysis. (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities
and Threats). The CKO person or group should know and understand
what the organization does well, its strengths. It should know
what the organization doesn't do well; its weaknesses.
Throughout the EZine
articles I feel that this has been the main focus of KM and the
perception of what a CKO should be. But I think the CKO should
include the other two parts.
The CKO must be
familiar with the external environment as well as the internal
environment. (Here is where there may be some difference of opinion
and definition of what KM is, or perceived to be.)
The CKO must know
the competition, the market, the economy and the technology outside
the current organizational boundaries. There are other departments
that handle these items from within the organizational context,
but the age we work in must dictate that any organization be
conscious of its longer range surroundings, since competition
will probably not come from known competitors.
Back
to top
Competencies
for a CKO in an FMCG
K.S.Srinivasa
Murty, Head of Corporate Knowledge Management, Hindustan Lever
Limited, Mumbai, India:
I have read with interest the discussions on the role of CKO,
the competencies and culture change. I am relatively new to Knowledge
Management, having been associated with it for just about a year.
However, I have had an enriching experience in the Unilever group
of companies in India, spanning over 30 years, in Marketing,
Commercial and General Management areas.
Last year, I got
involved in our company's knowledge management initiative, initially
leading it together with my responsibility as the Head of Strategic
Services (Marketing Services + Corporate Planning). In April
this year, I was appointed Head of Corporate Knowledge Management,
on a full time basis, to focus comprehensively on the implementation
of KM in our company. Even though, I start with some advantages
- my experience in our company provides me a deep understanding
of the business processes, key strategic priorities, the organizational
culture and a decent network - in spite of all these advantages,
I do recognize that it is not easy to institutionalize knowledge
management in an organization unless the KM strategy is carefully
crafted and implemented.
Over the last few
months, I have been thinking through some of the issues that
came up in the various discussions with Dede. I thought I would
share with you the approach we adopted in our Company and would
welcome your comments and suggestions.
I believe the KM
strategy, plans and organizational structure may vary depending
on the industry type and organizational culture. The strategy,
plans and KM organizational structure appropriate to consultancy
or service industry, where knowledge is the main product, may
be some what different as compared to an FMCG. My comments are
based on my limited experience in progressing KM in an FMCG (fast
moving consumer goods).
What is the role
of CKO?
1. CKO will be the
champion and evangelist for institutionalizing KM in the business
as an integral part of the business processes and key business
priorities. He is part of the senior management team of the company.
2. He will, in consultations
with senior business and functional management, develop an appropriate
knowledge management strategy and plans for the company and pilot
the Board approval. The KM strategy must be fully aligned to
the strategic priorities and business goals of the company.
3. He will coordinate
with the internal IT team, HR team and external KM consultants,
where appropriate, and plan and help build an enabling frame
work to implement KM . Such an enabling frame work is likely
to be comprised of :
- Information and
communication systems for connecting people to people and people
to information / knowledge repositories / best practices,
- Cultural enablers
for strengthening Collaborative Team Working and knowledge sharing
processes( networks, communities of practice, teams, events,
reward and recognition systems etc.), and
- Knowledge mapping
and structuring tools, techniques and processes.
4. He will identify
and focus on the implementation of the initial KM projects which
have potential for quick results / success, so as to quickly
build credibility for KM in the company. He will actively participate
in the facilitation process for these initial projects.
5. He will focus
on communication, both with participants in the approved KM projects
as well as other managers at various levels, to ensure that there
is a common understanding among all on what KM is all about -
"a deliberate and structured approach to leverage collective
knowledge of the enterprise, in support of business excellence".
The emphasis is on "deliberate and more structured approach"
and "collaborative team working to create and share knowledge".
Our experience is
that developing a common understanding among the management,
on what KM stands for and how to implement it is not easy. Some
of the reasons are:
a. The KM terminology
is seen to be fuzzy and amorphous. Discussing concepts does not
seem to help. Illustration of success stories is the best way.
But these illustrations need careful choice, people must be able
to relate to them as relevant to their business.
b. Even if there
is no articulated comprehensive knowledge strategy, most companies
practice knowledge management in some form or other. Often they
may not refer to those activities / processes as KM. (For example
most would practice both product and process ( business process)
innovation, some internal and external benchmarking etc.). While
there might be a definite scope for strengthening the knowledge
creation and knowledge re-use in a company, through strengthening
knowledge sharing culture of the organization and a more structured
use of knowledge enablers ( tools, techniques and processes),
the initial reaction could be that we are trying to start one
more new initiative, which may divert the attention of our focus
on business results.
c. The key to successful
institutionalization of KM into the business processes in a company
is - "culture change" to support and strengthen knowledge
sharing and collaborative team working. This change management
is not easy.
Given the above,
the CKO has to persevere and build a consensus on steps to initiate
culture change as well as build a common understanding on what
KM stands for. Communication and training will play a key role
in creating the necessary awareness and common understanding.
We have been at
it for almost a year now. We have developed a KM strategy, developed
some senior management consensus and initiated a few initial
KM projects. We are yet to make a real start of the culture change
programme. I am finding that institutionalizing KM in a company
seems to be a slower process than one would like, where as quick
wins / demonstrable results are critical for the credibility
of KM.
Our experience is
- Unless the teams involved in the KM initiatives develop a clear
charter and commit direct contribution to business goals ( growth
(innovation) and functional / operational excellence), they will
not get the senior management attention. While capability building
may well be an important objective of many KM initiatives, it
is necessary to demonstrate how that capability will translate
into superior business performance. The CKO should help the KM
teams ( be a catalyst) develop appropriate charter for the KM
initiatives, with mile stones and deliverables and participate
along with the senior management in reviewing progress and results.
What are the key
competencies required in a CKO?
To play this role
effectively, the CKO must enjoy credibility with the Business
Heads and the management committee of the company. I personally
believe that some one from within the organization will have
an advantage because of his understanding of the organizational
culture, business processes, strengths as well as weaknesses.
It would be useful if the CKO had worked in many of the divisions
in the company and played general management roles - led cross
functional teams and preferably had some experience in running
a business unit.
While the CKO needs
to have an appreciation of the role IT can play, as an important
enabler, for collaborative working, capture, storage, easy retrieval,
sharing and re-use of knowledge, he should not equate KM with
IT. The CKO needs to demonstrate business and strategic perspective
and an ability to integrate into KM all relevant types of enablers.
Strengthening knowledge
sharing culture is the most important factor which will decide
the fate of KM in a company. Therefore the CKO has to be good
at Change management. He will need to work closely with the HR
team to initiate events /processes, recognition and reward systems
to help strengthen collaborative team working and knowledge sharing
culture.
For the CKO to succeed,
he needs to leverage the KM understanding and functional competence
and credibility of a few colleagues in HR and IT. A virtual team
comprising of the champions of the identified KM initiatives,
and these IT & HR managers should collaborate to share knowledge,
lessons learned and guide the implementation of KM in the company.
Is a CKO of the
above profile required on a long term basis?
My view is - not
necessary. Ultimately, once the company has made good progress
through the initial stages and the culture change initiatives
have taken roots in the organization ( say in 2 or 3 years) ,
the ownership and leadership of knowledge management should fully
shift to the Business / Functional / Business Process leadership
in the company. When the knowledge management is fully integrated
into the business processes, the business process owners and
concerned business heads should champion KM as well. KM should
be integrated into the normal workflow and should not be seen
as an additional initiative. At that stage KM should ideally
be not an additional initiative but a way of working in our business.
At that stage the
profile of the CKO could be different - his main role may be
ownership of knowledge processes, KM tools and techniques and
specifying company wide standards for the Information and communication
technology to support KM, in collaboration with the IT team.
I would welcome
comments and suggestions.
Dede
Bonner:
Thanks, Srini, for sharing your thoughts and experiences as the
Head of Corporate Knowledge in India. It's interesting how similar
your reactions are to many other knowledge leaders. I also found
your future vision of the evolving role of CKOs on a long term
basis very illuminating as a possible scenario for how CKOs may
be redefined over time. I certainly like the idea of CKOs working
themselves out of their jobs.
Back
to top
Thank
You on Behalf of AOK Members
Jerry
Ash: Dede,
on behalf of the members of AOK, I want to thank you for the
time you spent with us while fulfilling your duties at the Curtin
Institute of Technology in Perth, Australia. It touched an interesting
chord among the AOK membership - testament to the fact that many
are charged with the responsibility of knowledge leadership starting
with the task of defining the job.
And, prompted by
your educator's tool of drawing knowledge from the class, the
AOK members exhibited a gratifying depth of maturity in their
collective vision of the job. It was a revelation that would
not have occurred without you as catalyst. For that, we thank
you.
I am also pleased
to report to the members that - like all the other "Stars"
who have visited AOK - Dede Bonner has chosen to become a full
and continuing member. So, again, it is not "goodbye,"
but "welcome." Dede, we hope you will continue to keep
your eyes on this network and join in future conversations. We
have not had nearly enough of Dr. Dede Bonner.
We respect the value
of your time and your knowledge and we thank you for the giving
of it.
Back
to top
|
