Federal Knowledge Management Initiative Roadmap

Federal KM Initiative Committee\
Federal KM Working Group

July, 2008

For more information, please contact:

Neil Olonoff, Co-Chair\
[olonoff@gmail.com](mailto:neil.olonoff@us.army.mil) 703.614.5058

Federal KM Initiative Committee\
Federal KM Working Group

May, 2008

Table of Contents

Preface: An Open Letter to Federal Government Leaders
[3](#preface-an-open-letter-to-federal-government-leaders)

Signature Page [4](#signature-page)

Overview [5](#overview)

Part 1: The Federal Knowledge Management Imperative
[5](#part-1-the-federal-knowledge-management-imperative)

Why is Knowledge Important? [5](#why-is-knowledge-important)

Costs of Failure to Share Knowledge
[5](#costs-of-failure-to-share-knowledge)

Dangerous Knowledge Gaps [5](#dangerous-knowledge-gaps)

Inefficiency [6](#inefficiency)

Benefits of Sharing Knowledge [7](#benefits-of-sharing-knowledge)

Cost Savings [7](#cost-savings)

Quality and Value Enhancements [7](#quality-and-value-enhancements)

Lessons Learned of the Present Administration
[7](#lessons-learned-of-the-present-administration)

Critical Knowledge Issues in Government
[9](#critical-knowledge-issues-in-government)

No Centralized Resource for Knowledge Management
[9](#no-centralized-resource-for-knowledge-management)

No Policy or Standards for Knowledge Management
[9](#no-policy-or-standards-for-knowledge-management)

Inconsistent Knowledge Sharing Practices
[9](#inconsistent-knowledge-sharing-practices)

The Knowledge Retention Crisis [10](#the-knowledge-retention-crisis)

Gaps in Federal Worker Knowledge Competencies
[10](#gaps-in-federal-worker-knowledge-competencies)

Part 2: Federal KM Initiative Action Plan
[11](#part-2-federal-km-initiative-action-plan)

Create a Federal Knowledge Management Center
[11](#create-a-federal-knowledge-management-center)

Help Build a Knowledge Sharing Culture in the Federal Government
[11](#help-build-a-knowledge-sharing-culture-in-the-federal-government)

Develop and Promulgate KM Policies, Standards and Practices
[12](#develop-and-promulgate-km-policies-standards-and-practices)

Policies [12](#policies)

Standards [12](#standards)

Practices [12](#practices)

Develop and Disseminate Knowledge Retention Programs
[12](#develop-and-disseminate-knowledge-retention-programs)

Train Federal Workers in Knowledge Management Competencies
[13](#train-federal-workers-in-knowledge-management-competencies)

Build Awareness [13](#build-awareness)

Create a Web Presence and Demonstration Site
[13](#create-a-web-presence-and-demonstration-site)

Conclusions [13](#conclusions)

Appendix: Introduction to Knowledge Management
[15](#appendix-introduction-to-knowledge-management)

Knowledge Work and Knowledge Workers
[15](#knowledge-work-and-knowledge-workers)

Personal or "Tacit" Knowledge versus "Explicit" Knowledge
[15](#personal-or-tacit-knowledge-versus-explicit-knowledge)

Communities of Practice [15](#communities-of-practice)

Teams, Collaboration and Virtual Collaboration
[16](#teams-collaboration-and-virtual-collaboration)

Organizational Learning & Learning Organizations
[16](#organizational-learning-learning-organizations)

Conversation and Dialogue [16](#conversation-and-dialogue)

Knowledge Retention [17](#knowledge-retention)

Knowledge Enabling of Work [17](#knowledge-enabling-of-work)

Change Management and Organizational Culture
[18](#change-management-and-organizational-culture)

Differentiating Knowledge Management and Information Sciences
[18](#differentiating-knowledge-management-and-information-sciences)

Resources for Further Reading: [19](#resources-for-further-reading)

Introductory works, suitable for the general public:
[19](#introductory-works-suitable-for-the-general-public)

Specialized Works, essential for specialists:
[19](#specialized-works-essential-for-specialists)

# Preface: An Open Letter to Federal Government Leaders 

Federal KM Initiative Committee\
Federal KM Working Group\
Washington, DC

May, 2008

Dear Government Leader:

Looking at recent missteps Government has made, and current problems we
face as a nation, Americans might be asking themselves if "American
know-how" is a vanishing commodity.

It seems that many of America's recent catastrophes have resulted from
"intelligence" failures. 9/11, the response to Katrina, the Space
Shuttle Challenger Disaster, and problems in Iraq can be traced to
"knowledge failures." And this is happening in the USA where "know-how"
used to be our main stock in trade. But what is know-how? Most of us
envision a lone inventor working in his shirtsleeves. That's a myth! Tom
Edison had a whole team in his lab.

No: the *real* story of know-how is *collaboration and knowledge
sharing. That's* how we invented the light bulb and built the railroads.
*That's* how we traveled to the moon, and led in the advances of modern
science. America's greatest successes have grown out of knowledge
leveraged by collaboration \-- shared knowledge.

In 2005, President Bush signed a directive instructing the Intelligence
community to overcome barriers and share information. In the wake of
9/11 the administration belatedly recognized that we have a problem. But
he didn't go far enough. We must do more. In civilian agencies, in
military units, everywhere in government, we need to get better at
sharing the enormous knowledge assets America *already has*.

We can hear you thinking, "Tall order." But the great thing is *we
already know what to do*. We have the toolset. It's called *knowledge
management*, or KM.

KM is two things:

First, it's a set of management practices. They are about knowledge
sharing using methods you've heard of: Best Practices, Lessons Learned,
Communities of Practice, teams, and collaboration.

Second, KM is an *attitude*. This is the hard part, because it means
getting people to change, to be open to new information and willing to
have real conversations. You wouldn't think that would be hard work, but
it is. It's a good thing Americans aren't afraid of hard work.

We are asking you -- leaders in the next Administration -- to look at
our action plan. It contains a blueprint for breaking away from current,
failed policies and instituting real knowledge management in Federal
agencies.

Our simple goal is to restore "American know-how" to American
government.

Respectfully,

# Signature Page

We, the undersigned, concur wholeheartedly with the statements and
conclusions in this document.

Neil Olonoff, MSOL, Co-chair, Fed KM Initiative Committee\
Dr. Michael Kull, Co-chair, Fed KM Initiative Committee

More names here,

Firstname Lastname, Affiliation

Federal Knowledge Management Initiative Roadmap

# Overview 

This document is a roadmap to reaching the goal of restoring American
know-how to government. It consists of three sections.

-   **Part 1: Federal Knowledge Management Imperative**, describes why
    formal knowledge sharing and Knowledge Management programs are
    critically important for the Federal government.

-   **Part 2: Federal KM Initiative Action Plan** contains specific
    recommendations.

-   **Appendix: Introduction to Knowledge Management** is an overview of
    the general principles of knowledge management.

# Part 1: The Federal Knowledge Management Imperative

## Why is Knowledge Important? 

That seems like a silly question. You might as well ask "Why is water
important?" We all know intuitively that knowledge is a common,
indispensable resource, like air or water. But just as water, when
scarce, is hoarded, so is knowledge. In many environments, knowledge
doesn't "flow through the pipes" very well. It's sticky, for a multitude
of reasons.

Many of the reasons have to do with organizational "stovepipes" and
human nature. Even though teamwork and collaboration are the foundations
of human success on earth, we also are very competitive. We root for our
own little teams. It is the most basic of competitive syndromes; call it
"us versus them." So our basic nature tends to undermine our success as
a group by failing to fully share and collaborate.

Twenty years ago, most people would have reacted to these statements
with a shrug, saying, "That's just the way things are." Today, we have a
new management practice -- Knowledge Management -- that can help us
solve this problem.

## Costs of Failure to Share Knowledge

Failure to share knowledge incurs costs. During calm times in office
environments these costs are usually expressed in lost efficiency and
person hours or dollars. In high-pressure environments such as hospitals
and battlefields, the costs can be measured in casualties and human
lives.

### Dangerous Knowledge Gaps

Historically, failure to share knowledge has resulted in disasters.
Amazingly, each of the following could have been averted *completely*
with "a word to the wise" \-- knowledge shared at the right time, by the
right person.

-   The sinking of the Titanic: the location of the iceberg was spiked
    in the ship's telegraph office.

-   Crash of the Space Shuttle Challenger: the Challenger engineers knew
    the dangers of freezing the o-ring that failed.

-   9/11 attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon: prior to 9/11
    the FBI was investigating foreign students at flight schools
    learning to fly, but not land, large commercial jet planes.

Lee H. Hamilton, Former Vice Chair of the 9/11 Commission, made this
statement to Congress on November 8, 2005:

Poor information sharing was the single greatest failure of our
government in the lead-up to the 9/11 attacks. The failure to share
information adequately, within and across federal agencies, and from
federal agencies to state and local authorities, was a significant
contributing factor to our government's missteps in understanding and
responding to the growing threat of al Qaeda in the years before the
9/11 attacks. There were several missed opportunities to disrupt the
9/11 plot. Most of them involved the failure to share information.

The right information was available; it just wasn't *shared*. That
famous World War II slogan, "Loose Lips Sink Ships" is true: careless
spilling of intelligence is a dangerous thing. But it's equally true
that knowledge and information -- *properly* exchanged -- can save
lives.

So, yes, catastrophic disasters have occurred because of failure to
share information. In addition, these stories are quietly echoed
millions of times per day in all sorts of work environments.

### Inefficiency

How much time do Federal knowledge workers and managers spend trying to
find information that is somewhere "out there?" Estimates vary, but a
ballpark figure is that 10% of the workday is spent in attempting to
find information necessary to do the job.

Often searching for information is a matter of finding a person who
knows something. This is a common problem, caused by the lack of
internal understanding of "who knows what."

The cost of knowledge inefficiency is increased when we factor in work
duplication, or "reinventing the wheel." This occurs when agencies re-do
work that has been done elsewhere because they are unaware of or cannot
find work product from the earlier project.

We now anticipate Agency failure to capture the intellectual capital
that will walk out the door as each baby boomer retires will result in a
serious knowledge loss syndrome.

These inefficiencies result in a cascading set of problems:

-   Agencies fail to leverage their intellectual capital and digital
    assets.

-   It's difficult to make good decisions.

-   Response time is lengthened.

-   Effectiveness deteriorates.

-   Customer service suffers.

-   Overall performance degrades.

## Benefits of Sharing Knowledge

The benefits of knowledge management, especially in government, where
the bottom line is elusive, can be difficult to calculate. And of course
success stories are not as riveting as failures; a disaster averted is
not a front-page story. However cumulative experience and data indicate
that knowledge management creates value in most organizations.

John Seely Brown, of the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) wrote an
article in 1995 called "The People are the Company." In it he describes
how a careful study of water cooler conversation among Xerox copier
technicians revealed more than mere banter. Where a lesser observer
would have seen time-wasting inefficiency, PARC saw value. In fact, the
technicians were exchanging invaluable tips that saved the company
thousands of dollars. Instead of shutting down the conversations, the
company institutionalized them by issuing two-way radios to the copier
technicians, thus creating real value out of "mere water cooler chat."

### Cost Savings

Some of the ROI metrics that are reported for knowledge management
include:

-   Reduce time spent on information search and retrieval. This activity
    occupies a large percentage of knowledge workers' time.

-   Reduce time to locate "experts." Expert Locators or "organizational
    yellow pages" are well-established as basic knowledge management
    services.

-   Avoidance of work duplication. By sharing knowledge we begin to stop
    "reinventing the wheel."

### Quality and Value Enhancements

When Agencies are able to effectively leverage their intellectual
capital and digital assets this promotes a productive, value-enhancing
environment:

-   Agency managers make better decisions.

-   Agencies respond more quickly and effectively to mission change.

-   They provide improved customer service.

## Lessons Learned of the Present Administration 

Observations of the present administration are instructive of the
effects of the failure to share knowledge.

-   The botched response to Hurricane Katrina can be seen as a failure
    to share and utilize knowledge gained in the precious initial days
    of the disaster. Information on residents' conditions was available
    but did not penetrate to the proper levels of the Government's task
    response force.

-   The build-up to Iraq was marked, notoriously, by failures in the
    gathering, sharing, and analysis of Iraqi weapons data.

And the dysfunctions continue. In an article that appeared in the *New
York Times* on 30 April, 2008, Eric Lichtblau writes:

Nearly 20 months after the Sept. 11 attacks, many federal agencies are
still failing to share critical information about terrorist suspects
with other agencies because of both cultural and technological barriers,
officials said today.

Two new reports, one from government investigators and another by a
police executive association, spotlight the challenges and potential
pitfalls that the federal authorities face in developing workable
systems to share intelligence on terrorist threats.

Officials said they believed they had made clear progress to prevent the
types of communication breakdowns that preceded the Sept. 11 attacks.
But in a report to be released Wednesday, the General Accounting Office,
the investigative arm of Congress, concludes that the goals set by the
Bush administration and Congress last year to promote the sharing of
terrorist information remain largely unmet.

The current Bush administration has been widely criticized for adhering
to a culture that closes off discourse and shuts down opposing voices.
It is perhaps indicative of the administration's attitudes toward
knowledge sharing and openness that "knowledge management" failed to
make the cut when the final version of the President's Management Agenda
was published in 2001.

It is difficult, sometimes, to talk about attitudes and culture because
questions of open public discourse shade quickly into values, ethics and
the question of trust. When politics is mixed in, the waters become even
muddier.

But the complexity of the issue should not -- and shall not \-- prevent
our attempt to confront it. We can certainly agree that the problem is
no more complex and intractable than such problems as racism and gender
discrimination. Seen in this light, the need to trust as a means towards
open knowledge sharing seems achievable. And it must be achieved, for
make no mistake: the base condition for an open, knowledge-sharing
culture is mutual trust. Few organizations, and fewer governments, have
a culture of trust, so it is no wonder that knowledge refuses to flow
freely in these places.

Isn't the trust of the populace the most precious asset any Government
has? Without trust, even currency loses its value. We have seen the
corrosive effects on our national dialogue of a pugnacious, "so what?"
stance of current leaders who refuse to countenance divergent opinion.

We are all Americans, and we deserve a Government that is conversant
with its own doings and knowledge, and united by the principles that
forged our foundations as a nation. Federal workers should be willing to
place these values above political norms while in Government service.
This is the ultimate rationale of knowledge sharing in the Federal
Government -- one America, united for the greater good of all.

## Critical Knowledge Issues in Government 

### No Centralized Resource for Knowledge Management

Although most Federal Agencies have some knowledge management
activities, there is no centralized Federal resource for knowledge
management. There is no Government sponsored support function for
knowledge management. There is no clearinghouse for data on extant
activities, no library of best practices, and no consultation available.

(Note: The Office of Personnel Management / OPM has a webpage on
training containing exactly two references to Knowledge Management --
one points to the Center for Army Lessons Learned and the other refers
to KM.gov, website of the Federal KM Working Group, sponsor of this
paper. Even a cursory effort would have produced dozens of additional
references.)

This means that when Federal managers look for government-oriented
support and advice on knowledge management, they have nowhere to turn
but sources external to government such as private sector and academic
organizations. (The Federal KM Working Group, sponsor of the Committee
for a Federal KM Initiative, authors of this paper, includes many
working KM professionals, but does not have the ability to provide
services or support.)

No wonder the knowledge management efforts underway have been sporadic
and uncoordinated.

This lack of centralized resources and coordination results in a number
of gaps:

-   No Policy or Standards for Knowledge Management

-   Inconsistent Knowledge Sharing Practices

-   Insufficient Attention to the Knowledge Retention Crisis

-   Gaps in Federal Worker Knowledge Competencies

### No Policy or Standards for Knowledge Management

Federal Agencies are accustomed to compliance with specific policy and
standards. In the absence of explicit policy, managers are justified in
making up their own or simply ignoring recommendations as "more of a
guideline than a rule."

When leaders have made recommendations without going to the full extent
of crafting policy and standards, this can be seen as a half-hearted
attempt to pay "lip service" to an issue without fully committing. This
is the current status of knowledge management in the Federal government
today.

Knowledge Management and knowledge sharing are now so demonstrably
critical to the functioning of the Federal government that the time has
long past for a weak-kneed, half-hearted response. We must enact policy,
create flexible standards, and support solid performance in all of our
agencies.

### Inconsistent Knowledge Sharing Practices 

Knowledge Management practices should be tailored to each organization
according to its needs. However, most organizations benefit from
adopting a consistent toolset. Few Federal Agencies (let alone the
Federal Government as a whole) have standard practices around knowledge
or information sharing. Creating a standard toolset will save money and
create efficiencies of scale. In addition, when workers transfer between
or within agencies, there will be easier transfer of skills and of
work-product. Finally, instilling some consistency will help to enable
cross boundary sharing of knowledge.

### The Knowledge Retention Crisis

The Baby Boom generation is now edging towards full retirement. This
group -- the largest demographic segment of the American work force by
far -- will leave a vacuum of skills and manpower in its wake when it
exits the ranks of the employed. In the Federal workplace, their exodus
will leave enormous skill gaps. For more information on Knowledge
Retention and the "brain drain", see this section: [Knowledge
Retention](#knowledge-retention).

### Gaps in Federal Worker Knowledge Competencies 

The vast majority of Federal workers are "knowledge workers." Knowledge
management and sharing are skills that can be learned. There are right
ways and wrong ways to request information and share knowledge in teams.
In order to embed knowledge sharing in organizations, conscious effort
must be devoted to workplace learning of KM competencies. For more
information on knowledge work and knowledge worker competencies, see the
section below: [Knowledge Work and Knowledge
Workers](#knowledge-work-and-knowledge-workers).

# Part 2: Federal KM Initiative Action Plan 

The Federal KM Initiative Committee proposes several actions be taken.
As mentioned above, the Committee is an organ of the Federal Knowledge
Management Working Group. This group comprises Federal and private
sector knowledge management practitioners with an interest in making
knowledge management work in US Government. We stand ready to support
each one of these objectives. The signature page following the prefatory
letter contains the names of others who have agreed that these actions
make sense.

## Create a Federal Knowledge Management Center

In order to provide a consistent, coordinated effort towards the goal of
instilling knowledge management in government, we recommend the creation
of a "Federal Knowledge Management Center." This Center will provide
expert consultative support for knowledge management efforts across the
Federal Government.

In addition, the Center will oversee the creation of standards and
practices for knowledge management across government. The Federal KM
Center will have several responsibilities.

-   Help Build a Knowledge Sharing Culture in the Federal Government

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Develop and Promulgate KM Policies, Standards and Practices

-   Develop and Disseminate Knowledge Retention Programs

-   Create a Web Presence and Demonstration Site

-   Train Federal Workers in Knowledge Management Competencies

## Help Build a Knowledge Sharing Culture in the Federal Government 

Above, we discussed the important "people part" of knowledge management,
and noted that it is largely about attitude. The reader may feel that
building a "knowledge sharing culture" is a Quixotic, idealistic dream
without much chance of success. True, the Federal Government -- like
much of the world -- is not always an open, trusting place. So the task
is hard work -- very hard \-- but knowledge management professionals
have researched this issue a great deal, and there are several specific
methods we can use to work this issue.

1.  **Leadership Support.** When influential Federal government leaders
    espouse the notion of knowledge sharing \-- not just put their
    signatures on a dry memo, but also speak out loud -- the Federal
    government culture will be positively affected. Culture is top-down.

2.  **Explicit Policy.** When policy is published, that is a sure sign
    that government leaders are collectively serious. Until policy is in
    effect, Federal workers can blithely say, "It's more of a guideline
    than a rule," and ignore the need.

3.  **Proactive Support and Consultation.** The many millions of dollars
    spent in support of Federal information systems have resulted in an
    effective network of computer systems to rival any in the world.
    However management of the "water" that flows through these pipes has
    been neglected. Below we outline several methods for providing
    proactive support and consultation to agency personnel towards the
    goal of establishing knowledge sharing.

4.  **Proactive Support for KM Competency Training.** We must ensure
    that Federal workers have the skills and competencies to perform
    their jobs in compliance with KM policies and standards. Competence
    in KM skills will bring a deeper understanding and appreciation of
    the value of knowledge sharing, which in turn supports culture
    change.

5.  **Build Awareness.** Since knowledge management is a new discipline,
    it is not well understood. Few Federal staffers are aware of the
    basic messages of this document. To remedy that, a basic awareness
    campaign will be carried out in all parts of the Federal Government.

## Develop and Promulgate KM Policies, Standards and Practices

### Policies 

In Federal agencies and military organizations, one of the first
experiences of a new staffer is the mandatory Information Assurance
briefing. This is given by the Security or Information Assurance
Officer, and emphasizes -- among other things \-- the dangers of
indiscriminately sharing information.

At no point, however, do Federal staffers receive a counterbalancing
briefing about when and how to share information properly. There is no
reason to perform this brief, because there is no policy or standard
that requires it.

Part of the work of the Federal KM Center should be to draft policy for
knowledge sharing. These policies will define under what circumstances,
with whom, and how Federal workers should share knowledge. These
policies will be drafted by the Federal KM Center, and submitted to the
sponsoring entity for approval.

### Standards

The policy should incorporate minimum standards for several aspects of
knowledge management implementation. For example, Knowledge Management
learning and competency standards should be set and made part of the
career roadmap for Federal workers so that all Federal workers become
highly competent knowledge workers. Standards should set expectations
for agencies around what types of knowledge management programs should
be set in place.

### Practices

Knowledge Management comprises a large and diverse toolset of practices
allowing great variation in implementations. Certainly different
agencies may adopt tailored approaches due to their specific areas of
interest and work. But why should all agencies reinvent the wheel,
developing their own idiosyncratic approaches in isolation? For reasons
of economy and effectiveness, there is value in a library of Best
Practices. Accordingly, the Federal KM Center will collect, develop,
publish and disseminate information on effective KM practices
specifically geared to Federal Government.

## Develop and Disseminate Knowledge Retention Programs

Knowledge Retention programs comprise a subset of the practices toolset.
Knowledge retention is the collection of practices and tools aimed at
offsetting the "brain drain" caused by the retirement of the Baby Boom
generation. We highlight this because this issue may become critically
important to the continued viability of many of our Agencies in the near
term.

## Train Federal Workers in Knowledge Management Competencies 

Knowledge Management and knowledge work require skills that anyone can
learn. These skills and competencies provide enhanced efficiency, as
well as supporting knowledge sharing. Competence in KM skills also
brings deeper understanding and appreciation of the value of knowledge
sharing, which in turn supports culture change.

## Build Awareness 

Although the root concepts and many of the practices in Knowledge
Management are hardly new, its name and identity as a professional
discipline are recent, their inception dating to the 1990-95 time
period. As a new discipline, it has had to survive the challenges that
confront any emergent management practice.

KM has had to show longevity, to prove that it is not a fleeting
business fashion or fad. (E.g., "process reengineering" or "total
quality management.") KM has had to demonstrate its value to
organizations. KM has had to develop a coherent body of academic and
professional knowledge, a new paradigm of study and practice.

In addition, KM practitioners have had to combat confusion caused when
software product vendors and service companies rushed to capitalize on
the initial wave of knowledge management popularity. In their eagerness
to profit on the "flavor of the month," they rebadged their products
with the phrase "knowledge management." The confusion was exacerbated by
the rise of the Internet and the irrational investor exuberance of the
brief "dot com" era. In those days, it was difficult to make sense of
the vast number of new services, products and technologies. This caused
great misunderstanding and KM was often caught in the crossfire.

Today, Knowledge Management has met these challenges and has emerged as
a reference discipline, albeit one that is still developing. But
confusion and lack of awareness still plague the discipline, as one
would expect in a practice merely 10-15 years old.

Therefore the Federal KM Center will undertake an Awareness Campaign
around knowledge management and the benefits of knowledge sharing. In
addition to standard items such as posters and newsletters, we
anticipate exciting, proactive knowledge sharing events in appropriate
venues. Of course a web presence is a key factor:

### Create a Web Presence and Demonstration Site

The Federal KM Center should create a comprehensive web site to support
its activities. The web site will be an awareness tool and a
distribution point for content. In addition it will provide a
demonstration site for web services useful to KM, such as blogs, wikis,
and social networks.

# Conclusions 

In **Part 1: The Federal Knowledge Management Imperative**, we discussed
the reasons why Knowledge Management programs are critically important
for the Federal government. These cluster into two main points:

1.  **Avoid dangerous knowledge gaps**. We have noted that knowledge
    gaps have been responsible for some of the greatest disasters of our
    time. The thought of another 9/11 or botched Katrina-type response
    should be enough motivate us.

2.  **Improve efficiency**. Federal workers spend an inordinate amount
    of time and resources looking for and creating information. Even a
    small reduction in that effort will provide an ample return on
    investment for this action plan.

**Part 2: Federal Knowledge Management Initiative Plan** described an
action plan, with specific recommendations. Chief among these were:

-   Create a Federal Knowledge Management Center

-   Develop and Promulgate Policy, Standards and Practices

-   Build Awareness for Knowledge Management

-   Support KM Competencies in Federal Knowledge Workers

This roadmap document began with a discussion of the "cost of not
sharing knowledge." We noted that this cost can be computed in many
ways. In calm, back office environments, the cost is tallied in FTE's,
labor hours, and dollars. In stressful situations, the cost may be paid
in human lives.

Certainly there is a dollar cost to the KM Initiative we describe.
However, considering the stakes, our question is not "Can we afford to
do this?"

It is, rather, "Can we afford *not* to?"

# Appendix: Introduction to Knowledge Management 

Knowledge Management is a set of management practices which has been
recently forged out of the combination of organization studies,
information science and management practice. While Knowledge Management
is still new as a reference discipline, it has already established a
formal position in the worlds of management and academia. Academic
programs have been created that focus on KM. Many doctorates have been
earned in Knowledge Management. Predictions of money spent on "Federal
KM" programs are in the billions, although the bulk of that money goes
to systems rather than services.

Several important concepts and capabilities have contributed to, and
emerged out of, Knowledge Management. Understanding these is critical to
understanding the discipline. Below is a very brief overview of the
field.

## Knowledge Work and Knowledge Workers

Peter Drucker wrote several books and papers, starting with his 1954
study of General Motors, in which he introduced and developed the idea
of the "knowledge worker." Knowledge workers (obviously) primarily work
with knowledge and information rather than their hands. Today we
recognize that most workers in the "knowledge economy" are knowledge
workers, and distinguish different types of knowledge work.

## Personal or "Tacit" Knowledge versus "Explicit" Knowledge

Scientist and philosopher Michael Polanyi developed the important theme
of "personal" or "tacit" knowledge, which was taken up by later
knowledge management theorists, principally Nonaka. The basic process in
knowledge management is the conversion of "tacit" (personal) to
"explicit" knowledge such as documents and directives. This can be seen
as the development of useful or transferable knowledge products (e.g.,
documents and computer files).

Although the basis of KM is this "tacit -- explicit" distinction,
knowledge management practitioners are not preoccupied by questions of
the philosophy of knowledge (or "epistemology"). KM consultants will
sometimes short-circuit long conversations about this topic with a
common phrase in KM -- "Call it Fred." In other words, philosophy is not
necessary to reach a practical KM solution.

## Communities of Practice 

Probably the oldest form of knowledge transfer is learning by
observation, such as when an apprentice learns from a more experienced
worker. (The Army's "Right Hand Ride" is an interesting example of this
kind of learning.) Etienne Wenger, one of the first to write about
"communities of practice," began his work by looking at this type of
learning. He realized that the knowledge exchanges of apprentice and
master are often embedded in a larger group (such as a craft guild or
professional group) which he dubbed "community of practice."

A community of practice (COP) is a group of people who share a common
interest in one area of knowledge. The community allows the less
experienced members to learn, while the more experienced impart
knowledge and gain in expertise. Theorists Etienne Wenger and Hubert St.
Onge, among many others, discuss COPs as an ancient, naturally occurring
group phenomenon which can be harnessed by organizations.

## Teams, Collaboration and Virtual Collaboration 

Like communities of practice, teams predate formal knowledge management
theory by thousands of years. The idea of teamwork is deeply embedded in
human experience. Early man must have observed animals hunting in packs
and learned about "strength in numbers." The true strength of a team
lies in "collaboration," or exchange of knowledge and resources to
better apportion effort.

With virtual (online) systems, we now have the capabilities of "virtual
collaboration," "virtual communities" and even "virtual organizations."
These distributed networks are a staple knowledge management interest.

A related area of interest is "*social networks*." *Social Network
Analysis* is a sociological methodology that now has become an
interesting addition to the KM toolset. It maps the relationships and
exchanges of various members of a group.

Wikis are one important tool for allowing group collaboration. A famous
early example is "Wikipedia," the popular online encyclopedia. Here is
the definition of a Wiki from Wikipedia itself:

A **wiki** is a collection of [web
pages](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_page) designed to enable anyone
who accesses it to contribute or modify content, using a simplified
[markup
language](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markup_language)^[\[1\]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki#cite_note-0%23cite_note-0)[\[2\]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki#cite_note-Britannica-1%23cite_note-Britannica-1)^.
Wikis are often used to create
[collaborative](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaboration)
[websites](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Website) and to power community
websites. For example, the collaborative encyclopedia
[Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia) is one of the best
known
wikis.[^\[2\]^](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki#cite_note-Britannica-1%23cite_note-Britannica-1)
Wikis are used in businesses to provide affordable and effective
[intranets](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intranet) and for [Knowledge
Management](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Management). [Ward
Cunningham](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Cunningham), developer of
the first [wiki software](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki_software),
[WikiWikiWeb](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiWikiWeb), originally
described it as \"the simplest online database that could possibly
work\".^[\[3\]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki#cite_note-2%23cite_note-2)\ (Source:\ Wikipedia)^

## Organizational Learning & Learning Organizations

Simple learning is called "single loop learning." People have the
ability to reflect on learned experience and modify future behavior
based on that reflection. This is called "double loop learning."
Organizational learning is the capability of organizations to perform
"double loop learning," to learn from experience as a collective.

A "Learning Organization" is one that has developed the values, habits
and skills to perform this "double loop learning," and is capable of
learning from experience as a collective. The central activity in
organizational learning is using open communication to share feedback on
experience. Lessons Learned, After Action Reviews and Best Practices are
all examples of organizational learning in practice.

## Conversation and Dialogue 

Most organizational knowledge transfer occurs not in official meetings
but in ad hoc, informal conversation -- "water cooler chat." Knowledge
management recognizes the supreme importance of "mere" conversation to
the organization. John Seely Brown, in his seminal article "The People
are The Company," reflected on the value that water cooler chat had for
Xerox photocopier repairmen. When the company finally realized how much
value was created in informal talk, they gave the repairmen
radiotelephones to enable constant, real time, communication, saving
thousands of dollars in effort.

Similarly, KM studies have recognized that informal, non-hierarchical
structures exist within the formal hierarchies of every organization.
Often enough, the "real work" actually happens in the "white space" of
the organizational chart. It is important for strictly hierarchical
organizations like the Army to understand that strict hierarchy has
benefits and drawbacks. The drawbacks include impeding some ad hoc
communication channels, which often can be mission critical.

"Dialogue" sessions can elevate talk to a more formal and productive
tool for knowledge creation. An important element of KM is the
restoration of respect for the individual's voice and contribution. KM
principles champion the value of the individual, and the realization
that we cannot really separate the person from their "personal
knowledge." In a sense, the most valuable knowledge is personal and
local.

Dialogue differs from normal conversation because it, ideally,
eliminates the power dynamics and dysfunctions of ego-related problems
in normal talk. These problems result in group phenomena such as "group
think." These phenomena can result in restricting and warping of the
data that is input into an important decision process. These discourse
dysfunctions have been blamed for such disastrous decisions as the Bay
of Pigs and the Challenger disaster.

## Knowledge Retention

Above, we discussed the difference between tacit (or personal) and
explicit knowledge. In reality, organizations run mostly with "tacit"
knowledge, in this sense: Most staffers do not consult manuals or
documents when they do their job. They operate "by the seat of their
pants," making decisions as they go along based primarily on tacit
knowledge. When they go down in the elevator in the evening and leave
the building, their knowledge is gone from the organization, precisely
because it is tacit and not explicit, codified or widely shared.

What happens when a staffer retires after many years of employment?
Unless some action has been taken to convert and transfer that worker's
knowledge to a successor, it is simply gone. The result is a costly and
time-consuming period of re-adjustment, during which a new staffer must
re-acquire the same knowledge once again.

A one-time CEO of Hewlett Packard said, "If only HP knew what HP knows."
His point was that a wealth of knowledge resided in the brains of the
company workers, but no one could obtain or retain that knowledge.
Knowledge retention programs are aimed at meeting that requirement.

## Knowledge Enabling of Work 

Closely related to the knowledge retention concept is that of embedding
knowledge, or "knowledge enabling," work processes. Embedded knowledge
is a bit like a shop-floor sign that provides important instructions
near a complicated machine. Most government offices have no complicated
machines, other than our computers and photocopiers. Instead, we have
complicated work processes. Yet, it is possible to "post signs" that
provide performance support, metaphorically speaking. Embedding
knowledge is the process of "packaging" important contextual knowledge
documents together, or providing pointers, so that knowledge workers
have access to all the information they need to do the job at each step
of a complex process. This helps reduce time locating information
necessary to do a job.

## Change Management and Organizational Culture 

The most important element of a knowledge management program is the
"people" part. The prevailing norms and values of an organization are
part of the *Organizational Culture*, or *Climate*. Culture is critical
to KM because few will share knowledge if they believe they might be
harmed or no benefit will come to them.

Many -- probably most \-- organizational cultures are not conducive to
knowledge sharing for various reasons: They may be stovepiped, have low
internal trust, or are highly competitive. Whatever the reasons, the
knowledge-sharing culture must be assessed and modified to nurture a
culture of collaboration.

The difficult process of enacting organizational change is called
*Change Management*. Change Management is accomplished primarily via
communications, training, and management (leadership) participation.

## Differentiating Knowledge Management and Information Sciences

Because many knowledge management programs depend on the use of IT
systems, and because of the obvious connection between "information" and
knowledge, the KM function is often located in IT divisions and
associated with information sciences. Experience has shown that these
are seldom highly productive relationships, for various reasons.

1.  Culture change is not a focus of information sciences. Information
    sciences do focus on a related issue -- user acceptance -- somewhat
    akin to Knowledge Management change efforts. However, user
    acceptance is more centered on requirements analysis and
    development.

2.  Knowledge Management relies on a top-level alignment with
    leadership, which is necessary to influence culture and tie
    knowledge management efforts to overall mission strategy and/or core
    business. As such, knowledge management is not really a "support
    function," although it has been positioned that way in many
    organizations, with predictably dismal results.

3.  KM certainly is an "umbrella discipline" that potentially serves and
    supports all parts of the organization. Accordingly KM appears to
    thrive best when it is allowed to work autonomously at a high level.

4.  Because of its efforts to affect the power dynamics of truth-telling
    and discourse in organizations, there is a value driven component to
    KM which is difficult to reconcile with traditional personnel or IT
    shops. Therefore it does best in a standalone mode.

In summary, although KM champions the full use of IT systems it insists
that the real concern is the content and exchanges that occur within
those systems rather than the technological features of the particular
systems.

Knowledge Management is about people first, and tools second.

# Resources for Further Reading:

## Introductory works, suitable for the general public: 

Brown, J. and Duguid, P. 2000. The Social Life of Information. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.

Dalkir, K. 2005. Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice.
Burlington: Elsevier.

Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C. 1994. Competing for the Future. Boston:
Harvard Business Schools Press.

O'Dell, C. and Grayson, C 1998. If Only We Knew What We Know. New York:
The Free Press.

Tannen, D. 1998. The Argument Culture: Moving from Debate to Dialogue.
New York: Random House.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R. and Snyder, W. 2002. Cultivating Communities
of Practice: a Guide to Managing Knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business
School Publishing.

## Specialized Works, essential for specialists: 

Argyris, C. 1992. Knowledge for Action: A guide for overcoming barriers
to organizational change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Argyris, C. and Schon, D. 1978. Organizational Learning: A Theory of
Action Approach. Reading: Addison Wesley.

Bell, D. The Coming of Post-Industrial Society. New York: Basic Books.
1973.

Cross, R and Parker, A. 2004. The Hidden Power of Social Networks:
Understanding How Work Really Gets Done in Organizations. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.

Davenport, T. and Prusak, L. 1998. Working Knowledge: How Organizations
Manage What They Know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Davenport, T. 2005. Thinking for a Living: How to Get Better Performance
and Results from Knowledge Workers. Boston: Harvard Business School
Press.

De Geus, A. 1997. The Living Company: Habits for survival in a turbulent
business environment. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Drucker, P. 1993. The Post-Capitalist Society. New York: Harper
Business/Harper Collins Publisher.

Edvinsson, L. and Malone, M. 1997. Intellectual Capital: Realizing Your
Company's True Value by Finding Its Hidden Brainpower. New York: Harper
Business.

Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. 1992. The Balanced Scorecard \-- Measures that
Drive Performance. Harvard Business Review. Jan.-Feb. 71-79.

Leonard-Barton, D. 1995. Wellsprings of Knowledge. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.

Liebowitz, J. 2004. Addressing the Human Capital Crisis in the Federal
Government: A Knowledge Management Perspective. Burlington:
Butterworth-Heinemann. Machlup, F. 1962. The Production and Distribution
of Knowledge in the US. Princeton. Princeton University Press.

Mintzberg, H. 1973. The Nature of Managerial Work. New York: Harper &
Row, Publishers.

Nonaka, I, and Takeuchi, H. 1995. The Knowledge-Creating Company: How
Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Nonaka, I. 1994. A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation.
Organization Science. 51:24-38.

Polanyi M. 1962. Personal Knowledge Toward a Post-Critical Philosophy.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Polanyi M. 1966. The Tacit Dimension. New York: Doubleday.

Prahalad, C. and Hamel, G. 1990. The Core Competence of the Corporation.
Harvard Business Review. May-June. 79-91.

Prusak, L. 1999. Where did Knowledge Management come from? Knowledge
Directions, The Journal of the Institute for Knowledge Management.
Fall(1):90-96.

Rogers, E. 1995. Diffusion of Innovation. New York: Free Press.

Schein, E. 1985. Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Schein, E. 1996. Three Cultures of Management: The key to organizational
learning. Sloan Management Review. Fall. 9-20.

Schein, E. 1996b. Culture: The missing concept in organization studies.
Administrative Science Quarterly. 41:229-240.

Schon, D. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in
Action. London: Maraca Temple Smith.

Senge, P. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning
Organization. New York: Doubleday.

Stewart, T. 1997. Intellectual Capital; How The Knowledge Economy Is
Creating New Challenges For Corporations & New Opportunities For The
People Who Work For Them. New York: Doubleday.

Stewart, T. 1994. Your Company\'s Most Valuable Asset: Intellectual
Capital. Fortune, October, 6.

Sveiby, K. 1997. The New Organizational Wealth: Managing and Measuring
Knowledge- Based Assets. San Francisco: Berrett Koehler.

Von Krogh, G. and Roos, J. 1996. Managing Knowledge: Perspectives on
Cooperation and Competition. (eds.) London: Thousand Oaks.

Weick, K. 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publication.

Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and
identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wiig, K. 1993. Knowledge Management Foundations: Thinking about thinking
how people and organizations represent, create, and use knowledge.
Arlington: Schema Press.