By Barry Vorster - 4 July 2000

Knowledge management (KM) is doomed. If we are to believe some of the latest articles and comments in the press, KM is already on its way out almost before even taking off. It has been termed a fad and a buzzword; a fad that will die an untimely death as has several of its buzzword predecessors.

So, is it true? My first reaction would be to say no. For the last few weeks I have "tuned in" to the reactions of some of my peers as part of a discussion group and gauging from their reaction, an unequivocal "no" would be too simplistic.

If KM is just another programme or project shoehorned in between several other projects because "we also have to do it", I would agree with the majority of the statements. If, on the other hand, it's a new way of viewing the way we act because it is imperative for our very existence within a new and utterly different way of doing business, I would say no.

Let me explain. If KM was just another programme propagated because everyone else was doing it, but the organisation was still carrying on as if the world still operated on the principles of an industrial economy, then it's likely that any such programme will fail.

Knowledge management as a concept, philosophy or project should be tightly intertwined with the core of any business. It is about getting your business to compete within a new type of economy, the knowledge economy - an economy where knowledge has more value than any other commodity. Knowledge management should be on the top of any CEO's list of priorities.

Although companies might employ a chief knowledge officer to take responsibility and oversee things, KM should be part and parcel of the strategic intent of every CEO and board.

Knowledge management should never be associated with buying a new piece of software or a senior executives' training exercise away from the office. It should be as closely aligned as possible to the bottom line. Organisations should only change to be able to compete within a new economy - a new way of doing business, but should always do that with real, discernible business objectives in mind.

Information age

But why the negative press? Three reasons. In the information age we are all very familiar with the concepts behind new fads and buzzwords. They have come and gone - performance consulting, business process re-engineering and quality management. Some of them have worked and some not, but if you have been around the consulting business for a few years you will have witnessed too many fads that have come and gone. In that sense a good dose of scepticism is always an advantage - I would even encourage it.

The second reason might have to do with the over-emphasis of IT within KM. Everyone has climbed onto the bandwagon, especially software companies and their partners. Information technology should be viewed as an enabler, a basic infrastructure for KM. It should never be equated with KM. As stated before, IT should probably not consume more than 30% of your total expenditure within any KM initiative.

The third reason stems from the fact that the wider acceptance of KM as a science is still in its infancy. American companies seem to be at the forefront of implementing KM initiatives or are in the process of reinventing themselves, but even they have only recently ventured into KM.

We are probably lagging by a year or two, and as such, have not really felt the need to comprehensively change ourselves into worthy competitors to compete in the new economy. Some companies might have piloted a project or tried some consulting to get a feel for what is coming, but very few have made it central to their existence. The market forces of the new economy will force us to find solutions and when that happens KM will not be a buzzword but an imperative.

Successes

In a recent IDC report it was forecast that the KM services market would grow to $10 billion by 2004. That reflects an annual compound growth rate of 51%. The assumption is that most companies are only now in the planning stage and that companies will start with small pilot programmes that will expand over time. Once successes have been recorded, many more companies will begin their own initiatives.

It is clear the IT sector initiated much of the current hype, but the hype should gradually transform into the realistic adoption of KM programmes aimed at solving real business problems. I am also in agreement with the drivers the IDC has identified as key to the adoption of KM. Most of these initiatives will be driven by e-business and the Internet, globalisation, mergers and acquisitions, and deregulation.

Adoption will also come about thanks to organisations' drive to focus on revenue and profit growth, retention of key talent and expertise, customer retention and satisfaction, the defence of market share against new entrants and lastly, by the fact that they would want to penetrate new markets segments.

Knowledge management is still an imperfect science. It is, however, one of the most important keys to be able to compete in a new knowledge-centric economy. We still have a lot to learn; hopefully we will share what we have learnt. Knowledge shared gains value; knowledge hoarded will quickly lose its value. That is probably the golden rule within a knowledge economy and the one that companies seem to have the most difficulty with.

Just ask yourself how far your own organisation is on the road to sharing knowledge and on acting to create new knowledge. Then decide whether KM is doomed or just getting out of its starting blocks.

Reprinted from ITWeb.co.za