Information Research Weblog

It is very interesting to see how the discussion on the non-existance of KM
is evolving.

However I would like to make a few nuances. The arguments why KM failed are
applicable on ALL other hypes.

1) not really understanding the issue and impact of the 'starters'/theory of
the hype
2) claims of other disciplines/domains of success
3) technology suppliers misusing the hype for commercial purpose

What is the sustaining aspect of Business Process Redesign (BPR)? The
arguments and theory were interesting but in reality a couple of consultants
come in your organisation, mess up your organisation, find out that it
doesn't work how they constructed it on the drawing table and leave. But
nowadays organisations are still changing their way of working and
re-inventing and improving their processes due to (f.e.) the economic
situation, and they always did and always will. Nothing new.

What is the sustaining aspect of Business Intelligence (BI)? Interesting
theory but in reality a database vendor comes in your organisation to sell
you a database (we will put everyting in and give you your market
intelligence and a competitive advantage, yeah sure...) and then leaves
because he cannot solve the problem (carbage in, carbage out he says). But
even now we need 'up to date' information on our performance and
intelligence on our markets and competitor's, we always did and always will,
nothing new.

What is the sustaining aspect of Customer Relationship Management (CRM)?
Interesting that if we know our customer and build a relationship we can
cross sell and up sell, but in reality a vendor or consultant comes in and
sell's you a database with a Call Center Script ("Can I help you with
something else than I just did? For example a car insurance sir?"). And
after a while we find out that real customer intimacy cannot be realized
over the phone or the internet. Putting time and effort in building and
maintaining a relationship with your customer is something that IS
important, but the grocer on the corner already does it over decades, he
always did and he always will. Nothing new.

The issue is that we can go on and on discussing whether KM failed or not,
but beleave me: it did not even exist. Like the other hypes it has been
misinterpreted, claimed by other domains and misused by technology vendors.
The reason why people don't share there knowledge is simple, because
knowledge is power and our organisational structures don't facilitate or
stimulate knowledge sharing. Managers still use the red pencil (cost
cutting) and look for short term solutions that are stimulating their
(financial) situation. Creating a knowledge friendly culture is a long term
project and is not interesting for managers and besides, it cannot be
measured (how can you measure a better solution based on more information?
what is the cost of a retired expert? what does re-inventing the wheel cost?
and so on). See how Anders Moberg is solving Ahold's (a large grocer with
heavy financial problems and some scandals in the past) problems in the
Netherlands : they lay off thousands of employees, sell companies and they
issue new shares/stocks. Quite knowledge friendly, what about our people are
our most important asset?

Why did this KM hype start? Because (a.o.):

- people are reinventing the wheel, (this is expensive and time consuming)
- our society is becoming more knowledge intensive (products are complexer,
time to market is shorter, the value of a company is no longer based on
tangibles but more intangibles)
- we have less people to do the work (ageing of the society)

The professor in the article has studied so called KM success stories, I
agree on the outcome but I really don't need a study to conclude the same.
What I would like to see is a study on companies that disappeared due to
lack of managing their intellectual assets. Any idea why March 1st
(consultancy firm, thousands of employees) went bankrupt in a couple of
months....? I think it would be interesting to see what the common
denominator is of organisations with success and companies with failues, it
might be how they handle information and create and maintain a knowledge
friendly culture and infrastructure...

After we are done arguing that knowledge management failed we will find out
that knowledge was important and it will always be, nothing new.

And on your last remark Tom, very funny, last week I was confronted with a
manager that stated: "Knowledge Management is gone, all the issues of the
hype are becoming 'common practice'". So common sense management here we
come!

Best regards to all!
Wido Bosch