Thinking I’ll make my last guest post on this blog, well, a mysterious one.😁

The ABC Murders and the ABC of KM. The idea is to scare you out of your wits. You’re about to discover the hidden links between murders and KM. After all, K might as well stand for Kill and M for Murder. You never thought about it that way, did you?

Seriously speaking, this post is about the links I noticed between some incidents in an Agatha Christie mystery and the concepts of KM. This is a mystery called “The ABC Murders”. It is the story of a ‘mad’ man out to kill random people in random places but based on the logic of alphabets. (Example: Kill a person whose name starts with an A in a place whose name starts with an A and then move on to B…etc). Gory, I admit! I’d like you to know that I really wouldn’t be talking about this if not for the fact that it has something to do with KM.

The ABC Murders is a Hercule Poirot story for those of you who are familiar with Agatha Christie’s novels. The murderer throws Hercule Poirot (the detective) an anonymous challenge and believes that it’s going to be really difficult for the detective to identify him as the murders are random and unrelated. The crux of the story is about how Poirot ties all the random threads together (arising from four murders), finds the commonalities and tracks down the murderer before the latter goes on to kill his next victim.

There is a wonderful link between this detective novel and KM. Some of the statements made by Poirot reflect the fundamentals of KM extremely well (conversations, collective thinking and so forth). Had me wondering about the title – It is an interesting coincidence that the title talks of ‘ABC Murders’ and happens to cover some of the ABCs (basics) of KM…!

Let’s get down to the actual examples now. Poirot brings together the relatives and friends of the victims even though they are all unrelated and in different locations. And in the discussion that ensues, some of the dialogues are just what a KMer (or Knowledge Manager) would love to propagate. It brings to light the fact that the smallest unit of knowledge is a conversation, it reflects on the importance of repeated conversations, it points out the importance of collective thinking and what not! Sample this:

1. Poirot intends to have repeated conversations with the victims’ relatives and friends. His assistant asks him if he suspects that they (the victims’ relatives) have intentionally been keeping back information from them and Poirot says “Not intentionally. But telling everything you know always implies SELECTION. One cannot tell EVERYTHING. Therefore one selects. At the time of the murder people select what they think is important. But quite frequently they are wrong! And to get at the right things, you have to have a conversation…discuss a certain happening over and over again. Extra details are bound to arise….some trivial remark or happening may be a pointer.” (This is an example of where and how knowledge may be hidden…!)

2. In another instance, Poirot, once again, brings together all the relatives and friends of the victims and urges them to talk about what they saw/heard/thought etc as a group. He says “It is necessary to pool reminiscences, to compare notes, to talk the thing over – to talk – to talk – and again to talk. Out of some innocent phrase may come some enlightenment.” (This is a clear indication of the need for collective thinking. More importantly, I think it tells us very clearly that if we are looking for worthwhile knowledge, we better be comfortable with conversations…many of them!)

3. Poirot explains to his assistant that when it comes to the deriving knowledge from people who can help him get to the truth he assumes that they “know something that they do not know they know“. He then explains how collective thinking would be of use to the victims’ friends – “It is like a jig-saw puzzle – each of you may have a piece apparently without meaning, but which when reunited may show a definite portion of the picture as a whole“. (Wow! This philosophy is one of the most fundamental of beliefs when it comes to KM as well…not just in locating murderers. 😉

So there! It resonates a lot with the fundamental concepts of KM! Doesn’t it?

***************************************************

I’d like to once again thank CE for the opportunity to guest-blog. I hope I made good use of it and shared some interesting thoughts and information. In case you want to continue to read my other ramblings (on KM and topics outside of it) please visit my blog at http://nirmala-km.blogspot.com and do leave your comments whenever you find the time. Thanks for reading.

Based on my past experiences with various organizations and general observations of how KM is pursued by them, I have come up with a sample set of strategies that are likely to be adopted. Let me know if this strikes a chord and what you think about such approaches!

I’d, a few weeks back, written an article on the typical things that an organization could do to ensure that its CKO fits in and delivers quickly. Thought I’d share it on the Cognitive Edge blog as well as it seems to have struck a chord amongst some peers and most of this blog’s readers are perhaps here for thoughts and inputs on KM.

I think any organization looking for a KM Head or a CKO (for the first time) needs to ask itself a few important questions before it spends time and energy on hunting for, interviewing and negotiating with potential candidates. Even if the answer to one of these questions is a ‘No’ or ‘Not Sure’, I’d simply suggest that they go back to the whiteboard and introspect/reconsider whether they really need a serious and passionate KMer to spend all her time in attempting to set up a KM ecosystem in an environment that may possibly turn completely hostile, ineffective, cynical, or uncooperative.

Being a person who claims KM to be her core competence, I’d hardly be expected to recommend such an option (that of not employing a full-time KMer). But, seriously speaking, this is reality – some organizations are simply not ready for KM and might as well postpone or redesign their KM plans based on their internal situation and capabilities. So, if they don’t answer in the affirmative to some of these questions (hold on, they are coming) and conclude that they don’t really need a full-time KMer immediately, what do they do? I’m not suggesting they ignore KM altogether but what I believe is that they could as well get one of their interested Management Representatives (from another function/domain) to take up the additional (and temporary) role of a KM Lead and spend perhaps 10 to 20 % of his time on KM related activities. Till they get some basic things right. The world becomes a happier place this way. I exaggerate. (There are considerable drawbacks to employing a part-time KM Lead whose core competence lies elsewhere – May lead to short-term thinking, biased planning and implementation, incomplete perspectives, to think of a few things)

Getting down to the heart of the post, what are the questions that organizations must answer to help them realize what they really want with re. to KM?

1. Are we sure of the structure for the KM team? More importantly, where does the upward arrow for the KM Head/CKO lead to? Do we know who this person should be reporting into and WHY? Both the individual that the KM Lead will report into and the function/areas the former is responsible for must be appropriate.

2. Are we sure of setting aside a reasonable and regular budget/investment for KM? For expenses related to expertise, technology, practices, incentives, internal conferences etc? (A no-brainer of sorts but show me organizations that actually do it religiously and I’ll show you one that rocks!)

3. Do we know what we want from the KM initiative, to start with? Are we ready to build on our ideas and/or reconsider our expectations and ideas once we get the KM person on board and have detailed discussions with him?

4. Do we have a honest, somewhat reliable and collective understanding of the organizational culture, its unique qualities, its strengths and weaknesses and its potential responses to KM practices (sharing, reuse, innovation, learning, mentoring, collaboration etc) (The KM Lead would find it very useful to have a heads-up on this straight from the horse’s mouth)

5. Given that the KM person is new to our organization, do we have a concrete plan to bring him on-board, ramp up and get to know the key people who will in turn help him understand the business, culture and past experiments with re. to KM? In short, do we have a good and exhaustive induction plan for the KM Lead?

6. (Optional) Do we have a list of employees who will be of significant support to the KM initiative in their capacity as knowledge champions, idea-givers, firm supporters, domain experts, technical writers etc? Having such a list right at the beginning would accelerate the implementation of the KM initiative but this is something that could also be left to the KM Lead herself. Another associated piece of information likely to be very useful is the identification of pilot teams/groups.

I read this absolutely rollicking article on human stupidity and its implications on society a few months back and I suspect it has my attention forever and will make me link a lot of what I know with the logic that it applies. The article has flavours of social economics, psychology, human behavior and humor. A simultaneously wonderful, entertaining and thought-provoking article, in my perception. Highly recommended.

If you are wondering where I might go from here, I think there’s a link between knowledge management and the human behavior referred to in the article. Caveat: The rest of this post may not make sense unless you read the article first.

I think the pursuit of knowledge management is a precise and perfect example of the effort to be intelligent, relating to the Intelligence block in the article – as opposed to the other three blocks called H (Helpless), B (Bandit) and S (Stupid) – because it is about yielding a gain to yourself while causing a gain to others as well. Both Knowledge Management as well as Intelligence (as referred to in this article), are after all, about a combination of sharing and learning or collaborating (working together to achieve something).

At the risk of sounding somewhat obsessed with knowledge and being idealistic, pursuing Knowledge Management in its truest sense, I believe, will put us all – in due course of time – in the I (Intelligent) block and help the organization/society as a whole (even though sometimes it may seem like we are in the H (Helpless) block when we come across some Bandits who only want to use our material but not share anything that they may have created or discovered). Positive thinking will lead us to perhaps converting the “Bandits” and “Helpless” into “Intelligent” people who are always looking for a win-win situation.

Back to the ICKM conference sessions again, one of the presentations I attended was by Strategic Knowledge Solutions. The session revolved largely around processes for KM. A graph based on a study conducted by the organization indicated that most of the issues related to KM are actually to do with the processes rather than the culture or technology. That, to me, was an interesting take. Even though typical consulting organizations tend to focus on processes rather than the culture, I thought it was good to see them point to some fundamental business/HR processes that most organizations don’t even realize are related to KM.

I had to smile to myself when I saw that the top reason identified as a KM gap was Infrastructure. Fundamental, obvious and essential and yet a gap in some organizations. What it indicates, to my mind, is not that there is a lack of awareness when it comes to providing the necessary infrastructure but that there is no commitment to set-up the infrastructure, which obviously points to a more important underlying gap.

The other gaps that I personally found to be interesting in the list shared by Strategic Knowledge Solutions were: (The sentences in parenthesis are my additions)

1. Processes (There is no attempt to understand and address the knowledge intensive business or operational processes)

2. Succession Planning (This has been one of my pet peeves in terms of areas not addressed from the KM perspective by organizations)

3. No common operational picture (Interesting. Maybe not so achievable)

4. On-boarding (To my knowledge, quite a few organizations have been looking at this area)

5. Job Transitioning Continuity (I think this is another area that many organizations are catching up with)

If there are any other interesting processes that you think are obviously related to KM and need to be added to this list, please do share your experiences!

Being a music aficionado, I enjoy watching music-based talent reality shows. Apart from enjoying the overdose of music and being amused by some of the occasional drama therein, what I really am in awe of is that most of the participants demonstrate radical improvement and phenomenal growth over a period of few/many months.

I think it’s a great thing to genuinely identify, nurture and showcase talent to the world. It is true that most of the participants are already worth a lot but even diamonds need to be polished! As these thoughts sank in, it suddenly occurred to me that there must be something – actually, a lot – that organizations can learn from these shows about training, learning, induction and ramping up. I am not too familiar with international talent reality shows but I’d like to believe most of these points are universally valid.

I think the top reasons why talent reality shows manage to help their participants achieve exceptional growth are:

1. Mentoring and Training: Most reality shows engage full-time mentors and judges who spend a significant amount of energy on mentoring and training the participants. When organizations hire new employees, how serious are they about assigning appropriate mentors and monitoring their efforts?

2. Regular Practice/Focus (weekly, daily): Most talent shows involve daily or at least weekly practice, rehearsals and live performances which results in obvious improvements in participants’ skill levels. How much of relevant hands on ‘practice’ do new employees get once they join an organization? Are they put on projects immediately? Do they get to work on pilot or internal projects if they are not assigned customer-facing projects?

3. Constant Feedback and Public Recognition: This is very important. I find that most talent shows spend a lot of time in giving the participants immediate, precise and clear feedback, suggestions and recognition. Sometimes this is from the judges and mentors and sometimes from the audience. I think this is an area where organizations don’t do so well. Even the annual appraisals are rarely handled the way they ought to be.

4. All Round Development: In most cases, talent shows are great platforms for the participants to be exposed to various new dimensions of their subject. Even if the participants are only good at one or two aspects of the subject under question, by the time they are through the show, they undoubtedly pick up a lot of new information and learn about other aspects of the subject. For example, in Music reality shows, participants are exposed to all genres of music which improves their confidence and contributes to all round development. How many organizations have a clear and structured plan to ensure that their employees go through projects and experiences that develop them in many spheres of work and life?

5. Inspiration via the Gurus and Achievers: Talent reality show organizers, as far as I’ve observed, make an effort to bring in popular Gurus and achievers occasionally and put the participants in front of them. This may be an effort to improve the TRP of the show, but ignoring their intentions for a moment, it is true that participants find inspiration from such an exercise. Meeting achievers can change lives at one extreme or can at least teach new employees something very critical at the other. How many organizations take this up seriously and facilitate touch-time for new employees with the ‘Stars’ and Leaders of the organization?

6. Support from Family (Boss, colleagues, mentors): Most of the participants who make it to the top are the ones with enormous support from their family. How much of support does an organization provide? What do the new employees’ manager, colleagues and mentors do to make it easy for them? Also, how much of importance is given to the employees’ families and their work-life balance as they struggle to make the transition?

7. Positive Team Dynamics: This is a versatile combination of healthy competition, team camaraderie, mutual support during all phases (low or high) and the very presence of a community of similar Talents. What could organizations do to establish such a beautiful culture and environment?

8. Fun Quotient: Every talent show worth its salt will have a prominent fun quotient. It’s hard to imagine such a show being sober all the time. There is, for example, likely to be a person or two with a sense of humor or someone who imitates others on the show and so on. In the organizational context, teams with such ‘humor glue’ characters may do much better than others.

9. Tangible Rewards or Opportunities: I am not sure if I am underrating this aspect by putting it toward the end of the list. I think an underlying growth motivator for most participants (however passionate they are about the skill itself) is the huge reward or promised opportunity at the end of the show. Is it clear or guaranteed in organizations that an employee will get a pay hike or a promotion or a wonderful project opportunity if she puts in her best?

10. Rules: To be more specific, talent shows have clearly defined rules that are however flexible in unique or unforeseen circumstances. The teams largely stick to the rules but the organizers are, I’ve observed, ready to make room for unique situations and bend the rules when required. Do organizations allow for such flexibility?

First of all, I am really glad to be offered an opportunity to guest post on the Cognitive Edge Blog for a few days. I was initially wondering if it would be difficult for me to post as I am currently traveling but it doesn’t look like I need to worry. Internet access from the Hotel is convenient and I probably shouldn’t find it difficult to pick up thoughts from the ICKM conference sessions for, at least, the initial posts.

(Conference Program – http://www.ickm-2010.org/ICKM2010Program.pdf )

One of the sessions that I attended yesterday was on SNA maps for the US security environment and was led by Deborah Swain from North Carolina University. I’ve always pondered over the use of KM concepts and techniques for social causes and looks like Deborah and her team (comprising students from the university as well as representatives from the US Homeland Security and other private and public organizations) are doing a wonderful job. They’ve, to start with, conducted various surveys and telephone interviews to identify the various entities, their presence and their connections in the context of saving and supporting people during Hurricanes (in the state of Florida.) An SNA map has been generated to visualize and represent the situation and is being shared with all the concerned entities so it would actually enable them to self-educate themselves and identify the entities that they must be collaborating with.

I am still a beginner in the field of SNA but I think this is fascinating and has a lot of potential to make the concerned entities aware and act upon what they discover through these meaningful and revealing social networks.

Also, it dawned on me that there is so much we can accomplish if Academia, Students and Public (or private) organizations collaborate to develop and implement a social support system. We can perhaps battle most of the ills that plague our society today.

Are there any examples that you’d like to share in this context?

PS: Are there any particular topics you’d like me to cover through these guest posts or do you want me to just share something I’m thinking about over the next week or so? Would be glad to feel the readers’ pulse and respond.