The conversation continues, and I put the topic out for further discussion:
From time to time in our interactions with clients and colleagues, there appears to be a sense that some sort of collaborative vibes are at work. We see indications of some level of culture change, particularly with respect to how IT professionals and strategic knowledge professionals think about their work – and about one another – in the workplace.
So we can’t help but wonder if that so-called “great divide” between IT and the content management folks isn’t breaking down. For a couple of decades (perhaps longer) the famous and pretty well-established differences in what we do in IT and KM/knowledge services have been much talked about. Now those differences seem to breaking down and we seem (I don’t have hard-and-fast evidence for this yet) to have companies making serious and very sincere efforts to bring collaboration between IT and KM into the organizational knowledge domain. And into the corporate culture.
The old model, for me, was represented in this photograph from KenTV. I ran across it when I lived in Kenya a few years ago, and I like it because it
shows one of the natural steam pipelines in one of Kenya’s famous national parks, places where I went often to see the wildlife. To me the photograph seemed to capture very well the idea that we were hearing a lot, that IT was the medium through which developed knowledge and knowledge to be shared was transmitted, as with a pipeline, or a cable, or some other physical mechanism. Of course we all knew that wasn’t literally true, as a description for what was happening with information and knowledge. But trying to explain it that way – even when we knew it was inaccurate – seemed to make the description of our work a little easier.
It wasn’t a useful explanation, though, because it created confusion, and using the pipeline image eventually made it even harder to explain the difference between what is shared (information and knowledge) and the means used to share it (information management, including IT).
Now all that seems to be changing. Somewhere along the way, in the last three-to-five years I surmise, this difference, this awkward “separation” began to slip, and we started to hear more about the value of collaboration between technology management and knowledge management. We began to learn that there is real value in bringing in what I like to call “strategic learning,” the third element of knowledge services which, when combined with successful information management and knowledge management enables excellence in knowledge development and knowledge sharing.
And one of the best examples of this new collaboration has been the number of companies and organizations moving away from referring to their corporate intranet as such. They are using the phrase “corporate KM system” or “corporate knowledge services system” to describe this important (indeed, even essential) operational tool.
Another part of the current picture is the attention being given in technology management to strategy, to the importance of establishing a corporate technology strategy designed to ensure that decisions relating to technological requirements connect with the company’s needs and priorities and match the larger organizational business strategy. The same thing is happening – as is written about often in this space – with the development of the corporate knowledge strategy. And in many organizations the company’s knowledge strategy and its technology strategy are being developed collaboratively and simultaneously, to ensure that both link to the larger organizational business strategy.
Is it all of a piece? Are we moving (perhaps a little more slowly than some of us would like) to a management scenario in which collaboration between IT and KM/knowledge services will become “natural” as part of how we conduct business? Perhaps. Certainly there are steps in this direction, as I’ve noted here.
At SMR International we would like to hear readers’ comments and experiences about this kind of collaboration. There are also – not to put too fine a point on it – plenty of situations where such collaboration isn’t happening (but in these cases I would simply add optimistically, “not yet”).
Share with our readers your experiences with IT and KM/knowledge services collaboration. We want to learn more about what’s happening with this important topic (and if you so request, no identification or affiliation will be used – at this point we’re just interested in what you have to say).
Claro Yu at SLA’s Knowledge Management Division Group writes:
I think IT and KM collaboration is driven by the advancements in technology that have dictated our way of life. Technology has afforded convenience to knowledge sharing, especially with the availability of the internet. In my organization, teamwork and collaboration are occurring more randomly and remotely via the internet (and intranet). As a result, we rely heavily on our IT department to maintain and improve platforms. In addition, knowledge exchanges have been manifesting on web-based forums, including social media and networks such as LinkedIn, Yammer, and Facebook. To remain competitive, organizations need to determine and capture the most effective channels for KM efforts, which, in my opinion, will necessitate the collaboration between IT and KM.
Prikhodko Victor at SLA Knowledge Management Division writes:
I do think that it is critical to have collaboration between IT and KM, however, in smaller organizations, IT departments are usually understaffed and don’t have enough resources to help with KM. Until companies fully support KM with necessary funding, I think we will continue to share information on share drives and not learn from one another. Input is critical. Until you show how KM will help the bottom line, companies will continue to be in the dark ages.
Paula Cohen at SLA’s Knowledge Management Division Group writes:
Hello Guy
Interesting observation
An observation on greater collaboration among IT, Content Management, and client expectations.
From my experience with smaller firms and social sector organizations, technology implementations and the IT functions aren’t developed in a vacuum, but through discussions on client needs, size, and resources, similar to the traditional Information Interview. In thinking of the purpose of IT to provide an effective and appropriate infrastructure to support the operations and achieve organizational effectiveness, the IT strategy and plan will necessarily align with organizational mission, goals, and business strategy.
I’m observing a more holistic approach. IT is essential to a firm’s operations, and provides, among other services, a strong underpinning for information and knowledge capture, organization, and retention.
As with the other features of the enterprise that are continuously evolving, IT operations I’m familiar with are connected and responsive to their users as a collaborative unit.
Prikhodko Victor at SLA’s Knowledge Management Division Group responds:
Hello Paula
I agree that IT is essential to a firm’s operations and can provide strong underpinning for information and knowledge capture, however, if a company is working on complex products (ex. vaccine development) then IT gravitates to a supporting role within the organization. I think that if a company is to reach the level of interaction and communication you touched upon, then fear has to be driven out of the organization. IT has to cross train with other departments in order to develop further product knowledge while at the same time educate other departments about their own capabilities. Through this interaction IT can become an important part of an organization. IT can undertake more projects and evolve from performing elementary tasks such as updating computers with 3 year old Windows.
Kevin Miles at SLA’s Knowledge Management Division Group writes:
There is nothing new about Knowledge, Information, Content, Library and IT working together under one management structure. I help create a combined IT and Records Management / Library / Data Bureau for Surrey Police in 1994/5, inspired by a paper written by M. Demarco Johnson, US Dept. of Defense, entitled “Managing Information Resources at the US Federal Government”, published by the Journal of Systems Management in April, 1992. This was a pattern I successfully repeated at the Transport Research Laboratory in 2003 that continues to date.
I’ve found huge benefits in having representatives from both communities in (e.g.) regular dept. meetings, project teams, etc. as each discovers the professional status, knowledge and nature of their colleagues. This leads to greater respect and understanding for each other’s position and requirements. The great crossover occurs when IT staff understand the reasons why the technology exists – to support and facilitate the secure movement of data, information and knowledge across the organisation and between the organisation and its customers, partners and suppliers. Similarly, their I&KM colleagues seek out IT support in driving initiatives, understanding the strengths, weaknesses and possibilities offered by their IT colleagues.
Once they share a common language that fully reflects both professions, you know you have a high performing team.
The next stage of development? The EDRM.net Information Governance Reference Model (IGRM) goes further and depicts a framework for unified information governance by an organization’s leadership and key stakeholders – the “business”, IT, Records & Information Management, and Legal.
Helen Clegg at the SLA Knowledge Management Division Group writes:
Interesting discussion. I think too many organizations have jumped on the technology bandwagon when it comes to “KM” and have bought systems which don’t really match their knowledge-sharing needs. Technology is definitely necessary, and is an enabler to sharing knowledge. “KM” teams need to work out which technology their organization needs and make a case for it. However in my experience, “KM” teams usually have to go along with whatever technology the organization decides to purchase. This does not help knowledge-sharing initiatives as the technology platform may not be suitable or may need a lot of customization to make it workable.
I have put “KM” in parentheses because I don’t believe in the term. From my perspective, I think it’s more about knowledge enablement – I think our role is to enable and facilitate people to share knowledge and insight by providing the right framework, processes and tools that are easy to use. So I have stopped using the term and will be curious to see whether KE/Knowledge Enablement catches on!
Megan Prikhodko at the SLA Knowledge Management Division writes:
Hello Helen,
I think you make a great point that KM teams are often boxed in to whichever software is provided to them. I work for a small company now and have found that there are actually plenty of free resources out there that are flexible enough to accommodate a lot of KM needs. Some typical examples are Google docs and wikis, but even SurveyMonkey and PollEverywhere.com are great resources. I’d be interested to know how many organizations have started to reach out to these free options to supplement their boxed solution.