There are many methods for capturing subject matter expertise. We have some strong arguments as to the most effective methods and also on how to organize and share that expertise; however when you are talking specifically about capturing expertise from a retiring SME the methods and goals are different from those you might otherwise adopt.
A worker with potentially decades of experience has a rich history that may be worth sharing. The operative word is “may” because although there are years of experience in place, the pieces that are really worth sharing are those that can impact future performance of the enterprise.
You cannot discount years of know-how especially the type of knowledge that comes only through exposure over time, resulting not just in proficiency, but in the ability to deal with unexpected situations. Unfortunately, in our experience many retiring SMEs that have great “tribal” knowledge also have a difficult time communicating specific information that improves the way the business operates. That's because storytelling (the tribal piece), full of anecdotes, factoids and arcane internal political references is easy. Trying to tie those stories to actual performance is another matter.
Our approach is to take a retiring subject matter expert and harvest knowledge that can be specifically tied to the job processes, procedures and tasks he or she has been charged with performing. Using this approach, not only do you focus on what is relevant to performance, but you also create a menu for navigating of these so-called knowledge nuggets that you obtain from that individual.
Context is all important and without it, information cannot be applied effectively.
Showing posts with label knowledge management. Show all posts
Showing posts with label knowledge management. Show all posts
Monday, May 10, 2010
Monday, April 12, 2010
Is Your Knowledge Really Worth Capturing
Putting on my knowledge management helmet for a minute, I've been asked the following question at least a half-dozen times this week: "What knowledge should we capture in my organization?" I don't think the question stems from skepticism about "KM" (of which there is plenty and there SHOULD be), rather I think it's the size of the task that training, HR and operations folks are tasked with. If you can't figure out the answer to "what" then it's darn near impossible to figure out the right method or technology to support a project in the area. Some thoughts on information capture follow:
Determining Processes and Activities That Merit Capture
Since a business process is simply a collection of sequential, related activities that may or may impact one another, it’s often best to look at the output of a process, and the activities that comprise it to determine merit.
High Value Activities. The more value the organization places on a particular business activity, the greater the likelihood that there is value in capturing the details that surround it. Value, in the broadest sense, can be defined using several filters:
-Is the process connected to strategic activities of the business e.g. generating revenue, developing new products, manufacturing goods?
-Is the process considered a high risk activity i.e. is it costly to undertake, does the output of the activity have significant influence on other activities, if not performed will the business suffer? e.g. research and development such as drug discovery, or
-Do the inherent characteristics of the way the process or activity is executed provide the business with competitive advantage and is it proprietary in nature or viewed as a key component of the organizations intellectual property?
Scaleable Processes. The more that the organization can benefit from communicating the activity in a clear and concise way, the more important it is to share the information across the business.
-Are enough people performing the specific activity the better execution around that activity would result in a benefit to the business …because the ability to repeat and scale the way the business operates improves company performance? e.g. customer service processes. This is accentuated when those people performing the activity are geographically dispersed e.g. a retailer with 500 stores, might find great value in sharing best practices and knowledge around a relatively medium to low value processes/activities such as a store procedures manual.
Regulated or Controlled Activities. The more regulated the process or activity the greater the degree to execute with precision and oversight, the higher the likelihood of a negative impact due to poor performance.
-Is worker safety compromised? Will operations be suspended? Is there a risk of government intervention via fines, or audits? Will shareholders/financiers take punitive action?
High Churn Roles or Job Types. The greater the employee turnover or risk of knowledge loss from such turnover, the more important it is to quickly on-board, cross-train or re-train employees.
-Is process or area of your business exposed to unusually high risk of retirements or is there poor succession planning in place for the specific role type i.e. if the subject matter expert leaves, is there risk that vast amounts of institutional knowledge will leave with him? There are entire industries where this can be an issue.
-Is the process assigned to a role type where employees can be expected to churn out of the organization more quickly than other roles (therefore requiring frequent hiring, training) e.g. quota carrying sales positions generally have a turnover rate that is a multiple of the organization’s normal t/o rate. And when those employees leave, there is significant downside as current revenue pursuits go dormant, time is spent finding replacements, and there is significant productivity loss as new sales people learn the ins and outs of the organization.
Mergers and Acquisition Environments. The more acquisitive an organization, the greater the value in codifying the way in which they do business, which in turn can help integrate acquired companies and their employees more quickly.
-Does the organization plan to grow or add specific capabilities through acquisition? M&A activities frequently fail due to cultural and people issues once the red-tape and financial arrangements come to a close. The more easily the acquirer can communicate processes related to business strategy and tactics to the acquirer, the higher the likelihood that the acquired entity can contribute to the overall goals e.g. the higher value processes noted previously.
Determining Processes and Activities That Merit Capture
Since a business process is simply a collection of sequential, related activities that may or may impact one another, it’s often best to look at the output of a process, and the activities that comprise it to determine merit.
High Value Activities. The more value the organization places on a particular business activity, the greater the likelihood that there is value in capturing the details that surround it. Value, in the broadest sense, can be defined using several filters:
-Is the process connected to strategic activities of the business e.g. generating revenue, developing new products, manufacturing goods?
-Is the process considered a high risk activity i.e. is it costly to undertake, does the output of the activity have significant influence on other activities, if not performed will the business suffer? e.g. research and development such as drug discovery, or
-Do the inherent characteristics of the way the process or activity is executed provide the business with competitive advantage and is it proprietary in nature or viewed as a key component of the organizations intellectual property?
Scaleable Processes. The more that the organization can benefit from communicating the activity in a clear and concise way, the more important it is to share the information across the business.
-Are enough people performing the specific activity the better execution around that activity would result in a benefit to the business …because the ability to repeat and scale the way the business operates improves company performance? e.g. customer service processes. This is accentuated when those people performing the activity are geographically dispersed e.g. a retailer with 500 stores, might find great value in sharing best practices and knowledge around a relatively medium to low value processes/activities such as a store procedures manual.
Regulated or Controlled Activities. The more regulated the process or activity the greater the degree to execute with precision and oversight, the higher the likelihood of a negative impact due to poor performance.
-Is worker safety compromised? Will operations be suspended? Is there a risk of government intervention via fines, or audits? Will shareholders/financiers take punitive action?
High Churn Roles or Job Types. The greater the employee turnover or risk of knowledge loss from such turnover, the more important it is to quickly on-board, cross-train or re-train employees.
-Is process or area of your business exposed to unusually high risk of retirements or is there poor succession planning in place for the specific role type i.e. if the subject matter expert leaves, is there risk that vast amounts of institutional knowledge will leave with him? There are entire industries where this can be an issue.
-Is the process assigned to a role type where employees can be expected to churn out of the organization more quickly than other roles (therefore requiring frequent hiring, training) e.g. quota carrying sales positions generally have a turnover rate that is a multiple of the organization’s normal t/o rate. And when those employees leave, there is significant downside as current revenue pursuits go dormant, time is spent finding replacements, and there is significant productivity loss as new sales people learn the ins and outs of the organization.
Mergers and Acquisition Environments. The more acquisitive an organization, the greater the value in codifying the way in which they do business, which in turn can help integrate acquired companies and their employees more quickly.
-Does the organization plan to grow or add specific capabilities through acquisition? M&A activities frequently fail due to cultural and people issues once the red-tape and financial arrangements come to a close. The more easily the acquirer can communicate processes related to business strategy and tactics to the acquirer, the higher the likelihood that the acquired entity can contribute to the overall goals e.g. the higher value processes noted previously.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Contextware Selected as One of Top 100 in Knowledge Management
Contextware is proud to announce that for the fifth year running it has been selected to KMWorld's list of the Top 100 Companies That Matter in Knowledge Management. There are few companies that have made the list as consistently as Contextware.
As the editor of KMWorld, Hugh McKellar states, "The firms on this list are true solution providers that are dedicated to understanding what their customers need and delivering elegant technology for the requirements of the knowledge economy." We're proud to be a part of it.
As the editor of KMWorld, Hugh McKellar states, "The firms on this list are true solution providers that are dedicated to understanding what their customers need and delivering elegant technology for the requirements of the knowledge economy." We're proud to be a part of it.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Business Processes: Communication vs. Automation
Business process technology capabilities (BPM, BPA) are overwhelmingly weighted toward automating the processes that they've attempted to capture. There's nothing wrong with this, and in fact, the 'language' of process provides modelers with a common platform for defining process flow, impacts and related systems -- regardless of the proprietary technology in use. You get the value of streamlining the exchange and delivery of data, errors are reduced, quality improves and transactions are speeded along their way. However, automation is just the tip of the iceberg.
The overwhelming majority of business processes performed in the workplace cannot be automated. Most processes being performed are a series of human interactions, with a high degree of subjectivity, and with technology and systems used to assist in the completion of a granular task, but not to perform the process in its entirety. Yet, if these 'human-centric' processes as Forrester likes to refer to them could become more repeatable, predictable and defined, the business would benefit. This is where BPM and its cousins fall on their collective faces. These technologies are utterly incapable of communicating "how-to" perform any of the things that they were designed to capture. They were designed to automate, not to communicate, and therefore they have no ability to easily translate a process for consumption by a large audience.
Most human centric processes are communicated through training/learning, experience and word-of-mouth. Technologies helping along the way (to communicate) include learning management systems, collaboration tools, content management and search. The challenge with these technologies (in general) are their fundamental lack of structure e.g. a content management system can be organized in a variety of hierarchical structures but once created, they are quite brittle to change; a learning management system is simply a delivery mechanism only as good as the curriculum and classes that are developed for delivery; search brings back too many results.
Contextware set out early on to solve the problem of communicating processes more effectively. And core to our belief is using process as a means to capturing and then also organizing the information that needs to be communicated i.e. the business process IS the context. The next few blog posts will highlight some interesting examples of how our core belief can be applied.
The overwhelming majority of business processes performed in the workplace cannot be automated. Most processes being performed are a series of human interactions, with a high degree of subjectivity, and with technology and systems used to assist in the completion of a granular task, but not to perform the process in its entirety. Yet, if these 'human-centric' processes as Forrester likes to refer to them could become more repeatable, predictable and defined, the business would benefit. This is where BPM and its cousins fall on their collective faces. These technologies are utterly incapable of communicating "how-to" perform any of the things that they were designed to capture. They were designed to automate, not to communicate, and therefore they have no ability to easily translate a process for consumption by a large audience.
Most human centric processes are communicated through training/learning, experience and word-of-mouth. Technologies helping along the way (to communicate) include learning management systems, collaboration tools, content management and search. The challenge with these technologies (in general) are their fundamental lack of structure e.g. a content management system can be organized in a variety of hierarchical structures but once created, they are quite brittle to change; a learning management system is simply a delivery mechanism only as good as the curriculum and classes that are developed for delivery; search brings back too many results.
Contextware set out early on to solve the problem of communicating processes more effectively. And core to our belief is using process as a means to capturing and then also organizing the information that needs to be communicated i.e. the business process IS the context. The next few blog posts will highlight some interesting examples of how our core belief can be applied.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Contextware: In the Basex Briefing Room
As often happens, third parties looking from the outside-in find new ways to explain and articulate issues that Contextware addresses, and the article below from Basex, Inc., the world's foremost knowledge economy research and advisory firm is no exception. We think you'll find their review of Contextware interesting.
The article begins:
One of the missing pieces of a puzzle the knowledge worker faces in the course of performing knowledge work is context. Without context, the knowledge worker is looking at isolated bits of information that are, more often than not, of limited value. Most content doesn’t stand on its own; there is always important related and supporting information that completes the picture. Beyond a single document, what else should one read and whom else should one query? Knowing what to read next or which experts to contact completes the puzzle and increases the value of the content exponentially. Click to read the entire piece...
The article begins:
One of the missing pieces of a puzzle the knowledge worker faces in the course of performing knowledge work is context. Without context, the knowledge worker is looking at isolated bits of information that are, more often than not, of limited value. Most content doesn’t stand on its own; there is always important related and supporting information that completes the picture. Beyond a single document, what else should one read and whom else should one query? Knowing what to read next or which experts to contact completes the puzzle and increases the value of the content exponentially. Click to read the entire piece...
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
When do you stop?
Summer in D.C. is usually a slow period...people on vacation, oppressive summer heat and humidity, Congress out of session. But we've never been busier and as a result, we've neglected the blog a bit. Apologies.
I spoke at the SALT learning conference in Arlington, VA the other day and was asked the question by a knowledge manager in the audience, “when do you stop gathering process or business knowledge and implement your solution.” In other words, how do you know you have what you need to deploy?
I answered it this way. When you implement a training solution, you create a class or an instance of that training which is very modular in nature. You might review it annually or on some other schedule, but regardless, the content is not dynamic in nature. When you implement a BPM solution…you go to great lengths to define requirements, create workflows and integrate/code systems. But try to change it? Workflow is very brittle.
But business is ever evolving. Rules and regulations change. Content and templates change. Employees leave, new ones join. But most importantly, someone is always figuring out a better way to perform the job they’ve been told to do. And in Contextware’s world, we made the conscious decision to create a technology that allows for those improvements to be captured and conveyed quickly and efficiently. It is one of the biggest differentiators in the way we approach process improvement, knowledge and performance support.
I spoke at the SALT learning conference in Arlington, VA the other day and was asked the question by a knowledge manager in the audience, “when do you stop gathering process or business knowledge and implement your solution.” In other words, how do you know you have what you need to deploy?
I answered it this way. When you implement a training solution, you create a class or an instance of that training which is very modular in nature. You might review it annually or on some other schedule, but regardless, the content is not dynamic in nature. When you implement a BPM solution…you go to great lengths to define requirements, create workflows and integrate/code systems. But try to change it? Workflow is very brittle.
But business is ever evolving. Rules and regulations change. Content and templates change. Employees leave, new ones join. But most importantly, someone is always figuring out a better way to perform the job they’ve been told to do. And in Contextware’s world, we made the conscious decision to create a technology that allows for those improvements to be captured and conveyed quickly and efficiently. It is one of the biggest differentiators in the way we approach process improvement, knowledge and performance support.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Process documentation for communication and collaboration
Yesterday Contextware announced the award of a new contract from the U.S. Army. The award is for software to help with capturing and codifying manufacturing process knowledge and information. That’s a great new client for us and also serves as a nice lead-in to an important point about process documentation.
There are a lot of software technologies classified as business process management, or process documentation tools. So why Contextware for the Army instead of a more classic (precisely defined) BPM or process documentation software?
The honest answer is that the Army uses plenty of process tools, but in this use-case, the answer lies in a specific Army requirement for this procurement: “the system will also facilitate communication and collaboration to conduct prototype and manufacturing process development efforts.”
The origin of documenting business processes traces back to the need to develop data models, data bases and automation of business rules…resulting in the creation of a common language to document processes. And based on these needs an entire industry of business process management software was developed.
Contextware’s focus is on the non-automated aspects of the business. And early on we determined that process documentation served a useful role, not just as a means to enforce business rules, but more importantly as a means to capture information about the enterprise and the way it does business. And then to serve as a means for communicating it and connecting to content relevant to those processes.
This is why the U.S. Army is working with us…because its challenges related to process have much more to do with understanding, accumulation of knowledge, learning and collaboration then they have to do with automation of specific activities or tasks.
There are a lot of software technologies classified as business process management, or process documentation tools. So why Contextware for the Army instead of a more classic (precisely defined) BPM or process documentation software?
The honest answer is that the Army uses plenty of process tools, but in this use-case, the answer lies in a specific Army requirement for this procurement: “the system will also facilitate communication and collaboration to conduct prototype and manufacturing process development efforts.”
The origin of documenting business processes traces back to the need to develop data models, data bases and automation of business rules…resulting in the creation of a common language to document processes. And based on these needs an entire industry of business process management software was developed.
Contextware’s focus is on the non-automated aspects of the business. And early on we determined that process documentation served a useful role, not just as a means to enforce business rules, but more importantly as a means to capture information about the enterprise and the way it does business. And then to serve as a means for communicating it and connecting to content relevant to those processes.
This is why the U.S. Army is working with us…because its challenges related to process have much more to do with understanding, accumulation of knowledge, learning and collaboration then they have to do with automation of specific activities or tasks.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Tough Subject Matter Experts
As a follow up to our June 17th post about capturing subject matter expertise, we thought we should take a moment to address a subject we're always asked about and occasionally run into.
How do you approach subject matter experts that are less than willing participants in the process of gathering/documenting their knowledge? These folks are different from SMEs that find it difficult to articulate their knowledge. This group simply tends to obstruct the process, don't necessarily buy into the project, and as we often hear "are trying to protect their jobs."
The initial trite comment is that you don't need them. In our experience, it's often the people that are most difficult to deal with that a) possess something that really doesn't have that much organizational value or b) have created such convoluted processes or approaches that you'd be better starting from scratch once they're gone (this response is often met with the nodding approval of the project leader or executive sponsor who realizes "Joe the SME" is really a liability to the organization, much less a team player.)
The kinder gentler answer of course is that you need to apply a combination of carrot and stick. Here are few to consider.
Sticks (we're not a big fan)
-incorporating knowledge transfer into performance review objectives or goals
-heavy supervisor/management intervention-peer pressure (e.g. publishing KM project progress to all involved and highlighting constraints)
Carrots
-Appeal to ego. Educating the SME on their role in the organization and leaving a legacy (most well intended people want their company to succeed in the short and in the long term).
-Appeal to laziness. A true SME is sought after frequently...to answer the same or similar questions over and over again...a well run capture project will reduce the amount of time SME spend answering questions.
-Financial or professional recognition. Everyone likes rewards, even non-monetary. Having some incentives in place for a KM project and as part of your project plan/budget can get more out of people
-Be reasonable and accurate in the time required from the SME. If you need more than 10-12 hours of their time over a couple of month period, you've lost them-Show them; involve them in the results of your effort. Most projects such as knowledge capture or process capture have very little near term gratification. Systems or projects that show incremental success and output have a far greater chance of convincing those involved that the project is worth the effort.
How do you approach subject matter experts that are less than willing participants in the process of gathering/documenting their knowledge? These folks are different from SMEs that find it difficult to articulate their knowledge. This group simply tends to obstruct the process, don't necessarily buy into the project, and as we often hear "are trying to protect their jobs."
The initial trite comment is that you don't need them. In our experience, it's often the people that are most difficult to deal with that a) possess something that really doesn't have that much organizational value or b) have created such convoluted processes or approaches that you'd be better starting from scratch once they're gone (this response is often met with the nodding approval of the project leader or executive sponsor who realizes "Joe the SME" is really a liability to the organization, much less a team player.)
The kinder gentler answer of course is that you need to apply a combination of carrot and stick. Here are few to consider.
Sticks (we're not a big fan)
-incorporating knowledge transfer into performance review objectives or goals
-heavy supervisor/management intervention-peer pressure (e.g. publishing KM project progress to all involved and highlighting constraints)
Carrots
-Appeal to ego. Educating the SME on their role in the organization and leaving a legacy (most well intended people want their company to succeed in the short and in the long term).
-Appeal to laziness. A true SME is sought after frequently...to answer the same or similar questions over and over again...a well run capture project will reduce the amount of time SME spend answering questions.
-Financial or professional recognition. Everyone likes rewards, even non-monetary. Having some incentives in place for a KM project and as part of your project plan/budget can get more out of people
-Be reasonable and accurate in the time required from the SME. If you need more than 10-12 hours of their time over a couple of month period, you've lost them-Show them; involve them in the results of your effort. Most projects such as knowledge capture or process capture have very little near term gratification. Systems or projects that show incremental success and output have a far greater chance of convincing those involved that the project is worth the effort.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Organizing content around business processes
In January, we blogged about the intersection of process and content. There was also a link via the blog to an article we were asked to write on the topic for the Association for Information and Image Management (AIIM).
We've had a few questions about this, and thought it worth a more concise explanation (in case you're not inclined to read the AIIM piece).
When we refer to "content" we are referring to the body of information informally and formally documented that is relevant to performing one's job. Content could include a presentation, a white paper, templates, forms, email messages, guidelines, photos, laws...you get the picture. This information can exist inside or outside of the enterprise. And if you pause for just a moment to think about just any one process you perform as part of your job, the types of content you might use to help you can be exhaustive.
As you've already figured out, content can be found in lots of different places. Content can also be organized in lots of different ways. Think for a moment about the way you store documents on your own computer. When you click on "My Documents" have you organized information by business unit, by project, by customer or high level function? The likely answer is that you've organized My Documents in a way that makes the most sense to you (your context), and makes the content easiest to retrieve and locate.
Problem is, there are a lot of different contexts for organizing information...so when you take a look at an enterprise, how do you arrive at a least common denominator that is still relevant and effective. Well for most folks, that least common denominator is 'search' technology. While easy, it is imprecise and places the onus on the end user to determine if content that is returned from a search query is actually relevant.
Our argument is that content should be organized around the specific processes that your employees are expected to perform. By organizing information in this way, you proactively provide people with a viewpoint into what is precisely relevant to their jobs. And because a business processes can easily be broken down into a series of activities that comprise the process, you can organize content at an even more precise level...the actual step itself.
We've had a few questions about this, and thought it worth a more concise explanation (in case you're not inclined to read the AIIM piece).
When we refer to "content" we are referring to the body of information informally and formally documented that is relevant to performing one's job. Content could include a presentation, a white paper, templates, forms, email messages, guidelines, photos, laws...you get the picture. This information can exist inside or outside of the enterprise. And if you pause for just a moment to think about just any one process you perform as part of your job, the types of content you might use to help you can be exhaustive.
As you've already figured out, content can be found in lots of different places. Content can also be organized in lots of different ways. Think for a moment about the way you store documents on your own computer. When you click on "My Documents" have you organized information by business unit, by project, by customer or high level function? The likely answer is that you've organized My Documents in a way that makes the most sense to you (your context), and makes the content easiest to retrieve and locate.
Problem is, there are a lot of different contexts for organizing information...so when you take a look at an enterprise, how do you arrive at a least common denominator that is still relevant and effective. Well for most folks, that least common denominator is 'search' technology. While easy, it is imprecise and places the onus on the end user to determine if content that is returned from a search query is actually relevant.
Our argument is that content should be organized around the specific processes that your employees are expected to perform. By organizing information in this way, you proactively provide people with a viewpoint into what is precisely relevant to their jobs. And because a business processes can easily be broken down into a series of activities that comprise the process, you can organize content at an even more precise level...the actual step itself.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Finding and Using the Right Content - IDC Directions Follow-up
Clare Gillan is Senior Vice President of Executive and Go-to-Market Programs at IDC. Her general session presentation was titled "The Year of the Sales Rep." Among many of the juicy tidbits in the presentation, she cited a 2009 analysis from the Savo Group that indicated only 20% of the content created by the marketing organization for sales, was actually used by sales. Think of the massive waste in terms of time spent, actual cost and opportunity cost. Although this example is specific to sales and marketing content, it could easily apply to content anywhere within the organization. In fact when you think about your own enterprise we bet you'd be surprised that even 20% is used.
Part of the reason for this lack of usage Clare hypothesized is the classic disconnect between sales and marketing. Marketing produces stuff assuming sales needs it, sales doesn't communicate customer pre-sale requirements to marketing and the ships pass in the night. This is certainly a reason. Here are some others that we would add to the list.
1. Inability to locate information. Even if you have an enterprise search technology in place, it's still often difficult to a) search across all content repositories in the business and b) receive search results that reflect the precise intent of the query. Nucleus Research finds that 34% of employees spend 2-5 hours per week searching for content they can use, and 28% spend 5 hours of more. Not how most sales managers want their sales people spending their time.
2. Content without context. Even if you locate content that you think you want, it is up to you, the end user to determine the context of when/how/what/where to use the content. While determining context may seem easy, it places a huge burden on the end user, and also a huge expectation that they'll get it right. Outdated content and poorly written content proliferates most organizations. If you could, wouldn't you want your employees to always have access to the more relevant, best examples of content.
3. Information overload. Sticking with more statistics from Nucleus Research, 67% of employees are overwhelmed by the volume of information they have to access despite (or maybe as a result of) enterprise search technologies such as Google or Autonomy. Who isn't overwhelmed?
So if 80% of marketing content created for sales is going unused, what's to blame?
Part of the reason for this lack of usage Clare hypothesized is the classic disconnect between sales and marketing. Marketing produces stuff assuming sales needs it, sales doesn't communicate customer pre-sale requirements to marketing and the ships pass in the night. This is certainly a reason. Here are some others that we would add to the list.
1. Inability to locate information. Even if you have an enterprise search technology in place, it's still often difficult to a) search across all content repositories in the business and b) receive search results that reflect the precise intent of the query. Nucleus Research finds that 34% of employees spend 2-5 hours per week searching for content they can use, and 28% spend 5 hours of more. Not how most sales managers want their sales people spending their time.
2. Content without context. Even if you locate content that you think you want, it is up to you, the end user to determine the context of when/how/what/where to use the content. While determining context may seem easy, it places a huge burden on the end user, and also a huge expectation that they'll get it right. Outdated content and poorly written content proliferates most organizations. If you could, wouldn't you want your employees to always have access to the more relevant, best examples of content.
3. Information overload. Sticking with more statistics from Nucleus Research, 67% of employees are overwhelmed by the volume of information they have to access despite (or maybe as a result of) enterprise search technologies such as Google or Autonomy. Who isn't overwhelmed?
So if 80% of marketing content created for sales is going unused, what's to blame?
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Recession and knowledge management
Hate to say it, but we told you so. A lot of our clients and prospective clients have long fretted about the loss of talent as people reach retirement age. The point we've made to them time and again is that the decision to retire is often fluid...in the sense that a good stock market will accelerate retirement and a poor stock market will slow things down. And with the most recent debacle on Wall Street the later couldn't be any more true. Even the best laid retirement plans have been impacted by massive stock, bond and mutual fund losses.
Many of those same clients and prospects have delayed knowledge management efforts because workers had not been retiring quite as quickly as the workforce planning folks suggested they might (even before the recession)...and now they're off the hook considering the current economic environment.
But that entirely misses the point about knowledge capture and its potential impact on the business. People come and go, the wave of retirements is currently replaced by the wave of layoffs and RIFs. What institutional and job expertise is being lost and at what rate? Most importantly, as the economy improves and we start to rebuild our workforces...how much more quickly could new hires be brought up to speed, how much more could productivity be impacted and how much better positioned could your company be coming out of a downturn?
Many of those same clients and prospects have delayed knowledge management efforts because workers had not been retiring quite as quickly as the workforce planning folks suggested they might (even before the recession)...and now they're off the hook considering the current economic environment.
But that entirely misses the point about knowledge capture and its potential impact on the business. People come and go, the wave of retirements is currently replaced by the wave of layoffs and RIFs. What institutional and job expertise is being lost and at what rate? Most importantly, as the economy improves and we start to rebuild our workforces...how much more quickly could new hires be brought up to speed, how much more could productivity be impacted and how much better positioned could your company be coming out of a downturn?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
