LETTER TO MY FUTURE KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT SELF

Dear future knowledge management self, 

I know the world of creating, sharing, and managing knowledge is ever-changing. I implore you to reflect on your time in 430 and remember these 6 core principles that, no matter what changes, will continuously guide you towards success. They are laid out below in sequential order, first building a strong foundation for knowledge management and working up to the tools that will help you succeed. 

1) Do not search only for formalized learning in an organization, that is a well that runs dry quickly. Instead, recognize that organizational learning is a self-replenishing ocean all around you. 

The theoretical framework for analyzing organizational learning created by Argote and Miron-Spektor (2011) will help you understand that organization learning is an ongoing, cyclical process in which task performance experience becomes knowledge, which changes the environmental and organizational context in which the organization is embedded, which then affects future task performance experience. This establishes that all knowledge changes over time, and only putting stock in formalized learning opportunities will capture but a moment in time when that knowledge is relevant. Instead, lean into the cycle and create a structure to learn from informal experiences and processes. For individuals/small teams, that requires reflective practices to keep task performance and learning updated with new developing knowledge. For the organization at large, it is necessary to maintain awareness of the ever-changing context in which the organization is embedded to understand the how that affects the organizations experience and therefor production of new knowledge. 

2) Embrace the tacit and embedded nature of knowledge. 

There will be pressure for you to codify and build knowledge libraries like you are stacking Legos. However, remember the practice-based perspective of knowledge posed by Hislop (2013) in which knowledge is viewed as tacit, meaning it’s embedded in practice, people, cultures, and is multidimensional/non-dichotomous, socially constructed, and contestable. People will request that you to manage knowledge as if it were a “concrete entity”. However, adhering to these requests is doing your organization and its hardworking individuals a disservice. From an individual/small team perspective, attempting to codify all knowledge only captures certain aspects and does not provide a complete picture of all the important knowledge embedded in an individual’s work. From a large organization perspective, understand that building complete knowledge management systems involves a bottom-up approach by shaping the knowledge management process through facilitating continuous collaboration between people and departments. Only then can you actively manage all aspects of knowledge, both explicit and tacit. 

3) In order to effectively manage knowledge in an organization, you must build strong connections and easy access to organization members.

If you now know that complete knowledge management must involve some form of bottom-up collaboration by facilitating connections between people, then how do you do it? Remember Cross, et al.’s (2001) approach to supporting knowledge creation and sharing in social networks. They state that complete knowledge management emerges from effective inter-organizational relationships which requires knowing who has what knowledge, access to that person, the person’s willingness to engage in collaborative problem solving, and a feeling of safety in the interaction. From a large organization perspective, this means you must use social network analysis to understand with whom knowledge resides and how to make it accessible to all organization members. From an individual/small team perspective, you must work hard to build a culture and understanding around the importance of access, engagement, and safe interactions so individuals can leverage the knowledge-rich network that spans the organization. 

4) Connecting people through a network is not enough to stimulate knowledge sharing and creation.

To ensure knowledge creation and sharing is happening within your organization’s network, turn to Wenger’s (2010) concept of communities of practices (CoPs) as social learning systems. Communities and networks share similarities, and even though they are not the same thing there are certain facets of creating communities that support effective knowledge sharing and creation in networks, and here are a few examples. Creating domain and defining value for individuals encourages network members to provide access to themselves and their knowledge. Defining who members are and should be illuminates what knowledge they might have. Establishing the boundaries of practice creates identity and increases feelings of safe interactions. Structuring how to convene and interact encourages mutual engagement in networks. From the large organization perspective, a strong network may suffice as it emphasizes connectivity. From the individual/small team perspective, the smaller scope provides an opportunity to create a community that leverages identity. Remember that networks and communities are not necessarily distinct structures, and they can coexist, have complementary strengths and weaknesses, and are two pathways for enhancing the learning capability of individuals, small teams, and organizations at large. Use this information to guide which option would best fit your needs in any given situation. 

5) Ask not what you can do IN your organization’s social media, ask what your organization’s social media can do FOR you.  Countless social media platforms have been created to enable networks and communities in organizations. They try to sell you their bells, whistles, and easy-to-use features, but remember this is an incorrect way of evaluating workplace social media. Instead, remember what Treem and Leonardi (2012) say about judging social media by what it affords (allows people to do) as opposed to what it looks like. An impactful social media tool should afford visibility of knowledge without too much effort to find it, persistence of knowledge so it remains accessible overtime, editability of knowledge so it can be modified or revised as it evolves, and association where organization members can establish connections between individuals and knowledge. From an individual/small team perspective, a sexy scrolling feature that highlights recent posts has no value if it doesn’t connect you to the person who posted it. From a large organization perspective, that same sexy scrolling feature has no value if the search function cannot find previous posts that are integral to understanding the recent one. Using the affordance perspective will help you chose social media that has real value to your organization. 

6) If people are not using and engaging with the fancy new social media platform, it’s not only them, it might be you (and many other factors).

?You can turn to Sun, et al.’s (2014) understanding of lurkers and what drives online behavior to diagnose potential causes of lack of online engagement. Some online community factors may be lacking such as group identity, ease of use, pro-sharing norms, reciprocity of responses, or reputation gain. Perhaps there are missing affective, normative, or continuance commitment factors and people have no emotional or obligational ties to your organization, or an understanding of lost value if they don’t engage. Maybe the quality requirements have not been met and people do not feel enough security, privacy, convenience or reliability to use the platform. Some of the engagement responsibility does lie with the individuals’ personal characteristics, level of self-efficacy, goals, desires, or needs, but there are actions that address both the external and internal factors that keep people from creating and sharing knowledge online. For example, try creating some tangible rewards, improve usability, encourage participation through modeling a safe environment, or offer guidance for newcomers. Solutions are available if you take the time to understand why people are not engaging. 

References 

Argote, L., & Miron-Spektor, E. (2011). Organizational Learning: From Experience to Knowledge. Organization Science, 22(5), 1123–1137. 

Cross, R., Parker, A., Prusak, L., & Borgatti, S. P. (2001). Knowing What We Know: Supporting Knowledge Creation and Sharing in Social Networks. Organizational Dynamics, 30(2), 100–120. 

Hislop, D. (2013). The practice-based perspective on knowledge. In Knowledge management in organizations (3rd ed., pp. 31-46). New York: Oxford University Press. 

Sun, N., Rau, P. P.-L., & Ma, L. (2014). Understanding lurkers in online communities: A literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 38, 110–117. 

Treem, J., & Leonardi, P. (2012). Social media use in organizations exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Communication Yearbook, 36, 143–189. 

Wenger, E. (2010). Communities of practice and social learning systems: The career of a concept. In C. Blackmore (Ed.), Social learning systems and communities of practice (pp. 179-197). London: Springer-Verlag.