As Fahey and Prusak (1998) noted, “A core tenet of any organizational learning project is that without detecting and correcting errors in “what we know” and “how we learn,” an organization’s knowledge deteriorates, becomes obsolete, and can result in bad decisions” (p. 265).
Eleven Deadliest Sins of Knowledge Management:
1. Not developing a working definition of knowledge.
2. Emphasizing knowledge stock to the detriment of knowledge flow.
3. Viewing knowledge as existing predominantly outside the heads of individuals.
4. Not understanding that a fundamental intermediate purpose of managing knowledge is to create shared context.
5. Paying little heed to the role and importance of tacit knowledge.
6. Disentangling knowledge from its uses.
7. Downplaying thinking and reasoning.
8. Focusing on the past and the present and not the future.
9. Failing to recognize the importance of experimentation.
10. Substituting technology contact for human interface.
11. Seeking to develop direct measures of knowledge (Fahey & Prusak, 1998).
Davenport and Prusak (2000) observed, “The knowledge project manager should have a good sense of his or her customer, the customer’s satisfaction, and the productivity and quality of services offered. However, the project managers in our study did not find it useful in most cases to describe the detailed process steps used in knowledge management” (p. 157). While a detailed mapping of processes in developing knowledge may not be practical, this does not mean to say that a process perspective is unimportant.
As Deborah Miller (2005) observed, “Knowledge, however, is indeed a process; collectively living and constantly evolving in and applied by the minds of knowers. Value is added to data to transform it into information, which, through knowledge-creating activities among people becomes knowledge. Knowledge leads to decision and action, and it continues to develop over time. Knowledge can judge new information and circumstances based on what is already known; and, as it responds, it can advance itself forward; continuously improving (Davenport & Prusak, 2000)” (Miller, 2005). In essence, we must look at our existing process environment and identify and address areas where the value of information is positively or negatively influenced.
References
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (2000). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Boston. Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
Fahey, L., & Prusak, L. (1998, Spring). The Eleven Deadliest Sins of Knowledge Management. California Management Review, 40(3), 265-276.
Fore, S. (2005, September 15). 11 Deadliest Sins of KM Discussion Thread. Retrieved September 18, 2005, from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2261698&Survey=1&47=2576689&ClientNodeID=984646&coursenav=1&bhcd2=1127069706
Green, G. (2005, September 15). 11 Deadliest Sins of KM Discussion Thread. Retrieved September 18, 2005, from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2261698&Survey=1&47=2576689&ClientNodeID=984646&coursenav=1&bhcd2=1127069706
Miller, D. (2005, September 15). 11 Deadliest Sins of KM Discussion Thread. Retrieved September 18, 2005, from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2261698&Survey=1&47=2576689&ClientNodeID=984646&coursenav=1&bhcd2=1127069706
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Great stuff but I don't know what "knowledge project" refers to.
ReplyDeleteDennis McDonald
http://www.ddmcd.com
Davenport and Prusak (2000) wrote this article to, "draw attention to a set of pervasive knowledge management errors" (p.265). These errors were observed within hundreds of what they term, "knowledge projects". This term is extremely important because it also highlights their central theme, that many mangers are unexposed to fundamental principles of knowledge management and consequently lose sight of greater knowledge-generating opportunities projects can create for the organization.
ReplyDeleteOn one level, we concern ourselves with the dynamics of the project. We watch the complex interactions of events and efforts as they coalesce into a symphony of movement; sometimes chaotic, sometimes productive, but always moving. On a much different level, just under the surface, we can look at every project as a function of knowledge generation. In some schools of management thought and literature, attention to knowledge management could be perceived as distracting epistemology (The pursuit of knowledge for no more than the attainment of that knowledge). As Davenport and Prusak pointed out, this is a critical error. If we look at each project as a “knowledge project”, then we gain the capacity to develop a deeper and more profound understanding of our organization’s culture. We also develop a genuine comprehension and appreciation for individual talents, as well as, gain the potential to combine these talents in new and creative ways for greater project success. When we begin to study knowledge as a phenomenon, we begin to reflect beyond simple task and milestone accomplishments. We begin to see the subtleties of conditions that influence the outcomes of our actions. When enough leaders begin to see and embrace the concept of “knowledge projects”, then the organization can truly move toward the creation of a knowledge-driven enterprise.
Reference
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (2000). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Boston. Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
I think I get it. I have a similar perspective o projects though I tend to value communication between and among project people over knowledge per se; such communication may or may not involve the creation of "knowledge" but always involves some type of infrmation exchange. Whether that becomes part of the company's knowledge culture is a question; at least communication must take place in order for the project to proceed towards a commonly shared set of goals.
ReplyDelete