Netzwerk-Treffen, Unternehmenskultur, IT & Co. Die größten Hürden von Wissensmanagement-Projekten

This is my summary of the Network meeting on April 14, 2011. The setting was well chosen in the the rooms of mein-arbeitstraum.

According to the Gallup organization only 13% of all employees are engaged at work. This means that the rest is either indifferent or actively disengaged. Of course, this context hinders the acceptance for knowledge sharing as it initially creates more work for the employees.

  

OLAF SCHMIDT, K+K, "8 REASONS FOR PROJECT FAILURE"

• There are a number of reasons why knowledge management projects fail.
• It is important to create a passion for sharing. This should be the number one priority. 
• Knowledge management is not (just) an IT topic because "a fool with a tool is still a fool".
• Don't become lazy ("Wash me, but don't make me wet"-effect). Some serious work is required to make kdb projects successful.
• An evaluation of the organization is important - is sharing of knowledge already part of the culture? Or do knowledge silos exist, i.e. departments don't communicate with each other? 
• Wikipedia Fail (Wikipediairrtum): sharing does not work, only if there is the right amount/kind of people.
• A critical mass needs to be reached: usually only 1% write content, about 8% comment and rate - the rest simply consumes.
• It is not enough to know how it works theoretically - you have to know it by heart in order to explain it to others.
• Don't put pressure on knowledge projects. Especially the change in culture takes a considerable amount of time.
• The concept of knowledge management needs to be adjusted iteratively.
• Profit from other people's mistakes (network!). Learn from best practices.
• Communicate with all relevant stakeholders frequently.
• Accept counterarguments and don't block them. Rather resolve them along the way. 
• It is important that the goal of the project is aligned to the strategic goals of the company - knowledge management should be part of the company vision.
• Summary: a change in the culture is always needed, new ways of communication shall be accepted, don't administer but create knowledge.

DR. MICHAEL MÜLLER, SCINOVIS

• 2 major trends exist: demographical change & social software.
• Provide quality information and have a controlled, initial amount of data.
• As contiunity is key, a beta status indicator (like goolemail) might be a good idea.
• Focus of all projects shall be the usage of knowledge not the collection.
• Is shared knowledge understandable for other users? Should real (as in: this is how we really do it) or ideal processes be documented? Can knowledge be documented at all? It has to happen continuously. 
• To improve quality it might make sense to install a consultant that enters the information who asks the right questions. 
• Web 3.0: ontologies; drawback: often it is too hard for employees to enter this data.
• Good experience with knowledge maps with mindmaps (not optimal for big maps => .mm to Wiki).
• Process-oriented knowledge management is a current trend to integrate knowledge within process descriptions.
• Usually there is strawfire effects (Strohfeuer) in knowledge management, with every new tool.
• Can the five senses be attracted: sounds of motors, scents of flowers? 
• Workflows for rating and notifications about new articles are necessary. 
• Demand-driven knowledge promises good results. Don't collect knowledge in advance. A better concept is to answer questions that are answered throughout the day.
• Ideal Knowledge Management: employees ask good questions.
• "Vision of single source"
• Problem is usually: I don't have time to fix the fence, I must collect the lost chickens! 

All in all, these talks provided a solid overview of risks and chances of knowledge management in enterprises.