It is hard for me to believe that I read and commented on John Bordeaux’s “The Day DoD KM Died” blog post 3 years ago – hard to believe that 3 years has gone by so fast and hard to see that we are still struggling with knowledge management in the Department of Defense. My opinion about his post is sadly no different today than it was 3 years ago which seriously bums me out. I thought I might reread it and discover that my mind had changed, that our situation had changed for the better, but I find myself coming to the same conclusions Dr. Bordeaux did then: We simply continue to miss the mark in KM inside the DoD, and it’s entirely our own fault. The structure of the DoD and the way we respond to it continue to hold us back. On the bright side, we may not be able to change the structure of the DoD, but we CAN change how we ‘respond’ to it. Let me explain.
Currently in the DoD, our community of knowledge managers and our leadership still cannot agree on what the REAL work of knowledge managers is, where this work needs to be done, what our function really is, and how to actually DO it effectively. Instead, some of us march on as though having a good portal, whatever the flavor, means we are evolved beings who, because of “a tool” magically know how to manage and share knowledge. Some believe if we could ONLY have taxonomies and naming conventions in place that we will crack the code on knowledge management and develop into “learning organizations”. Still others continue to talk about Web site and share drive overhauls as if they are new innovations in our field. The list of outdated, singular approaches to KM go on and on. Before you get ready to pounce on my bluntness, let me say there is nothing wrong with ANY of these things – in fact, applied ”locally” in certain situations they can be extraordinarily helpful – but these things alone will not lead to an enterprise DoD level success with KM, nor are they representative of what knowledge management is, or should be today. Those who STOP their journey at the end of the technology and taxonomy fence line are destined never to know how knowledge management could really change and strengthen our organizations in systemic and profound ways.
A big issue we continue to struggle with as Dr. Bordeaux implies is that we want to place a structure on something that quite frankly doesn’t do well shoved into a “code” in an org chart so it can be managed from above and made into nice ‘fit rep’ sized bullets. “Is it a 6 function? A Chief of Staff function? A 3 function?*” Why do we have to answer that question at all (okay money, requirements, yes, I know – but can we not operate out of the box?) Done right, KM, and those who steward its integration in an organization, should be like water flowing through that organization freely but with purpose. Instead, we insist upon trying to be “equal” to everyone else. We fight to be FISH in the fish bowls that are our organizations, and this is where that level of effort continues to take us:
When Dr. Bordeaux sat through the meeting he mentioned in his blog post, I imagine it was like watching KM flop around on the floor like a fish out of water while people stood around debating ad nauseam over how, when and why to lift it off the floor, about the qualifications of the person who might potentially lift it off the floor, and deciding who should write the point papers about the pros and cons of putting it back into the water. Painful, pointless and focused on making KM “a BIG fish” so it had a presence. 3 years later, we still fail to see that KM and knowledge managers have a presence that is most effective not when we are in FRONT of or ABOVE people, but when we are all around them.
This is where we run into trouble in the DoD. Some of you right now are probably gagging at my new age view of knowledge management flowing through and around not above or below us, but quite honestly that’s when knowledge managers and knowledge management principles are working at their best. The problem in the DoD, however, is that we’re a top down, hierarchical organization that not only believes in but needs to preserve the order of command and control – everyone reports to someone. Someone must be above, someone below. Someone needs to be in CHARGE.
But can anyone truly be “in charge” of knowledge management which, today, should focus more on the hard, organization wide, ”gray” cultural and behavioral changes vice seemingly easier “black and white” technical implementations? Can someone “direct” sustainable change when our organizations are in a constant state of personnel turnover and ‘knowledge in, knowledge out’? Will we not forever be more successful if we work with the fish supporting their grassroots changes so we can help weave them through our organizations in order to make them “systemic”? If so, CAN KM SURVIVE LIKE THAT IN THE DoD and, when it comes to affecting the enterprise, is DoD KM a fish out of water?
What do you think?
*For those not familiar with the 6, 3 references, these are codes for departments or directorates that typically are the IT folks (in the Navy it’s N6, in the Army it’s G6) and the Operations folks (in the Navy N3, Army G3). The Chief of Staff has a code that is typically either N01 or N02. The Commander is always double zero (N00 for Navy).
I believe a person can be in charge of Knowledge Management (KM) and direct a sustainable change despite the constant turnover. That person will need a long line of like-minded successors and KM cadres, though. Within DoD, resistance to cultural change works against true KM. Each branch of service has its own vernacular and customs which service members are proud to preserve. That’s a great thing in many ways, but it also results in groupthink. A less obvious reason KM isn’t catching on is that the U.S. military is so powerful. Throughout the evolution of warfare, the “weaker” force has been quick to adopt new tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP) – because its survival depended on it. The more powerful force often stuck with “tried and true” TTPs a little too long. The U.S. is that more powerful force. Although DoD continues to innovate and lead the world in many areas, it’s missing the mark in Information Management (IM) and KM. These are relatively new weapons, though. I’m holding onto hope that the next “Rambo” movie will involve more thinking and less grunting.
Gump voice: I’m not a smart man, but I know what knowledge is.
I was at that meeting 3 years ago, and I understand why Dr. Bordeaux came to his conclusions. But like all things in life there are other dimensions to the story. Though it seemed that the group was focused on “un-targeted KM programs” what they were discussing was developing a framework in which targeted KM programs could thrive. As you stated “The problem in the DoD, however, is that we’re a top down, hierarchical organization that not only believes in but needs to preserve the order of command and control – everyone reports to someone. Someone must be above, someone below. Someone needs to be in CHARGE.” This is very true and it is the way it is, just as the reality is that any strategic program that has a chance of long-term sustainability must have adequate resources associated with it. The middle-aged or older men (as Dr. Bordeaux describes them) have been working for/with the DOD most of their professional lives and understand that they have to work within the system and the structure presented to them. Individually I believe they would like to change the culture and the organizational structure so that KM could flow like water throughout the the department, but they knew they have to work with what they have. So they focused on things like putting someone in charge who can have assets and resources assigned to them, developing a common competency model so that staff have a common understanding of KM approaches, methods, and tools, developing a maturity model in order to measure an organizations KM adoption readiness, and developing a set of metrics to measure KM effectiveness so that the case can be make to keep the resources and funding flowing. That was that meeting, but here we are today.
I agree that 3 years later we are still in much of the same situation. There has been some progress and some set-backs. I’ve personally been a CKO for an Army Command and have been in the unfortunate position of dealing with “un-targeted KM programs” or better put a failure of senior leadership to understand or support KM activities because it seemed so un-targeted. KM does need to be focused on solving some issue, and there needs to be an imperative (like being shot at in theater) to make real and sustained organizational change. KM does work in an operational environment, but change the environment (like from Afghanistan to DC) and the imperative changes and so do behaviors.
For the past 1 1/2 years I’ve been working with a civilian government agency and the same applies. KM is un-focused and those in charge see it as a way to “change the culture” or fill in for poor leadership and ineffective management. It’s not just the DOD that has the issue. I’ve been trying to get KM to flow throughout the organization, but just like the DOD the organization wants someone to be in-charge, a specific organization to manage the money and resources, a specific action plan, and “KM magic” to quickly get folks to collaborate, share, and organize their knowledge without much effort.
I have worked in military healthcare for 15 years, in and out of formal KM roles, and what continues to astound me is the lack of vision around the requirement to collaborate jointly within DoD. Forget about enlightened KM, I’m talking about the basics — a secure collaboration platform that everyone can get to easily. So DKO failed — what is the replacement, and whose job is it to figure this out? Apparently it is nobody’s job. Right now, military medics from DoD, Army, Navy, and Air Force are moving (BRAC’ing) into the Defense Health Headquarters (DHHQ). They are now IN THE SAME BUILDING but still operating on their separate service run networks, with no shared network drive, let alone a common collaboration platform they can all get to. (Yes, there is a plan to get on the same network in the next year or so). It was clearly Congress’ intent with this BRAC to get military medicine working together more cohesively. But apparently a common collaboration platform was just a bridge too far. After all, we only had 5 years to plan this BRAC move. Whose job is this? Apparently it is nobody’s job, and that is a very sad thing for our staff, our patients, and the taxpayers.
The hiearchy within the DoD is embedded in its culture and it used to take approximately 20 years to make a cultural shift. That time period may be lessened in today’s fast paced world, but it still takes time. Additionally, the world of KM has been around for awhile, but is very slow to “catch on”, and may in fact be superceded or engulfed or succeed. The jury’s still out on KM.
Many of things you say I agree with but there are also several I disagree with. As you accurately state, the structure of the DoD is not going to change but the way that we respond to KM can and will evolve and demands diverse Leadership to achieve.
“Currently in the DoD, our community of knowledge managers and our leadership still cannot agree on what the REAL work of knowledge managers is, where this work needs to be done, what our function really is, and how to actually DO it effectively.”
I am not going to sugar coat it Jamie: This is your job and you need to be the one defining that for your Leadership as you are the expert in this area and need to provide this Vision to your Leadership. If they don’t listen to you that is another problem entirely but you are the one responsible for this without question.
“Some believe if we could ONLY have taxonomies and naming conventions in place that we will crack the code on knowledge management and develop into “learning organizations”. Still others continue to talk about Web site and share drive overhauls as if they are new innovations in our field. The list of outdated, singular approaches to KM go on and on. Before you get ready to pounce on my bluntness, let me say there is nothing wrong with ANY of these things – in fact, applied ”locally” in certain situations they can be extraordinarily helpful – but these things alone will not lead to an enterprise DoD level success with KM, nor are they representative of what knowledge management is, or should be today. Those who STOP their journey at the end of the technology and taxonomy fence line are destined never to know how knowledge management could really change and strengthen our organizations in systemic and profound ways.”
Since I have known you and had deep discussions with you I have always felt you are too focused on limiting the role technology plays in the part of good KM. It by no means should the defining factor but the very fact that Social Media itself, a disruptive technology and trend, has had such an impact on sharing and collaborating should have by now opened your eyes to be more embracing of new technologies and how they can contribute to excellent KM. I have known your dislike and aversion to utilizing SharePoint in the past and I will be the first one to say it is NOT a plug-and-play technology, is not the only technology tool needed, case in point the Wiki in SharePoint 2010 is horrible and MediaWiki should be used instead but the point is you create a KM System by taking the best technology deliver that fit to deliver the best business function. Eliminating SharePoint all together, as I have known you wanted to do in the past, is also NOT the right approach.
“But can anyone truly be “in charge” of knowledge management which, today, should focus more on the hard, organization wide, ”gray” cultural and behavioral changes vice seemingly easier “black and white” technical implementations?”
Yes, and there you go again attacking technology as the culprit. It takes great Vision, Strategy Funding, Time and lots of patience but yes it can be done and I have seen it happen. It is not done by letting Technology drive you but by having a real vision of what Knowledge Management is and can do and then embracing multiple best practices approaches (not technologies) to see it happen. There are four primary foundational pillars to good Knowledge Management and they are CAPTER | TAG | SHARE | COLLABORATE.
If you are not CAPTURING the knowledge that is created, exchanged, utilized and presented every day in your employees within the organization in multiple formats then you have no chance at having an effective Knowledge Management System.
If you are not TAGging, categorizing, classifying and defining how it can be quickly retrieved later via search, relationships, associations, and other meta information then you will never be able to utilize it again and all the CAPTURED data is of no value.
If you are not SHARING that information with others then you are not taking advantage of the KNOWLEDGE you have captured and made available to retrieve via tagging and thus you are not benefiting exponentially from the benefits of others sharing their knowledge also with you.
Finally if you are not COLLABORATING with others and their KNOWLEDGE then you are losing the greatest benefit of all and that is taking one persons idea, introduce it to another persons idea and creating multiple ideas from that shared collaborative Knowledge. One plus one does not equal two it equals six.
“Can someone “direct” sustainable change when our organizations are in a constant state of personnel turnover and ‘knowledge in, knowledge out’? Will we not forever be more successful if we work with the fish supporting their grassroots changes so we can help weave them through our organizations in order to make them “systemic”? “
Maybe in your organization that has been the most effective but I have seen a Global Organizational KM strategy flourish to produce tremendous innovation. Maybe as you said it is the DoD in general that is limiting the success but I would like an honest crack at that nut to see if the Vision I have developed and implemented elsewhere could work there. I originally developed this Vision for you know who only to see him squander it and when I took it elsewhere it was tremendously successful. Maybe it is the DoD and the lack of thought Leadership at the top.
CAPTURE | TAG | SHARE | COLLABORATE