The top 7 tips for successful knowledge management programs

This is a blog post I repeat every 5 years or so, my summary of Top 7 success factors for implementing Knowledge Management. 

There are more than 7, of course (see the knowledge manager's handbook for details), but these are some of the most fundamental recommendations. Many if not all of these are now included within the ISO KM standard, and this blog post has been updated this year to reflect this.

"Tip of the Day" from Wikipedia

---

1. KM needs to be driven by operational needs.  

It is vital that KM efforts are clearly linked to operational outcomes, with a clear business objective. I have a quote from a survey from the early 00s, that reads as follows

“Most successful knowledge management applications addressed a ‘life or death’ business situation. Successful cases answered two questions at the outset - What business objective am I trying to achieve? How can I apply existing knowledge?”

Here's another quote - 

"We have been looking at the key processes of the business, testing them for their "knowledge intensity" to see if we would create some significant new change in the performance of that particular process if we managed knowledge in a more profound way. The concept has not been difficult to sell to the top executive team." 

See how this approach starts with the key business processes?

Tom Davenport and co-authors, in the paper "Building successful Knowledge Management projects", conclude that "Link to economic performance or industry value" is the number one success factor for successful KM. Mars, for example, implemented KM at a rate of two business issues per year. 

ISO 30401 (the ISO MSS standard for KM), in its first requirement clause, links KM to defined operational outcomes, so this first success factor is fundamentally woven into the ISO KM standard. 

2. KM needs to be introduced as a management framework. 

A Knowledge Management Framework is a a small defined set of technologies and processes, embedded into business activity, and a small defined set of roles embedded into the organisational structure, all under an umbrella of Governance.  Like other management systems, effective KM is a framework of roles, processes, technologies and governance which has been embedded into the business. Just as Financial Management is not a single tool - budgets for example, or invoicing - and is not a toolbox ("you can try writing budgets if you like - here's a guide"), but is a complete framework embedded into the business process, so Knowledge Management needs a framework. If there are holes in the framework, it will not deliver value.

A common mistake is to introduce one element of the Framework - a technology for example - and expect knowledge to start to flow. It won't. It might trickle, but it won't flow. 

Again, ISO 30401 requires KM to be implemented as a framework, including roles and accountabilities, processes, technology, governance, and culture (clause 4.4.4), covering the 4 main transitions or flow elements of knowledge (clause 4.4.3) and the lifecycle of knowledge (clause 4.4.2). Indeed, the whole concept of a "management system" as embodied in the KM standard equates to a management framework. 

3. KM needs to address Pull as well as Push and demand as well as supply.

I have blogged about this many times - Push creates supply, Pull creates demand and the two need to be in balance. Too many organisations focus on knowledge sharing, not on knowledge seeking and re-use. Pull, in the early stages, is more powerful than push. Creating demand for knowledge creates a market for knowledge.

We didn't manage to get this principle into the ISO standard, though the standard is careful to refer to the need for a culture of seeking as well as sharing. With hindsight, I wish this element had been much stronger in the standard.

4. KM is a culture change process. 

It is not a gradual change either - it is a step-change. It is a remodelling of the organisation; a make-over, a new way of thinking. It needs to be treated as a change process and measured as a change process. Don't go into KM thinking that it is about a new IT tool, or just "trying out communities" - you won't get far if you don't start to address the hearts and minds. This also means that KM implementation must be structured like a change program (including a piloting component), and must have a strong team of change agents to implement the change.

Again, ISO 30401 supports this principle, and clause 4.5 requires organisations to demonstrate that they are addressing the cultural issues within the organisation.

5. KM must be embedded in the business. 

If its not embedded, you risk "tipping back" to a pre-KM state. Many of the high profile failures of KM are due to a failure to embed. You can't rely on KM being driven by the efforts of a central team. A central team are needed, but their role is an assurance and support role. The drive must come from the business. 

ISO 30401 requires a chain of accountability for KM to be established within the organisation (clause 5.3) and KM objectives and plans to be developed at appropriate levels and functions (clause 6.2). These plans and accountabilities are the means by which KM is embedded.

6. KM needs not just high level support, but high level expectation. 

People do what they believe is expected of them. People are generally good workers, they want to do a good job, and if something is expected of them as part of the job, they generally do it. Expectation can be explicit or implicit - written or unwritten. Expectation comes from leadership, and from peers, and these two sources of expectation need to be aligned to be effective . For example there is no point in the boss saying "I expect you to have a work life balance" if all your peers are working to 10pm and expect you to be part of the team, or if your boss is emailing you on a Sunday afternoon and expecting a quick reply. 

Senior management in the organisation needs to make KM expectations clear by explicitly stating what needs to be done in Knowledge Management, and by whom. They need to write these expectations down, and keep reinforcing them by what they say and do. They also need to make sure these expectations do not get weakened by, or conflict with, other company structures and expectations.

ISO ensures this is done by requiring leadership to approve and endorse a KM policy (clause 5.1). It is this policy that sets the clear expectation that KM is a vital component of the organisational  management systems set. 

7. KM should be introduced first where the highest value decisions are made. 

This might be at operator level (the operator of a plant, the driller of an oil-well, the pilot of a passenger aircraft) or it might be at senior management level. Knowledge supports decisions, and decisions are made at all levels. In fact the most valuable and risky decisions are made at senior level. The default approach to supporting these senior management decisions is to hire a big-5 consultant firm to supply the knowledge, but there is no reason why KM can't help as well.  Delivering a high level KM pilot at senior level has three benefits.

• It delivers massive value to the business
• It engages senior managers in KM, and helps them understand the value KM can bring
• It gets senior managers on-side, by solving their problems for them (see the thorn in the lions paw).

Although ISO 30401 states that the role of knowledge, and therefore KM, is to support and improve decision making, the standard makes no recommendations about which decisions to prioritise. That is because the standard is a standard for the final KM system, not for the way in which the system is introduced to the organisation. Therefore let's repeat this one again, as you wont get it just by applying the ISO standard - "Introduce KM first where the highest value decisions are made"

These 7 success factors should help you introduce and sustain successful KM. It's no surprise that most of them are embodied in the ISO KM standard.

How organisations of different KM maturity plan to use the KM standard

The 2020 Knoco survey shows (among very many other interesting things) data on how organisations plan to use the ISO 30401 standard. I have further analysed the dataset to see how the planned usage varies with KM maturity. 

213 people answered the question, and the answers are shown in the pie chart below. Click on the picture for optimal resolution.

The various options on the chart represent escalating levels of involvement with ISO 30401:2018; the ISO management system standard for Knowledge Management, and the pie chart shows the percentage of respondents choosing each as the highest level of planned usage. 

19% of the respondents were unaware of the standard, and 27% know about it but will not buy or use it.

The remaining 54% will make use of the standard in some way, even if they have not quite yet decided how. Only a very small percentage(4%) are seeking, or have achieved, certification. “Other” options include the following: 

Balancing ISO against operational readiness needs. Champion is working to make the value connection: I am aware of it but not using it in (Organisation) as far as I know: I'm in the translation workgroup: organisation is not interested in using it: Probably will do it but not yet: Still early days to think of an ISO certification: Unfortunately seen as “a nice to have” and not top priority: We have a copy of it and would like to implement it within our firm, as a way of embedding KM but we are aware, from KM forums (in legal sector), that it only has one moderator at the moment and is struggling to be implemented in organisations, so we have no examples of where it has been successfully been implemented to demonstrate to our senior management - i would like to learn more about how this could be done.: While I am aware of ISO 30401, business is not. As KM is not openly identified as a business priority and under resourced the will to bring ISO 30401 to the table is not there.

The barchart below splits out these figures by the self-designated maturity of KM within the organisation. Again, click on the figure for better resolution.

We can see the following:

• Organisations early in the journey are less likely to have heard of the ISO standard (bottom blue segment). This makes logical sense.
• The percentage planning not to engage with the standard does not vary much with maturity (red segment). 
• The percentage planning to use it to inform their KM program is greatest in the most mature KM organisations (purple segment), as is the percentage who have conducted an internal review or audit (orange segment).
• The highest percentage planning certification, and the only organisations who have been certified, are in the "well in progress" category. When you think about it, that also makes sense. The standard adds most value as a check against your KM framework prior to finally embedding it into organisation process and structures. Once KM is embedded, its harder to change.
• The "don't know" category is biggest when KM is new. Again - makes sense.
• The "Other" category is biggest where KM is most mature. Again that sort of makes sense - if your organisation has KM fully embedded, the standard will have many more uses than seeking certification or as a yardstick - you can use it more creatively.

Is KM a tool, a toolbox, or a management framework?

What is the Knowledge management solution? That's a question that's been debated for two decades, but I would like to take a high-level approach to the question and ask - is the solution a tool, a toolbox, or a management framework?

Image from wikimedia commons

Is it a tool?

Many organisations start the knowledge management journey believing that the solution to Knowledge Management is a tool. They introduce Yammer, for example, and hope that the connectivity we see in the world-wide web via Twitter will translate into sharing of valuable in-house knowledge. Or they buy a wiki, or knowledge-base software, or get SharePoint, and expect that an in-house equivalent of Wikipedia emerges.

Of course the problems are not solved. One tool does very little to dent the huge issue that is KM. KM has many aspects, and expecting one tool to deliver KM is like buying a hammer, and assuming your home repairs will all be sorted.

Is it a toolbox?

Pretty soon, people realise that one tool does not solve all problems. This is especially true when it comes to KM process - there are a suite of processes that can be applied in different situations; from Peer Assists to After Action Reviews, to Knowledge Exchange circles, and so on. Any one such process is not enough, you need a suite. And the technology tools very rarely stand alone, no matter what the vendors tell you. Any KM technology that claims to be a Jack of All Trades is really a Master of None.  Different KM needs require different (though linked) technologies to satisfy them.

So the companies build a toolbox. "Here are the KM tools" they tell the knowledge workers - "Use them when applicable".  Most of us have such a toolbox in our house, for home improvements. Most of these toolboxes (other than those owned by the enthusiasts) linger untouched in the basement or garage.

The same is true of the KM toolboxes. The enthusiasts use them, but they never get into the mainstream.

Is is a management framework?

Yes, it is. Tools don't get used regularly unless people know how to use them, when to use them, and realise its their job to use them. The framework you need for Knowledge Management includes not just a listing of the processes and technologies, but a definition of when they are expected to be used, and by whom. The framework adds the governance element (the expectation), and the roles element (the "by whom") to the processes and technologies. The ISO KM standard, ISO 30401, is based on the view of  KM as a management framework (they call it "management system").

This management framework defines how KM is embedded into the work process and into the accountabilities in the organisation.  Instead of the toolbox lying unopened in the garage, it is brought in and put on the table; made a part of how you work.

If we stick with the analogy of tools, you can imagine an operating theatre as an example of a framework. Yes, the surgical tools are vital, but the surgical toolbox alone does not result in effective operations. You also need the roles (the surgeon, the anaesthetist, the theatre nurse) and the governance (the expectations on each party, the support and training they have, the checklists they use, and the metrics that are gathered). Just having a box of surgical tools does not mean that you can perform effective surgery.

Knowledge Management is not heart surgery - it is far simpler and far easier. However it still needs to be addressed as a management framework - not as a toolbox, and certainly never as a single tool.

Contact us for help in designing your Knowledge Management Framework

The 4 legs on the KM table - comparison of Google vs ISO

A recurrent theme on this blog is to address "the 4 legs on the Knowledge Management table" - the four enabling elements of the Knowledge Management Framework (and indeed of any management framework) - roles, processes, technology and governance.

Two days ago I published a quick exercise, looking at the relative "Google ranking" of these four elements, as a proxy measure of where the attention typically lies, and comparing this with results 5 years ago.

• A search for "knowledge management process" gave  632000 hits
• A search for "knowledge management technology" gave 416,000 results
• A search for "knowledge management roles" gave 169,000 results
• A search for "knowledge management governance" gave 122,000 results 

These figures show an imbalance between the 4 elements  (although less so than in 2015) with far more attention paid to KM processes and KM technology than to KM roles or governance.  My colleague Ian Fry in Australia then suggested we look at ISO 30401:2018 for a good coverage of governance.  So I went through the various clauses of ISO 30401:2018 to determine which referred to each of the 4 elements. The results are shown in the chart below, and are very interesting.

The plot above shows the results. In ISO 30401 there are

• 4 clauses addressing Roles (4.4.4, 5.3, 7.1, 7.2)
• 2 clauses addressing Process (4.4.4 and the single clause in section 8)
• 1 clause mentioning technology (4.4.4)
• 15 clauses on governance (4.4.4, 5.1, 5.2, and all of sections 6, 7, 9 and 10)

So the view of KM on Google (its all about KM process and technology) and the view of KM on ISO (its all about governance) are diametrically opposed.

Now to an extent that is to be expected, as ISO is a governance document, but it certainly shows that, for organisations wanting to comply with the ISO standard, governance is something that no longer can be neglected. There is no point, for example, in having a toolkit full of processes and technologies if there is no planning, no leadership, no policy, no objectives, no measurement of results, no regular audit, no controlled documentation and no means of continuous improvement of the KM Framework.

Hopefully an increased use of the ISO KM standard will lead to a further balancing of the 4 critical elements that form the 4 legs of the KM table.

Doing KM "the right way around"

Say what you like about the ISO KM standard; at least it encourages you to address KM in the correct order!

There are many approaches adopted for introducing KM, and not all of them work well. For example the historically common approach of "Technology Push" - where an organisation seeks to buy a KM technology as their first step into KM - is usually a recipe for failure. It is still common today - I have many enquiries from organisations who say "we are starting up in KM - help us choose a technology".

Starting like this, from the KM tool, is starting KM the wrong way around.  There is no point in choosing a tool until you are clear what you are doing KM, for who, and with what objective; until you understand the stakeholders and objectives, and also the other elements of the KM Framework which need to be in place.

This is where the beginners in KM will find the new ISO standard - ISO 30401:2018 - particularly useful (contact us for a free white-paper introduction to the standard). In common with all other ISO management system standards, IOS 30401:2018 follows a defined structure (described here) which doubles as a logical sequence for building your KM Framework. ISO have standards for many management systems, they know how they work and how to introduce them, and the logical sequence is based on this experience.

This sequence is described in sections 4 through 10 of the standard as follows;

• First you become clear on the organisational context for KM. Why do you need KM? What will it do for the organisation? What are the external and internal issues which make KM important to you?  This answers the WHY question - why do you need KM? It ties KM to the strategy of the organisation right at the start of the KM thought process; well before you  think about tools.
• Secondly you become clear on the stakeholders for KM, and what they need from the KM framework. This is another way of looking at KM objectives. In the previous section you decided what KM would do for the organisation, in this section you think through, and document, what it will do for the stakeholders. 
• Thirdly you look at the scope of KM. What is in scope, what is out of scope, what will KM focus in and what it will ignore, what part of the organisation will be involved and what parts will not. 
• Only then do you define the Framework - the elements of roles, processes, technology and governance, and how these will affect the culture of the organisation. You look at an integrated framework that covers the lifecycle of knowledge, and covers knowledge in all its forms and transitions. 
• Once this is in place, the standard requires you to look in more detail at the leadership elements that support the KM framework, including the assignment of accountability.
• Then you look at planning and objective setting for KM.
• Then you look at support resources for KM.
• Then you look at how KM operation, KM monitoring and performance management, and finally continuous improvement of the KM Framework.

Now THAT is KM "the right way round"

Knowledge Management Policies - what they are, and why you need them

Once KM is in place, to keep it in place you need a Knowledge Management Policy.

This picture by unknown author is licensed under CC BY-SA

Once you get past the early years of implementing Knowledge Management, when you are doing the testing, training and piloting, you need to be working towards an end state where Knowledge Management is fully embedded as a way of working, and where the organisation is fully committed to KM.

This can be achieved once people know what Knowledge Management means, and that it is something the organisation takes seriously, and when they know what they should be doing, and the part they should be playing.

On way to make these Knowledge Management expectations clear is by defining an  in-house policy, for Knowledge Management.  This clarifies

• The organisational commitment to KM
• The organisational purpose for KM
• The KM principles the organisation will apply;
• The expectations for staff and managers in terms of the application of KM, and 
• The expectations for staff and managers in terms of how they will behave towards knowledge.

The reasons for having a policy are as follows (see also what the NASA CKO said about the reasons for a policy):

1. As a statement of intent from the organisation; a message to staff and stakeholders
2. To set clear expectations, standards and accountabilities for all staff, so they know what they are expected to do. 
3. To demonstrate the full support of senior management. 
4. To provide a framework for departmental KM plans
5. To resolve tensions between opposing forces, such as the tension between open sharing of knowledge versus information security.
6. The ISO Knowledge Management Standard, ISO 30401:2018, requires you to have a KM policy in order to be compliant.  You may say, "so what, who needs to be compliant", but ISO believe that an effective management system must be supported by a polity, and that applies to KM just as it does to other management systems. 

Some examples of these reasons and components are shown below.

Organisational commitment and intent

In the NASA KM Policy, the commitment is expressed as follows;

It is NASA policy to: (1) Effectively manage the Agency's knowledge to cultivate, identify, retain, and share knowledge in order to continuously improve the performance of NASA in implementing its mission, in accordance with NPD 1000.0, Governance and Strategic Management Handbook. Individuals at all levels must take responsibility for retaining, appropriately sharing or protecting, and utilizing knowledge in order to meet future challenges, innovate successfully, and keep pace with the state of the art in rapidly changing times.

The Hong Kong Police have the following policy statement

The Hong Kong Police Force attaches great importance to effectively managing the wisdom, experiences and knowledge accumulated, accrued and acquired over the years either at the individual or the Formation/Unit levels. Such organizational wealth which exists in the form of Major Formation / Formation databases or intangible (tacit) knowledge residing within an officer is highly valued. With a view to enhancing the performance of the Force and in turn to delivering a better service to the public, the Force is committed to developing and promoting KM which should at all times be aligned with the Force Vision and Mission. 

Expectations on Staff

In one oil company, every drilling project over a threshold value is required, as defined within the Knowledge Management component of operating policy,

• to develop a Knowledge Management plan
• to capture lessons during operations
• to hold a learning review at the end of the well. 

These expectations are written out clearly, and have been rolled out to all drilling staff. Everyone is clear about what they should be doing.


Here is another example; an extract taken from the 2007 Intercooperation KM policy (no longer online). This extract covers the expectations on individual staff members for Knowledge Capture - there are other sections covering Knowledge Creation, Knowledge Sharing, and the Organisational and Project dimensions

• Staff members use and contribute to our web-based information system as a regular part of their activities.
• Staff members contribute actively to the documentation of Intercooperation’s field experiences (in written, film, photographic, or other form), especially where this is of a comparative or analytical nature. They are supported in time allocation/other resources (eg. editorial assistance).
• Persons leaving one position to take up another write a final report, focusing on "lessons learned" (both positive and negative experiences - at the organisational and the individual level).
• For those undergoing a “reintegration” period after working for Intercooperation, a feedback on this process is given (normally in a short written report).
• In all report writing, staff members endeavour to highlight experience relating to Intercooperation’s thematic and methodological (process) topics (as used in knowledge mapping under our web-based information system).

Purpose

The NASA purpose is in the quote above - "in order to continuously improve the performance of NASA in implementing its mission".

Avangrid (link below) quote the purpose as follows: "The effective development, dissemination, sharing, and protection of Avangrid’s intellectual capital enhances operational efficiency and is a key element in creating sustainable value for Avangrid’s shareholders.

For the Hong Kong Police the purpose is "enhancing the performance of the Force and in turn to delivering a better service to the public".

The Iberdrola KM Policy states the purpose as " - to enhance operational efficiency through the proper use of intellectual capital - In a world in which traditional production assets are ever more accessible, intellectual capital is what marks the differences between companies that are competitive and those that are not, and between those that sustainably create value and those that gradually lose their capacity to generate wealth."

Principles

A good principles-based policy from Avangrid can be found here

The US Army KM principles can be found here


Contact Knoco if you want help in developing a KM policy.

Why "Knowledge" needs "Management" and vice versa

There are many people who really don't like the term Knowledge Management, and would much rather use some other terminology. But logically, these two words go together. 

There is a common view that the term "Knowledge Management" is an oxymoron; that "knowledge cannot be managed" and therefore the term makes no sense.  They start to use terms like "Knowledge Sharing" instead of "Knowledge Management," and KM becomes a taboo term - something to be avoided.

However there are a number of reasons what Knowledge Management is not only a valid term, but a combination of two words that need each other.

Firstly the term "Knowledge Management" does not mean "the Management of Knowledge,"  nor does it imply management by control. Management is about  creating and maintaining organisational structures, frameworks, systems and processes to optimise the value of some area of focus, and in the case of KM, Knowledge is the area of focus.

"Knowledge Management" is therefore "Management with a focus on Knowledge".

This is the definition you will find in ISO 30401:2018, the management systems standard for Knowledge Management, and we based this on the definition of Quality Management in ISO 9001.  With this definition, there is no oxymorom. KM is Management with Knowledge in mind.

Management is what we do to make organisations work; to make them prosper and succeed. And if they don't manage with knowledge (together with risk, quality, safety, money etc etc) in mind, then they won't prosper and succeed to the same extent.

Divorcing "management" from "knowledge" also means divorcing "knowledge" from "management". If you are talking to managers, then they need to understand that these two cannot and should not be divorced.

They cannot manage properly, if they ignore knowledge.  And if we manage with due attention to the value and importance of knowledge, then this is Knowledge Management, and this is what we should be doing. Management needs Knowledge, and Knowledge needs Management, in the sense that it needs organisational structures, frameworks, systems and processes.

The two words belong together.

New survey results on planned usage of the ISO KM standard

Last week I launched an online survey of planned uses for the new ISO KM standard: ISO 30401:2018. Here are the results of that survey. 

The survey was announced on this blog, on Twitter, and on LinkedIn (where it was shared by many people). 75 people answered the survey, which seems like a large enough dataset to be representative. The results are shown above, and in the table below.

Response	Number
Buy a copy as a useful guide to KM development	20
Self-audit compliance against the standard	17
No plans to engage with it	14
I didn't even know there was an ISO KM standard	12
Seek external audit of compliance against the standard	5
Bought a copy to be able to advise clients aiming for it.	1
Bought a copy. Now thinking of how could I use THAT...	1
Hasn’t thought about it in a while but now thinking we should use!	1
If I can access through the library I would look at it but I can't afford to purchase a copy	1
Use it as a communications tool for senior stakeholders to get buy in for a "serious" approach to KM	1
Utilize audit group internally	1
Need to understand it better before I decide whether I need to consider it relevant in my market	1

Over half of the respondents (42 out of 45) plan to use the survey in some way or another, as a useful guide (27%), as a tool for self-audit (23%) or as a tool for external audit (7%).

14 respondents (19%) do not plan to engage with the standard at all. 

Almost as many (12 respondents, 16%) were unaware that it exists. 

The remaining individual responses vary

• Three of them are effectively "don't know" responses
• One is "I can't afford it", which you could say equates to not planning to engage with it, for reasons of expense. 
• One is "utilise audit group" which I suspect is another vote for internal/self-audit
• One is a KM consultant planning to use it with clients
• And the final one is interesting - planning to use the standard as a mechanism to engage senior managers. 

If we eliminate the "Don't know" answers and the "Unaware" answers, and reassign "can't afford it" and "utilise audit group" as discussed above, then we have the following stats:

• 60 people knew about the standard and had a view on its use
• 45 of these (75%) planned to use the standard in some way (as a guide, for internal or external audit, for communication with stakeholders or for supporting clients)
• 15 (25%) said they had no plans to use it

How are you planning to use the new ISO KM Standard? Survey, and results

It looks like there is quite a lot of interest in ISO 30401, the ISO management systems standard for Knowledge Management. 

This blog post gives you the results of a recent poll, and the chance to submit your own views, concerning usage of the ISO KM standard.

On Tuesday, the organizers of the KMUK conference ran an online poll, after I had delivered the opening address discussing the standard, its genesis, its structure, and ways in which it can be used. The poll asked "How are you planning to use the new ISO KM Standard" and provided three options;

• Buy a copy as a useful guide to KM development
• No plans to engage with it
• Applying for certification

I had already explained in the keynote that certification, in the sense that it is applied to ISO 9001, is not possible until the accreditation bodies accredit certification companies, so I suspect the last option was interpreted as "aiming to be audited against the standard."

The results of the 27 replies received are shown in the chart below. 

These results, albeit from a limited sample, suggest that over 60% intend to engage with the standard in some way, with 7% wishing to demonstrate compliance.

But how about you?

Use the poll below to give your views. Note I have used 5 options, so even if you voted at KMUK, please vote again

Why definitions of knowledge and Km should avoid using the word "information"

This blog post is a reprise and a rewrite of one I have posted before, and which always drives comment and discussion, but is worth revisiting for a newer audience. 

It covers the difference between Knowledge and Information - that perennial topic of debate - and therefore the difference between KM and IM.  This debate is often driven by assumptions, those assumptions can influence definitions if you are not careful, and definitions can set the scope of your KM work.

It is an open debate how closely knowledge is linked to information, and therefore how valid constructs such as the DIK pyramid are.

 If you define Knowledge as something based on Information ("knowledge is information plus context", "Knowledge is information that allows us to take action", "knowledge is information plus processing") then you are already making an assumption about the link between the two.  This assumption of a link leads to a second assumption that you manage knowledge in the same way as information - through libraries, databases, information bases, knowledge bases, or repositories.

Personally I think there is an equally valid set of assumptions;

1. that knowledge is something you APPLY to information in order to be able to interpret information (see also Drucker's point that information only becomes knowledge in the heads of knowledgeable people, and Ackoff's original explanation that Knowledge is what makes possible the transformation of information into instructions); 
2. that knowledge is more closely related to understanding and to insight than to information. 
3. that knowledge is a function of experience more than it is a function of information, and it is that experience that allows you to handle and interpret information, and to make information actionable (see picture below); 

The three assumptions above lead you to a view that the majority of knowledge is carried by people, and lives in heads and in networks, rather than in libraries, databases, information bases, knowledge bases, or repositories.

The fact that the relationship between information and knowledge is fuzzy and open to alternative views and assumptions suggests that definitions of knowledge should not be based on information, but should stand alone. That is why (or partly why) the ISO 30401:2018 definition of knowledge is "a human or organizational asset enabling effective decisions and action in context". No use of the term Information here. 

If we separate out knowledge from information, then we can also separate Knowledge Management from Information Management. 

Management of knowledge therefore becomes as much or more about the management of people and their interaction, than it becomes about the management of files and documents.  People can interact through documents, and (arguably) documents can carry knowledge, but (as suggested here) Knowledge Management is about the content of the documents - the knowledge held within the documents - and Information Management is about management of the documents themselves (the containers of the knowledge).

Unless you assume that knowledge and information are synonymous, then definitions of KM that refer primarily to information are not definitions of knowledge management.

As an example, the current default definition that pops up on my Google results for knowledge management is "efficient handling of information and resources within a commercial organization". This to me is a definition of commercial information (and resource) management, not KM. Similarly the Wikpedia definition "the process of creating, sharing, using and managing the knowledge and information of an organisation" is a definition of "Knowledge and Information Management" (a hybrid discipline some organisations apply).

ISO 30401:2018 takes a different approach, defining KM as "Management with regard to knowledge" (where knowledge is defined as above). This neatly focuses the topic, and reminds us that KM is not "the management of knowledge" but "knowledge-focused management" - a crucial difference.

In all of this we must remember that the English Language is deficient in this regard, and uses one word for Knowledge while other languages have two.  This lack of nuance is at the root of much of the confusion.

So if you want to avoid putting assumptions into your definition (always a good thing to avoid!), then my suggestion is to avoid any definitions of Knowledge which include the word Information.  To mix the two is to blur the boundaries between KM and IM, to ignore the 5 main differences between the two, and to risk ending up looking only at the management of documents and online content.

Be clear, in order to avoid confusing the disciplines. 

ISO KM standard now available for purchase

ISO 30401, the Management System standard for Knowledge Management, is now available for purchase

From the ISO store, for 118 Swiss Francs
From the BSI store, for £170, or member price of £85

More details on the standard

• Link to webinar recording
• News and explanations
• The standard explained

ISO KM standard - link to webinar recording

Please find copied below a communication from BSI about the webinar earlier this week where we introduced ISO Management Systems standard 30401 - Knowledge Management, with a request to pass it on to other interested parties.

You can find below links to the slides that were presented, and to a recording of the webinar

Unlocking the value of knowledge - Introduction to BS ISO 30401

Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

Dear Nicholas, Thank you for your interest in our Unlocking the value of knowledge - Introduction to BSI ISO 30401 Webinar. You can download the presented material below.    Download slides     Play recording  Please feel free to pass these along to colleagues who may be interested. We hope that you find it interesting and helpful in understanding the new standard. We look forward to welcoming you to other insightful discussions in the future.   Keep an eye: BS ISO 30401 will be published soon and you can follow the project status here.

For all general enquiries call +44 345 086 9001 or visit the BSI Group website Our mailing address is: BSI Standards 389 Chiswick High Road London, W4 4AL United Kingdom The British Standards Institution (BSI, a company incorporated by Royal Charter), performs the National Standards Body activity (NSB) in the UK. BSI, together with other BSI Group Companies, also offers a broad portfolio of business solutions other than the NSB activity that help businesses worldwide to improve results through Standards-based best practice (such as certification, self-assessment tools, software, product testing, information products and training).

The ISO KM standard - news and explanations

The ISO KM standard is due for publication in September. Here's the latest news, and what to expect when the standard is finally ready.

The international committee at work on the standard this week.
That's me on the far right. Photo by Avigdor Sharon 

This week, in Paris, the ISO working group finished work on the final draft of ISO Management Systems standard. Here are some facts about the standard,  a description of its development, and a discussion of some of the benefits.

First of all, some reassuring words about ISO standards in general and the KM standard in particular.

About the standard

The standard will not try to tell you how to do KM.  This would be crazy - every organisation has to do KM in a way that suits their purpose, objective and context. What the standard does is makes sure you have set up a good management system, to provide solid foundations on which to build your KM solution.


The standard is not just for big companies.  We have tried to make it flexible enough work for organisations of all types and of all sizes.

The standard will not require you to be externally audited.  It's primarily for your own guidance, with internal audit as a good practice if you so choose. Only a small proportion of the ISO standards are regularly audited  using external auditors, and 90% of audit work is against only 5 standards (9001, 14001, 18001, 27001, 45001); the other 22131 standards mostly never get audited. There would need to be a reason for external audit,for a KM standard and then a set of accredited auditors willing to do the work, and I can't see either of these being viable for KM, which is relatively niche when compared to topics such as health, safety and quality. The KM standard will be an aid for self-audit and self-examination rather than a requirement for accreditation.

The standard will not take ages to implement. There are 49 uses of the word "shall" in the standard, each of which marks a requirement, but many of those are sub-requirements to a larger requirement. There are maybe 25 or 30 things you need to be able to demonstrate in order to comply with the standard, and the chances are you do most or all of these already.

The standard does not mandate how you implement KM. Top-down, bottom-up, middle-in-out, guerrilla KM, agile KM, or KM as a change program - implement it as you see fit and at your own risk. The standard describes requirements for the final product, not how you get there.

The KM standard will look very much like other ISO standards. That's because all the ISO management systems standards use the same structure and much of the same text. You can see the mandatory generic text here. The introduction and annexes are unique to the KM standard, but these do not contain any requirements, but are instead explanatory.

The development of the standard

Work on the standard started in 2015 and was conducted by an international committee supported by mirror committees in the main involved countries. Several sessions through 2016 and 2017 created a  draft version of the standard, which was judged in late 2017 to be ready enough to open for public comment.  You can buy a copy of this draft standard here. It will cost you 58 Swiss francs.

The draft was made available for public review and comment over a 6 week period in Dec 2017 and Jan 2018. Hundreds of comments were received. The British site alone received about 350 comments - some of them one-liners pointing out spelling mistakes, others suggesting rewordings for entire sections. Many of the comments gave alternative views on the same points, and needed to be balanced and reconciled; others suggested alterations to the mandatory text which ISO requires to be used. The British working group went through each comment, identifying 270 suggestions to be referred on to the international committee.

This week the committee reviewed the referred comments from all 15 contributing countries - 420 comments in all - and discussed each one, making edits to the text as appropriate. We finished the job, and the standard now goes to ISO for proof-reading and for translation into French, German and Russian. We expect it to be ready for purchase in September, if all goes well.

You can "follow" the development of the standard here
You can read the draft introduction and see the draft table of contents here

Benefits of the standard.

I presented on the standard at KMUK this week, and in discussion afterwards we identified several benefits the standard will bring to knowledge managers:

• It gives KM legitimacy as a profession. Several people said their management often look at KM as "not a real management discipline". Now it's real enough to have its own KM standard.
• It gives the Knowledge Managers leverage in their organisation. You can say to your management "if we don't do X, Y and Z our KM won't be compliant with the ISO standard".
• It can be used in bidding for work. If you are bidding based on your organisational expertise, it might be useful to say "Our KM approach is compliant with ISO standard 30401" (provided your internal audit shows this to be the case, of course).
• And naturally it provides a benchmark for your KM management system; a yardstick for you to measure against, and a guide for those organisations who are newcomers to KM to stop them falling into the common pitfalls.

The ISO KM draft standard is now available

After a couple of years of development, the ISO KM standard (ISO 30401) is now open for discussion of the first committee draft.

You can buy a copy of the draft standard from the ISO site for 58 swiss francs, or your own national standards body may allow you to view and comment on the standard online. The British site for review and comment is here, for example (you will need to register).

You have until January 16 to comment, after which the comments will be reviewed by the national standards bodies and passed on to the working group for ISO 30401 for review and revision.

All comments welcome!

My views on this standard can be found in the blog post below:

http://www.nickmilton.com/2016/11/the-case-for-km-standards.html