Formal KM v informal – Connect v Collect

People are often instinctively drawn towards one component of Knowledge Management. Here’s a way of looking at those components.

Choices about the approach to KM are often made implicitly, emotionally, or through assumption, so it’s worth taking time out to analyse these approaches intellectually, before starting work on your Knowledge Management Framework.

 I am going to look at some of these philosophical choices under two headings;

  • Whether we will choose a formal system or an informal system 
  • Whether we will focus on connecting people, or on collecting lessons 

Together these two choices form a Boston Square, shown here.

 Formal v informal

The choice between formal and informal is an important one. We can take a formal system as being one with defined roles, defined expectations, defined technology and defined workflows. The system operates within a defined framework, or set of rules. An informal system, on the other hand, has few if any defined roles or expectations, and operates in an adhoc manner.

The choice between formal and informal is often an ideological choice. Either we feel that learning and knowledge are organic processes that will be killed by any degree of formality, or whether we feel that learning is far too important to be left to adhoc informality and chance.

Connect v Collect

The system can also be driven through Connect, or through Collect. In other words, lessons can stay tacit and unwritten, or we can try to transfer knowledge through the use of recorded or written material. In a Connect system, we look at building networks of people who seek and share knowledge through dialogue and conversation. In a Connect system, the transfer of lessons requires them to be written down and stored, so others can find them and learn from them.

Again, this is often an ideological choice. People feel that knowledge is inherently a human property that can only be transferred through human interaction. Or people feel that there needs to be a centrally accessible knowledge base that people can refer to and rely on.

As this picture shows, the interplay of connect/collect and formal/informal gives four quadrants, which can represent four end-member choices for a lesson learning system.

Formal Collection 

The formal collection quadrant is where a company has an organized and managed system for building a collection of documented knowledge. This quadrant is the home of lessons databases, knowledge bases etc.  Formal knowledge bases have the great advantage that it is easy to track, find, sort and group knowledge. The disadvantages with such a system are that people find it frustrating or difficult to add new knowledge.  These formal systems are more challenging to enter content, though easier for retrieving and tracking content.

Informal Collection 

At the other end of the formality scale are the voluntary, ad-hoc and self-organising community tools such as wikis (although of course a degree of fomality can be built around a wiki). The Wikipedia model has sometimes been suggested as a model for sharing knowledge in a large organization, allowing wisdom to spontaneously emerge from crowds. The great advantage of wiki technology is that it is extremely easy to enter basic content, and a little bit of technical skill allows you to add a richness of multimedia content as well. If you are motivated to publish, Wikis such as Wikipedia offer an simple route, and the crowd can be expected to edit as well as to source material.

 However there are drawbacks with the informal Wikipedia model. The 90:9:1 rule tells us that voluntary wikis draw on only about 2% -3% of available knowledge, and all submissions in the Wikipedia model are voluntary and adhoc. So unless there is a huge user base and massive redundancy or overlap in knowledge, there is a real risk that crucial knowledge may never enter the system.

Formal Connect 

Formal connect-based systems are the formal networks, expert locators and the top-down Communities of Practice, which allow members use each other as a resource and repository of unwritten knowledge. Here knowledge exchange is through dialogue, accomplished within a formal network of people or at a formal meeting. Formal Connect systems are ideal for sharing lessons in areas of complex or context-specific need and for topics which are rapidly changing, and where new problems are being regularly identified. They are less appropriate where processes are becoming better defined and more standardized, and where lessons can be collected and incorporated into standards and guidelines.

Informal connect 

The fourth quadrant represents the informal Connect-based systems. Examples here can be found in self-organising social networks. Here is the extreme of informality, where discussion groups emerge from bottom-up interest, allowing questions to be asked, answers to be given and lessons to be exchanged in a loose and mobile network of contacts. The appeal of these systems is their extreme informality and ease of use, and the introduction of systems such as these can help to develop a more open discussion-oriented culture in an organisation. They also allow for serendipity; chance meetings with unusual sources of learning. The disadvantage is the great difficulty in ensuring the right questions are asked in the first place, and then in making sure they are answered by someone with valid lessons and experience to offer. Many online discussions can end up as an exchange of opinions among a random grouping, rather than an effective trawl for experience; more gossip than an exchange of lessons.

The blended approach 

As far as Connect and Collect are concerned, I firmly believe that the answer is “Both/And” rather than Either/Or. They are not alternatives, but complementary approaches. Any complete Knowledge ManagementFramework needs a blend of Connect and Collect, running both approaches in parallel. They need to be cross-linked of course, and the communities or networks can take accountability for some of the Collection, as well as the Connection.

As far as informal/formal is concerned, the answer is to find the right balance. Not a blend, but a balance. In any one company, for any one topic, to run formal and informal systems in parallel would be to confuse the user, and often to undermine one or other of the two – “I know that’s what it says in the official process, but what is the word on the street?”

There is no value to anyone if the word on the street and the official line diverge. Which lessons will you follow in that case? The formal/informal balance on the Connect side is found in the communities of practice, where a community will develop (or be given) a level of formality which suits their need and purpose.

The answer is to recognise these four end members, and to see them not as options to choose between, but as components of a complete system. 

View Original Source Here.

Pride as a KM disincentive/incentive

Pride is an interesting motivator in Knowledge Management. In some cases it acts as a real dis-incentive, but if harnessed well it can be a powerful driver for KM behaviours.

Proud Lion from Public Domain Pictures

I was reflecting on this recently while running one of our powerful Bird Island exercises.

People start this exercise by building a structure from bricks and sticks and rubber bands. They work in isolated teams, and have no knowledge of the task before they start. They create relatively small structures, but are inordinately proud of them.

After a while, we get the teams to share knowledge with one another. They send one member out of the door to go and interact with another team, and very often they have a little discussion about how open the team member should be with the others. Last week, one team actually suggested to their envoy that if the other team’s structure was smaller, they should give misinformation, rather than share knowledge with them. They were proud of their success, and did not want to share it.

This is the negative side of pride. If people are proud of their work they may be unlikely to want to change it, to learn from others, or even to share with others that they see as competitors. Pride is part of what drives “not invented here” and knowledge hoarding.

Wounded pride.

What happened to many of the teams was that they found that the other teams’ structure was much taller, and that theirs looked like a midget in comparison. Now their pride was dented, they realised that their performance was mediocre, and that they had a lot to learn.

When we got the team together in a group and showed them current best practice, their pride was dented even more. Even the best of their structures was less than half the height of the current world record. And sure enough, when we built the structures again, everyone was liberally copying from the “best practice”. There as no evidence of the “Not Invented Here” syndrome.

That’s because wounded pride kills “not invented here”. You cannot proudly continue to reject knowledge from other people who are performing far better than you are.

People want to do a good job, they want to be among the leaders, and if they find that their current approach gives results that are bottom quartile they will not defend their approach, they will not display NiH, but will look for knowledge from any source they can, to restore Great Performance. I remember one drilling crew on the Gulf of Mexico, whose motivation to learn was to be “the best darned drill crew in the Gulf” and who approached KM with great enthusiasm.

You need to remove the false pride in local (substandard) performance and harness the motivation of “proud to be the best” in driving people towards learning and sharing.

View Original Source Here.

The leaders who grew up with KM

Knowledge Management is now, in some industries, old enough that that leaders “grew up” with KM as a resource.  What difference does this make?

Average length of time different industries have
been doing KM. Data from the 2014 Knoco KM survey.

We are many of us familiar with organisations where KM is a new discipline, and where leaders need reassurance that KM will add value.  But what about where it is no longer new?

In many industries, as the table above shows, KM has been in place for nearly a decade (this table was created in 2014), and in some companies for nearly 2 decades.  That is long enough for managers to have come up through the ranks with KM already in place.  So what difference does this make to leadership attitudes?

Here are two stories; one positive, and one less positive.

The positive

I talked recently to a knowledge manager from a company who has been working with knowledge management for over 15 years, and has developed an enviable reputation for having for the backing of senior management for their knowledge management initiatives. 

She was explaining to me about their long term approach for communities of practice, and how over the 15 years, many of the initial community leaders have now been promoted into senior management posts. They are beginning to really reap the benefits of this, as the new generation of senior managers have “grown up” in the organisation with knowledge management being a way of life.

 As a result, these managers see KM not as something extra, or as a new initiative, but this or part of the natural way of working. They have been there, they have been involved, they have seen the benefits, and knowledge management for them is now as natural as financial management or safety management.  For these managers, KM is “part of the job”, and they expect their staff to do KM.

The less positive

Then earlier this week I had another conversation, which perhaps shows a potential downside. In this company, KM has been running since the late 90s, with Communities of Practice being a very powerful mechanism. However the CoP forum is still running on late 90s technology, and really needs an upgrade.  Unfortunately the managers, who came up through the ranks using this forum and know it to be a massively valuable resource, are saying “Don’t mess with the forum. Whatever you do – don’t compromise its effectiveness”.

In many ways I sympathise with them – upgrading technology for the sake of it can be risky and if something continues to do the job needed, then why not stick with it. However in this case, they may well be standing in the way of needed progress.

When leaders grow up with KM, their support is assured, but make sure they do not stand in the way of KM developing even further.

View Original Source Here.

The lesson-learning workflow at Continental Automotive

Here is a link to a description of lesson-learning at Continental Automotive, including a well-developed lessons workflow. It is a good example of Level 2 lesson learning as described yesterday.

Image reproduced from here

The Lesson-learning workflow operates as follows:

  • A user creates a draft lesson and submits it to the Lesson Management System.
  • The draft lesson is checked by a lesson administrator
  • If it passes the check, it is sent to one of the Continental Lesson Learned Specialists
  • The specialist evaluates the lesson, deciding whether it is a valuable lesson, and whether the lesson can be embedded into processes and guidance
  • If it is valuable, it is added to the Lesson Management System so others can find it
  • If it can be embedded, it is sent to the Integration Department so the relevant processes and guidance can be updated
  • The Integration department track lesson metrics
Note the use of different lesson-learning support resources, the push to embed lessons into guidance and processes, and the tracking system.

Lessons can reach the user in a number of ways

  • The user can follow processes and guidance
  • The user can set up alerts, to be informed of new lessons on specific topics
  • The user can search the Lesson Management System
  • The user can make use of checklists automatically generated by the Lesson Management System
This is a great system, and it’s not surprising that Continental employees believe the importance of lesson learning to the company is high or very high.  This counts as Level 2 lesson-learning, because of the effort to embed lessons into process, and the tracking step puts it at level 2c.

This is the sort of level all organisations should aspire to, if they are serious about lesson learning.

View Original Source Here.

Three levels of Lesson Learning

Here are a couple of reprised blog posts from 5 years ago, covering the topic of lesson learning, and presenting 3 potential levels of maturity for a learning system. Most organisations are stuck at level 1.

There are three levels of rigour, or levels of maturity, regarding how Lesson-learning is applied in organisations.

  • The first is to reactively capture and doccument lessons for others to find and read
  • The second is to reactively capture lessons at the end of projects, document them, and as a result make changes to company procedures and practices
  • The third is to proactively hunt lessons from wherever they can be found, and make changes to company procedures and practices so that the lessons are embedded into practice. 

Lesson-learning can be a very powerful way for an organisation to learn, change and adapt, but only if it is approached in a mature way. Level 1, to be honest, will not add much value, and its only when you get to level 2 that Lesson learning really starts to make a difference.

Let’s look at those levels in more detail.

Level 1

Level 1  is to reactively capture lessons at the end of projects, and document them so that others can learn. Lessons are stored somewhere, and people need to find and read the lesson in order to access the knowledge. There are sub-levels of maturity in level 1, which include

1a) Ad-hoc capture of lessons, often by the project leader, documenting them and storing them in project files with no quality control or validation step. Lessons must therefore be sought by reading project reports, or browsing project files structures

1b)Structured capture of lessons, through lessons identification meetings such as retrospects, documenting and storing the lessons in project files with no quality control or validation step.

1c) Structured capture of lessons, through lessons identification meetings such as retrospects, documenting and storing the lessons in a company-wide system such as a lessons database or a wiki. This often includes a validation step.

1d) Structured capture of lessons, through lessons identification meetings such as retrospects, documenting and storing the lessons in a company-wide system with auto-notification, so that people can self-nominate to receive specific lessons.

Level 2

Level 2 is to reactively capture lessons at the end of projects, document them, and as a result make changes to company procedures and practices so that the lessons are embedded into practice. Here people do not need to read the lesson to access the knowledge, they just need to follow the practice. Again, there are sub-levels of maturity in level 2, which include

2a) Lessons are forwarded (ideally automatically, by a lesson management system) to the relevant expert for information, with the expectation that they will review them and incorporate them into practice.

2b) Lessons include assigned actions for the relevant expert, and are auto-forwarded to the expert for action

2c) As 2b, with the addition that the actions are tracked and reported.

Level 3  is to proactively hunt lessons from wherever they can be found, and make changes to company procedures and practices so that the lessons are embedded into practice.  There are not enough organisations at level 3 to recognise sub-levels, but there are some ways in which Level 3 can operate

3a) Senior managers can identify priority learning areas for the organisation. Projects are given learning objectives – objectives for gathering knowledge and lessons on behalf of the organisation. These may be written into project knowledge management plans. 3b) Learning teams may analyse lessons over a period of months or years to look for the common themes and the underlying trends – the weak signals that operational lessons may mask.

3c) Organisations may deploy specific learning resources (Learning Engineers, Project Historians, etc) into projects or activity, in order to pick up specific learning for the organisation.

I have only really come across level 3 in the military.  For example, see this quote from
Lieutenant-General Paul Newton

The key is to ‘hunt’ not ‘gather’ lessons, apply them rigorously—and only when you have made a change have you really learned a lesson. And it applies to everyone … It is Whole Army business. 

However even level 2 is quite rare. Many organisations have not gone beyond the “document and store” stages of Level 1, and generally have been disappointed by the outcomes.

If you aspire to be a learning organisation, set your sights at levels 2 or 3.

View Original Source Here.

When you need more than one KM solution

The goal of Knowledge Management is to embed an effecting Knowledge Management Framework, that enables a thriving KM culture and impacts organisational outcomes. But sometimes one Framework is not enough.

I have blogged before about the different sorts of Knowledge which need to be managed, and suggested that Knowledge Management may look very different if it is Process-focused, Product-focused or Customer-focused.

A process-focused organisation will set up communities of practice who develop Best Practices, while a product-focused organisation will set up product-based communities focused on Best Designs.  The solutions will be similar in outline, but different in detail.

However there are many organisations which have more than one focus, as shown in the Ternary diagram here showing results from the Knoco 2014 Knowledge Management survey.  Manufacturing organisations, for example (the red square in the diagram) are equally focused on Process and Product. Info and Media companies (blue star) are equally focused on Product and Customer. Professional services (yellow circle) are concerned with all three.

These organisations may actually need to set up more than one Knowledge Management Framework.

An example

For example, we are working right now with a manufacturing company, looking at the way it manages knowledge.  We have found that they are not doing too badly in terms of product knowledge, but really need to sharpen their process knowledge. To this end, we are recommending two KM Frameworks, which we can summarise as follows:

A Product KM framework including

  • Knowledge Gap Analysis
  • Toyota A3 process
  • A set of Subject-matter-responsible engineers
  • Development of engineering checksheets
  • Linkage between the issues list, the checksheets and the failure-mode analysis
A Process KM framework including
If and when this company starts to look at Customer-focused Knowledge as well, we might recommend a third framework for their contact centre, including
  • Creation of knowledge articles based on consumer contacts
  • Contact centre coaches
  • Knowledge base software
What we find is that its mainly the bigger organisations that need more than one framework, but even for the medium sized organisations it’s worth asking whether one framework will fit all needs.

We often hear there is no “one size fits all” for KM, and sometimes there is no one KM solution that fits all parts of the organisation either. 

View Original Source Here.

Knowledge workers – suppliers as well as consumers of knowledge

Here’s another characteristic of Knowledge workers – they supply as well as consume knowledge.

I blogged recently about what makes a Knowledge Worker, and suggested that a Knowledge Worker is someone who knows more about their job that their boss or client, and so is hired for what they know as well as what they do.  Also that the role of Knowledge Management is to give the Knowledge Worker access to the knowledge they need to perform their role.
However this flow of knowledge is not one-way. The KM framework should not only give the knowledge workers access to knowledge, it should also provide a means for the share their knowledge as well. The flow of knowledge is multi-way.
That’s what distinguishes KM from Learning and Development. In L&D the workers are seen as consumers of knowledge, whereas in KM, the knowledge workers are both consumers and suppliers.  KM should allow the knowledge workers to share access to knowledge; both the knowledge that has been documented and collected, and the knowledge that the other knowledge workers still hold in their heads.
If the knowledge workers both supply and consume, then knowledge becomes collective property, with each knowledge worker both contributing and benefiting to the collective commons. This is both the outcome that KM looks to deliver, and the value proposition that you present to the knowledge workers. It is like a deal that you, as Knowledge Manager, strike with the knowledge workers 

“We will give you access to all the knowledge of your co-workers, to make your job easier and to save you time. All we need in return is for you to also share what you know”.

View Original Source Here.

Risk, Knowledge and unknowns

Risk management and knowledge management both deal with the issues of unknowns, and are therefore closely linked.

In this blog post, Don McAlister reflects upon risk management in projects, and concludes that

“If the Project Plan represents the knowledge that must be applied to achieve the project objectives…and if risk is the uncertainty that matters in the knowledge that makes up the Project Plan,…then project and risk management work must be knowledge management activities”

Don shows this diagram, to explain how risk management maps onto the four risk domains

Picture from Don McAlister

Knowledge Management allows us to address these four domains one by one, and we can map the application of KM tools and techniques into a project as we seek to address the knowns and the unknowns, as I show in the picture below

In column one, a project maps out (perhaps as part of Knowledge Management Planning) the important knowledge needed for the safe and effective delivery of the project objectives. There are known knowns, known unknowns etc etc, and we have shown these as equal in extent.
The first area they address is the known unknowns – the things they know they don’t know, and know that they need to know. They put a set of learning activities (such as Peer Assists  of reviews of Lessons) in place to fill the knowledge gap. As a result, in column two, they eliminate this area, and increase the known knowns by “learning before doing”.
Then during the project they will encounter some of the unknown unknowns, which become apparent as nasty surprises. The fix these through learning from their own experience (eg using After Action reviews) or pulling in extra knowledge from the Communities of Practice.  As a result, in column three, they reduce this area, and increase the known knowns by “learning during”.
At the end of the project they do some reflection, go through a facilitated lesson-learning exercise, and may discuss their learning with other projects. Through discussion and dialogue, they become aware of some of the other things they have learned. As a result, in column three, they reduce the area of unknown knowns, and increase the known knowns by “learning after”.

Risk management can help identify the knowledge gaps and plan with them in mind, while Knowledge Management can close the gaps.

View Original Source Here.

How to introduce a KM culture? Just the same as any other culture.

There is a lot written about KM culture and how to implement it, but most organisations already know how to build and sustain a culture. 

Introducing a Knowledge Management culture is not easy and many people are looking for the secret of how to do this, but my view is quite straightforward.  You foster a KM culture in just the same way as you foster any of the other cultures you already have in your organisation.

Knowledge Management isn’t anything really special or unique; it’s one of a number of management disciplines, and it’s the one focused on knowledge and organisational learning.  Almost certainly you have already introduced, and continue to maintain, a series of cultures related to other disciplines. You might already have, for example, one of the following:

One of the tenets of Knowledge Management is that we should learn as much as possible from others. If we are to practice what we preach, then we should learn how these other cultures have been built and sustained. They are your sources of knowledge, and what works for them, is likely to work for for the knowledge management culture as well..

So if you are interested in fostering a knowledge culture, then look at what culture your organisation is already successfully fostering, and look at how that is done.  Try the following approaches:

  • Find the people who were involved in introducing these cultures, and interview them to find out their lessons: what they did what was successful, and what they would have done differently with hindsight;
  • Find the people who are responsible for these cultures, and set up a peer assist so they can share their knowledge with you;
  • Talk to the staff within the organisation and find out why they comply with the culture. What are the things that influence their behaviour?

Look at how the existing cultures are expressed, look at the messages given from leadership, look at how the culture is rewarded and reinforced and communicated, look at how it is embedded into processes and roles.

Then do the same for knowledge management.

View Original Source Here.

Tacit Knowledge and cognitive bias

Is that really Tacit Knowledge in your head, or is it just the Stories you like to tell yourself?

IMAGINATION by archanN on wikimedia commons

All Knowledge Managers know about the difference between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge, and the difference between the undocumented knowledge you hold in your head, and documented knowledge which can be shared.  We often assume that the “head knowledge” (whether tacit or explicit) is the Holy Grail of KM; richer, more nuanced, more contextual and more actionable than the documented knowledge.

However the more I read about (and experience) cognitive bias and the failures of memory, the more suspicious I become of what we hold in our heads.

These biases and failures are tendencies to think in certain ways that can lead to systematic deviations from good judgement, and to remember (and forget) selectively and not always in accordance with reality. We all create, to a greater or lesser extent, our own internal “subjective social reality” from our selective and flawed perception and memory.

Cognitive and memory biases include

  • Confirmation bias, which leads us to take on new “knowledge” only when it confirms what we already think
  • Gamblers fallacy, which leads us to think that the most recent events are the more important 
  • Post-investment rationalisation, which leads us to think that any costly decisions we made in the past must have been correct
  • Sunk-cost fallacy, which makes us more willing to pour money into failed big projects than into failed small projects
  • Observational selection bias, which leads us to think that things we notice are more common that they are (like when you buy a yellow car, and suddenly notice how common yellow cars are)
  • Attention bias, where there are some things we just don’t notice (see the Gorilla Illusions)
  • Memory transience, which is the way we forget details very quickly, and then “fill them in” based on what we think should have happened
  • Misattribution, where we remember things that are wrong
  • Suggestibility, which is where we create false memories
So some of those things in your head that you “Know” may not be knowledge at all. Some may be opinions which you have reinforced selectively, or memories you have re-adjusted to fit what you would have liked to happen, or suggestions from elsewhere that feel like memories. Some of them may be more like a story you tell yourself, and less like knowledge.

Do these biases really affect tacit knowledge? 

Yes they really do, and they can affect the decisions we make on the basis of that knowledge.  Chapter 10 of the 2015 World development Report, for example, looks at cognitive biases among development professionals, and makes for interesting reading.

While you would expect experts in the World Bank to hold a reliable store of tacit knowledge about investment to alleviate poverty, in fact these experts are as prone to cognitive bias as the rest of us. Particularly telling, for me, was the graph that compared what the experts predicted poor people would think, against the actual views of the poor themselves. 

The report identifies and examines 4 “decision traps” that affect the development professionals and influence the judgements that they make:

  • the use of shortcuts (heuristics) in the face of complexity; 
  • confirmation bias and motivated reasoning; 
  • sunk cost bias; and 
  • the effects of context and the social environment on group decision making.
And if the professionals of the World Bank are subject to such traps and biases, then there is no guarantee that the rest of us are any different.

So what is the implication?

The implication of this study, and many others, is that one person’s “tacit knowledge” may be unreliable, or at best a mish-mash of knowledge, opinion, bias and falsehood. As Knowledge Managers, there are a number of things we can do to counter this risk.

  1. We can test Individual Knowledge against the knowledge of the Community of Practice. The World Bank chapter suggests that “group deliberation among people who disagree but who have a common interest in the truth can harness confirmation bias to create “an efficient division of cognitive labor”. In these settings, people are motivated to produce the best argument for their own positions, as well as to critically evaluate the views of others. There is substantial laboratory evidence that groups make more consistent and rational decisions than individuals and are less “likely to be influenced by biases, cognitive limitations, and social considerations”. When asked to solve complex reasoning tasks, groups succeed 80 percent of the time, compared to 10 percent when individuals are asked to solve those tasks on their own. By contrast, efforts to debias people on an individual basis run up against several obstacles (and) when individuals are asked to read studies whose conclusions go against their own views, they find so many flaws and counterarguments that their initial attitudes are sometimes strengthened, not weakened”. Therefore community processes such as Knowledge Exchange and Peer Assist can be ideal ways to counter individual biases.
  2. We can routinely test community knowledge against reality. Routine application of reflection processes such as After Action review and Retrospect require an organisation to continually ask the questions “What was expected to happen” vs “What actually happened”.  With good enough facilitation, and then careful management of the lessons, reality can be a constant self-correction mechanism against group and individual bias.
  3. We can bring in other viewpoints. Peer Assist, for example, can be an excellent corrective to group-think in project teams, bringing in others with potentially very different views. 
  4. We can combine individual memory to create team memory. Term reflection such as Retrospect is more powerful than individual reflection, as the team notices and remembers more things than any individual can.
  5. We can codify knowledge. Poor as codified knowledge is, it acts as an aide memoire, and counteracts the effects of transience, misattribution and suggestibility. 
But maybe the primary thing we can do is to stop seeing individual tacit knowledge as being safe and reliable, and instead start to concentrate on the shared knowledge held within communities of practice.  
Think of knowledge as Collective rather than Individual, and you will be on teh right track.

View Original Source Here.

Skip to toolbar