E-conference 2005 KM: [round 4] ‘How to convince managers to give KM higher priority’

Background note
This is the last round of the E-conference on KM. The discussion in the previous rounds has been interesting and is difficult to summarize in just a few lines. Yet for the convenience of all of you as well as possible new participants in the conference I have highlighted a few of the most salient points of the previous rounds.

First round: What do we mean by knowledge management?
KM was considered a key ‘production factor’ which is fundamental for the development sector. According to Jose Gendrano “KM is the sum of human activities by which information is acquired, processed and organized, and made available and actionable to those who need it”. This is a nice definition, although it does not include the active role of users, who also are part of the KM equation in their search for new insights.

The way we go about KM is not guided by a cookbook containing recipes. To quote Renuka Bery: “I feel that KM is actually an iterative process that keeps changing as information and knowledge get exchanged”

The discussion clarified that the operational practice to KM is to include and engage people in dialogue, knowledge exchange and learning, processes that are constrained and coloured by local conditions. The reality on the ground is the stage where the music is recreated from the notes and may be interpreted differently by different players and listeners.

A key constraint that was mentioned in several contributions was the lack of time and priority for KM.

Second round: Awareness for KM at management levels?
In this round it was agreed that KM is an issue that needs to be at the management agenda. Marjory Kusotera phrased it nicely by stating “management needs to understand KM and buy into it”. This is important for different reasons such as: to ensure staff time allocation for learning and reflection, to guarantee budget allocation for KM in the organisation and in projects (as this is often overlooked), to establish a shared language.

Viktor Markowski raised the crucial question for management to answer: “Knowledge to do what” which clearly relates to the direction of the organisation. This is in line with the suggestion of Manu Rajan that the “link between KM and the manager’s personal interests’ is the way forward.

To raise awareness for KM at management levels it was suggested to:

• Address KM in staff meetings, job descriptions and future management positions;
• Advocate for KM awareness raising in the sector and strategic discussions on the organisation and with partners;
• Allocate time for KM / learning in project proposals.

Third round: how do we share the information we manage?
The contributions indicate that we share information in many ways and at different levels. On the positive side we see that opportunities for information sharing using electronic means are growing and become more user-friendly. The downside is that many people still do not have access to these means.

This is reflected in the way participants share knowledge at personal, institutional, project, community, intermediate, government, network and university level, using different means including meetings, presentations, text, internet etc. It was stressed that sharing information between different stakeholders was very important, with a nice example from Pakistan on the quality of handpumps. Several participants indicated that stakeholder involvement seemed easier to achieve at community than agency level.

Concern was expressed on sharing information wisely which relates to the issue of it being adopted, adapted and used by others. This links to the related question how to check users’ interest. A few responded to this indicating that they seek feedback from participants in training sessions, and for example, University students are tested, but often only if they are able to reproduce the information they have received, which does not mean that they have really made it their own and can use it.

A clear indication in many contributions was again the fact that many face a mayor constraint in terms of time, priority and resources. This brings us to the fourth round which was supposed to focus on two questions: How to get our understanding of KM across in the WATSAN sector, and how to create awareness and share knowledge in the WATSAN sector?

My understanding from the previous conferences is that these questions may not be specific enough and may involve overlap with the previous discussions. I have therefore adjusted the leading question and made it more specific.

Fourth round: how to convince managers/colleagues to give KM higher priority?
As we said in round one and two resources are needed to better deal with KM. It needs to have a place in budget allocations in the organisation and in projects. This will not happen automatically, because as indicated in the third round, managers do not seem to have bought into it. To change this we will need convincing examples that KM indeed makes a difference.

I would therefore like to challenge you to think about your experience and share your ideas and examples as this may help to raise the profile of KM. It is not only the idea to give positive examples of where KM made an important difference. Dave Snowdon when talking about good practice and story telling indicated that often “more lessons can be learned from failures”

The fourth and final round of this conference will be from 4 to 20 November, a little longer than the previous rounds to give better opportunities for interaction.

Updated - Tuesday 01 November 2005