AT A RECENT presentation on corporate knowledge management, David Smith, chief knowledge officer for Unilever (the Dutch-English manufacturing giant formerly known as Lever Brothers), closed with a set of recommendations for the use of knowledge in corporations. One was, “Don't do it as a project.” His point was that knowledge management works best as a “whole organization exercise” that is not slated to end, whereas projects, by definition, are usually narrow in scope and end upon completion.
Smith's comment got some of us in the audience wondering about whether these two important trends—knowledge management and project management—might be on a collision course. Eventually they must either coexist or clash, since both are powerful current trends in management. Further, both are “umbrella disciplines” that claim benefits extending to the entire organization. Some people talk about Management by Project, implying entire organizations may be run according to project management principles. Enthusiastic knowledge management proponents like Smith insist that, to be effective, the spirit of knowledge sharing and use must permeate the organization as thoroughly as air conditioning. Are the two trends mutually compatible, or does Smith's comment hint at a coming clash of incompatible world-views?
Since even experts disagree on what “knowledge management” means, project managers may be forgiven for a fuzzy understanding. Let's not put too fine a point on it here, since the phrase is a moving target, at best. A “knowledge orientation” is an important aspect of the practice called “organizational learning.” Organizations that master knowledge creation and use are called “learning organizations.” Proponents argue that in our high-technology, rapidly changing environment, organizations must constantly develop and circulate knowledge to survive.
Neil Olonoff is a senior consultant in knowledge management at Pinnacle Management Systems in Northern Virginia. Olonoff gratefully acknowledges the contribution of the PKOC development team at George Mason University: Todd Oakes, Dave Suh, Julianne Brkczynski, Cindy Balazs, Brian Wilkinson.
The question we are asking is, can project management and the knowledge orientation of organizational learning be harnessed to the same buggy? We can reframe the question by asking whether project management philosophy fits the “learning organization” operational style. This is a flexible, open style of management, starkly different from conventional ways of managing. Tojo Thatchenkery, Ph.D., of George Mason University defines the difference this way:
Conventional organizations are locked into a rigid view of their methods and goals. They attend only to a narrow range of experience and feedback, and encourage their managers to make only those changes that fit the current structure. Consequently, the conventional organization merely adapts or reacts to change. In contrast, the learning organization anticipates the future and strives to create new services and products before others are able to perceive these needs. They are flexible, open to new ideas, and willing to innovate because they are intensely reflexive. In other words, they discover organizational excellence by continuously rethinking what they do, how they do it, and how they might do it better.
Dr. Thatchenkery notes that neither type of organization truly exists in reality. There's no such thing as a pure “conventional” or “learning” organization. They are theoretical ideals. But all organizations lie along the continuum between these extremes.
My recent review of current project management literature seems to indicate that project management philosophy is aligned with the conventional mode of operation. That makes sense. Project management “assumes” the ability to plan and allocate known resources.
Knowledge management and learning organizations “assume” the opposite. They take as given that we live in an uncertain world and seek to uncover—and profit from—the next unforeseen change.
Project managers may say, “But we plan for changes and contingencies. And we use information systems. Isn't that knowledge use and organizational learning?”
Well, not really. Knowledge management specialists would say that it's precisely the unforeseeable contingency which will bring the greatest new opportunity. In that respect KM is much about respecting, admitting—even, according to some writers, courting—uncertainty. KM is all about scanning the environment and gleaning knowledge which may result in new opportunities for the organization. How many project groups are seen as sources of new knowledge and new opportunities for the organization?
Reader Service Number 032
In fairness, “lessons learned,” or a similar attempt to extract knowledge is often tacked on to the end of most projects as part of the closure process. Too little, too late. In our economy the value of new knowledge dissipates in weeks and months. Besides, how much real learning is retained at the end of the project?
By the way, some experts make fine distinctions between “knowledge,” information, and data. We won't engage in that debate here. But it is crucial to realize that “knowledge use” is very different from storing knowledge on paper or data systems. It's the creation, sharing, use, and re-use of knowledge which gives KM its business value.
Some readers may already see how a knowledge orientation will stretch traditional project management methods. Let's connect the dots:
Where is knowledge created in organizations? Answer: Potentially, everywhere. Traditionally, in conventionally managed organizations, only management “knew the answers.” Nowadays, we know we can learn from employees, customers, suppliers, competitors, and many others. Naturally, organizations that are serious about KM try to share knowledge across organizational boundaries.
But most project groups tend to be closed off from their organization. Like fish, they've got waterproof skins that prevent a flow of information across the boundary. Of course, their failure to share knowledge across boundaries isn't considered important, since in most organizations “knowledge sharing” isn't even on their radar screen! But it should be. The larger systems within which most projects operate can benefit in many ways from a knowledge orientation. Furthermore, projects themselves can benefit from greater attention to knowledge gleaned during project performance. Here are three obvious areas; no doubt many others are likely to be discovered:
■ Process improvement
■ Productization and spinoffs
■ Marketing and new opportunity discovery.
The PKOC Model for Melding KM and PM
1. Project Conversation Module. A knowledge orientation starts with an emphasis on free and open communication. In PKOC the “conversation” is recorded in a fully searchable text database. Since the conversation is captured “on the fly,” there is no question of losing valuable insights gained along the way during project performance.
Face to face alternative: In an organization where project meetings are held face to face, someone could be assigned as “project knowledge manager.” One chief responsibility would be to keep track of key points which arise in project-oriented conversations.
2. Task Reflection Module. This module is envisioned as a space for personal or group reflection on project tasks. Admittedly, “reflection” is a word seldom heard in business or in project management. Yet, it is through reflection that we make the connections that lead us to new knowledge.
Face to face alternative: All we're asking people to do is take time to think. How do project tasks and goals relate to our experience? What lessons are we learning? What does this remind us of? What stories or learnings have lately emerged from our work?
3. Project Repository Module. This is a more formal “reporting area,” which entails reports and project related texts. Probably all project teams have reporting functions. This system enables group input and review of the material.
Face to face alternative: It makes sense to develop consensus around reports and conclusions, rather than having just one individual produce these materials. This is, admittedly, more work, but has the potential to create a much more valuable set of documents.
4. Yellow Pages & Resources Module. This is a central, common storage area for tools, expertise, references to books and magazines, and the like. As this central resource is cross fertilized by the various members of a project team, it increases in value. This may be one of the areas that can generate new value for the rest of the organization.
Face to face alternative: As it happens, this may be the most easily replicated module. A simple project notebook system, with a page for each new contribution can enable every member of the team to stay abreast of new resources and references.
5. Schedule Module. No matter how knowledge-oriented projects become, they remain inextricably linked to performance realities. The most interesting aspect of the Schedule Module in PKOC was the way it could be dynamically linked to the other modules. In this way, daily project realities can help remind us of the knowledge orientation perspective.
Face to face alternative: Perhaps the simplest way to describe this is to simply “build a knowledge orientation” into each project activity. With a little extra effort in the beginning, it will soon become second nature. Diligently pursued, we are confident it will eventually pay back great dividends. ■
So to the extent that the traditional notion of project management “walls off” the project from the rest of the organization it is at odds with the ways organizations may use the knowledge acquired while performing the project.
What does a “project knowledge orientation” look and feel like? We've already suggested “porous” rather than tightly closed boundaries between organizational entities. What other qualities are conducive to the knowledge orientation?
First, a knowledge orientation requires the simple recognition that the responsibilities of project managers extend to knowledge issues. Likely that will involve a change in style. After all, at this early stage KM is as much a value system as it is a strategy. In a sense it is a recognition that organizations must leverage more of the “whole person.”
Second, the organization may create convenient ways for people to communicate across boundaries. Whether within a single project or across a multiproject environment, all can benefit from participation in “Communities of Practice.” These typically consist of practitioners who meet or communicate electronically to share ideas, enthusiasms, and newly found knowledge.
Note that it's the free and open communication that's important, not the hardware and software. Systems which encourage knowledge sharing are, at best, tools. Like telephones and e-mail, they facilitate sharing among those who want to share. They can do nothing in a closed off, traditionalist culture.
Yet, let's assume all the factors are right for knowledge sharing and you need a system enabling the creation and sharing of project knowledge. What would such a system look like? Recently I participated in an experimental design project in a graduate class in Strategic Knowledge Management in George Mason University's Program on Social and Organizational Learning.
With the specific aim of linking Knowledge Management to Project Management, we developed a Lotus Notes-based application aimed at instilling an “orientation toward project knowledge.” We named the tool Project Knowledge Orientation Creator, giving it the acronym PKOC, pronounced “Peacock.” (See sidebar.)
While our experimental prototype is by no means an “off the shelf” product, it may offer us a glimpse of the “project knowledge management” environment of the future. We assumed that the system would be linked to a powerful project management software tool. It consists of five interlinked components all accessible via the Internet. Each is described in the sidebar, along with a “face to face alternative” which any project group can try without special support.
SO,TO ANSWER the question of can PM and IM co-exist, we would have to say, yes, they can. But each will place demands upon the other. We anticipate that the marriage will produce added value. A knowledge orientation will help organizations extract more value from projects. And the discipline of the project management perspective will impose “real world” realities on the sometimes abstract world of knowledge management. ■
Reader Service Number 059