Knowledge management in the age of social media

The days of the single, authoritative voice are coming to an end. The community has prevailed.

Twitter and office buildingKnowledge management, which is broadly defined as the identification, retention, effective use, and retirement of institutional insight, has been an elusive goal for most large organizations. It is motivated by practical business intent, such as the distribution of knowledge to avoid relearning the same best practices over and over. However, in reality it is a requirement that is remarkably difficult to attain. Some of the smartest people I have worked with have been frustrated by their efforts, not through lack of trying or ability but by the inherent challenges it presents. The emergence and impact of social media in the enterprise forces us to rethink knowledge management and creates completely new challenges.

Today, some of the core issues with existing knowledge management approaches can be categorized as behavioral and technical (I recognize the complexity of the subject and acknowledge there are many more qualities to examine; using the following two should be sufficient to support the points in this blog).

1. Behavioral

In order for a knowledge management system (KMS) to have value, employees must enter insight on a regular basis and they must keep the knowledge current (we can all agree that out-of-date information, which has reference value, is much less useful as the general desired state of actionable knowledge). Seldom are either of these behaviors adequately incentivized. By sharing tacit knowledge, many employees believe they are reducing their own value to the organization. In addition, updating the information requires effort, which is rarely a priority against the core responsibilities of the employee.

Psychic income earned on your own time might provide incentive for Wikipedia updates, but it doesn’t often translate to well spent effort on company time.

2. Technical

When presenting to audiences I often ask if it is easier for them to use a public search engine to find information about their organizations or use their own organizations’ websites for a search. As you might guess, the majority of the room goes with the public engine.

It’s remarkably difficult to organize information in the right manner, make it searchable, and then present it so the most relevant responses are at the top of the search results. In addition, organizational information is hardly the example of pristine structure. While public search engines benefit from counting the number of links between items (a good measure of popularity), internal systems have no such equivalent. Unstructured content is the king of the public web, whereas it is the bane of the enterprise. (Things will change in the future as new technologies, such as those that support the semantic web, are broadly adopted and implemented).

The situation is compounded when employees are disillusioned by the effectiveness and effort to use the KMS and resort to old habits, like asking colleagues or improvising in the absence of guidance (thus repeating mistakes or missing best practices). The system often fails to be adopted — or at best is used by a small proportion of the organization — and no amount of resuscitation is enough to bring it back to life.

Web 2.0 Expo San Francisco 2011, being held March 28-31, will examine key pieces of the digital economy and the ways you can use important ideas for your own success.

Save 20% on registration with the code WEBSF11RAD

Social media completely changes the existing knowledge management paradigm

It may be time to put down your tools in trying to make the old model of knowledge management work; social media is a completely new beast that changes many of the rules.

In the old world order, knowledge was usually created and stored as a point in time. In the future, organizational policy or insight may not be formed by an individual creating a document that goes through an approval process and is ultimately published. It will likely begin with an online conversation and it will be forever evolving as more people contribute and circumstances change.

Social media takes knowledge and makes it highly iterative. It creates content as a social object. That is, content is no longer a point in time, but something that is part of a social interaction, such as a discussion. It easily disassembles the pillars of structure as it evolves. As examples: content in a micro-blogging service can shift meaning as a discussion unfolds; conversations in enterprise social networks that link people and customer data can defy categorization; and internal blogs and their comments don’t lend themselves to obvious taxonomy.

The days of the single, authoritative voice are coming to an end. The community has prevailed.

The shift to the adoption of enterprise social computing, greatly influenced by consumerization, points to one emergent observation: the future is about managing unstructured content.</p.

Let’s consider the magnitude of this for a moment. Years of effort, best practices, and technologies for supporting organizational insight in the form of curated, structured insight has to be rethought. It’s an enormous challenge, but it may in fact be the best thing that ever happened to knowledge management.

There is an important silver lining to this story

In the long run, social media in the enterprise will likely be a boon for knowledge management. It should mean that many of the benefits we experience in the consumer web space — effective searching, grouping of associated unstructured data sources, and ranking of relevance — will become basic features of enterprise solutions. It’s likely we’ll see the increasing overlap between public and private data to enhance the value of the private data.

For example: want to know more about a staff member? Internal corporate information will include role, start date, department etc., but we may get additional information pulled in from social networks, such as hobbies, photos or previous employment. Pull up client data and you’ll get the information keyed in by other employees, but you might also get the history and values of the company, competitors, and a list of executives, gleaned from the broader repository of the public web. I’ll leave the conversation about privacy for another day.

It’s likely that social-media-driven knowledge management will require much less of the “management” component. Historically we’ve spent far too much time cleaning up the data, validating, and categorizing it. In the future, more of our time will be spent analyzing all the new knowledge that is being created through our social interactions. Smart analysis can result in new insight, and that has powerful value for organizations.

No doubt this is an enormously complex space and social media magnifies the challenges. The time is right to evaluate your knowledge management strategy. New value creation starts now.

Photo: Office, by ianmunroe on Flickr


tags: , ,
  • Steve Ardire

    > Social media completely changes the existing knowledge management paradigm and require much less of the “management” component.

    Bingo !

  • Kyle

    I wonder what the effects of this will be for quarterly goals, 5-year plans, values and mission statements, and so on. Things that traditionally took a lot of planning and organizing/categorizing of information. Do you think they will still be decided on in the secluded environment of the boardroom, or will social media change this, too?

  • Hi Kyle: We’re already seeing the work you describe done in a much more collaborative manner. Increasingly documents are being created in virtual spaces and Wiki’s and these allow the community to work on the evolving content in an asynchronous way.
    What do you think? I’m always looking for lots of points of view and observations people are making.

  • I think the most important part of this article may have been this: “It creates content as a social object”. Information isn’t a static document that sits in an approval queue waiting for an imprimatur from on high; instead it is a highly social artifact that takes on a life of its own based on its interaction with the communities around it.

    We have to stop treating information like just another object. Information isn’t like a bolt or a microchip that can be logged, inventoried, and managed. It is a living thing.

  • Will we see another revolution in transforming our society from a patriarchical and with this a competitional to a more cooperative one as it is in matriarchical societies?
    The expert will not be a person, it will be the team? The team is coordinating itself like those using SCRUM to be agile? If the need for leed is given, the team decides from whom to be managed for a while?
    The team decides how to do the necessary work? Who should participate in the team and who should leave the team because of low performance?
    As it is practiced with many success for years in the company named semco in Brasilia?

  • Kyle

    Hi Jonathan, thanks for your reply and thanks for this article.

    I am not sure. With all discussions about social media and how it makes everything more transparent and better, I fear that they’re too optimistic. That it’s just tunnel thinking coming out of Silicon Valley. You are right that many companies have adopted internal wikis and other social media tools, but are these not mostly Silicon Valley/IT/progressive companies?

    Sure, everyone and their grandmother is on twitter and Facebook, but don’t many businesses just do it because “you just have to be on there nowadays”? In their internal work, on the other hand, they don’t get these publicity benefits and aren’t pressured by their customers who expect a business to have an online presence. So why do you think that in these inflexible, dinosaur businesses the people in power will give up that power and share their knowledge with all employees and include all employees into the decision-making processes?

    I am not saying you’re wrong. You’re certainly right about Silicon valley companies, but I am always thinking about the health insurance company on the other side of my street, which basically has “1950” written all over it, with bureaucratic, static power and decision-making structures. Will those types really change? (be forced to?)

  • Hi Kyle: You may be underestimating business involvement in social media. Most studies are showing that around 70% of medium and large sized businesses across the U.S. are using social in some form, and most of them intend to increase their investment in 2011.

  • This piece is, in my mind, a really sound introduction to the bigger topic of ‘What needs to happen internal to an organization to effectively implement social media?’ It seems that often organizations jump on the social media bandwagon because ‘that’s what you do’, often transitioning their existing business processes without much thought for ‘why’ such technologies could help them do what they do more effectively. So too do they define success metrics that exist free of context (for example, a friend of mine started a new job and was required to follow the company CEO on twitter to boost metrics).

    One of my colleagues took a stab at addressing this and a few other KM challenges in a piece a while back which I’d like to share. I’d certainly welcome additional discussion. The piece can be found at

  • I think this article reinforces a lot of notions about social technologies that have come to fruition over the past few years. One point I do want to call out is:

    “..the future is about managing unstructured content.”

    I don’t think the future is about managing unstructured content, but is about managing the interaction of vetted, curated information with new social practices. Enterprise organizations cannot have one without the other. Meaning organizations cannot operate solely with vetted content and information, nor can they operate with a social free-for-all. The two must come together in a secure, moderated fashion in order to maximize the benefits of having both. This can also be referred to as ‘content-centric socialization.’

    Mike Cassettari

  • I’ve read every one of the comments with interest. Thanks so much and I hope to hear from many of you again.

  • Bill Dixon

    While I agree social media is good, no – really good – for KM, there is danger in conceptually or in practice replacing KM disciplines and tools with social tools/strategies exclusively. 1) Work context varies considerably across organizations, especially in global organizations. It is difficult to control for differences in context when relying on social tools alone. Failure to recognize unspoken assumptions around content causes posted content to be misinterpreted. 2) Not everyone participates in social media, which has implications for the breadth, depth, and accuracy of the ideas shared in a purely social environment. You cannot search profiles for “hobbies, photos or previous employment” if that information has not been provided. 3) Privacy laws are fragmented – especially in the US. Opt-in/Opt-out are used to stay compliant with the law BUT those regulations are slowly emerging and when they do, information and data privacy tends to be regulated by local jurisdiction. This contributes to a fragmented social media footprint in large organizations.

  • Jim Jones

    Great discussion, Just wondering whether any more disucussions have taken place on any journals that any of you may know about?