Saying No

I've been flitting in and out of reading a 'conversation' (read: minor flame war) on actKM about the relationship between KM and other disciplines such as information management, records management and IT. I began to see red though, when reading through some statements made about KM's absolute dependence on technology, which really made all information and knowledge domains fall under IT.

To me, this view of the supremacy of IT over all other disciplines comes from the often desperate need of IT departments to secure additional funding to deliver on unmet user expectation. With increasingly flashy tools and sophisticated, targeted marketing campaigns, its no wonder users are getting to the point of expecting their computer to work just like the oh so clever computer in Star Trek. And vendors use this to their advantage in selling their product as a solution to all your problems, by tacking onto the product something about it being a KM or ECM solution.

I don't blame IT areas for this - given the nature of the complaints I get get to hear about "this stupid computer isn't working" problems, which end up as id-ten-t errors. Still, I've blogged before on my suspicions about vendors colluding with IT areas to get additional funding by re-badging the latest version of their product as a solution to X. Ad whoever the poor bunny who happens to be responsible for X suddenly has their budget ripped out from under them. I admit its an absurd conspiracy theory, with no evidence to support this supposition, but so apparently are parachutes.

A good example I've seen doing the traps at the moment is Microsoft Sharepoint - a fantastic tool that quite possibly not only removes any need to worry about KM & IM (and RM, and HRM, and CRM, and...), but by all accounts is likely to solve world hunger, repair the environment, and be a better lover than I could ever hope to be. Now, to me its obvious this can't all be true (until I see cookie dough flavoured Sharepoint, anyway), which makes it all the sadder when organisations blow multiple budgets on it, than can't figure (a) how to use it; and more importantly (b) hot to get your staff to WANT to use it - as opposed to making them have to, assuming you can get past (a).

KM and IM are particularly vulnerable to this sort of pillaging because a win in these areas doesn't add value, it prevents value from being lost (the price of preventing, say, a high-profile figure being humiliated by a gap in their knowledge). IT, on the other hand, plays straight into the 'boys and their toys' mindset of a number of decision makers in any organisation - and me as well - since there is a shiny new product that is the answer to all problems, despite not really knowing what it does or how it will do this (like the machine that goes "ping", for the Monty Python fans).

Now, this all ties back to a poor joke I made recently while I was fortunate enough to be dining with some KM luminaries in Canberra last week, that "you can't say 'knowledge management' without saying 'no'". As per usual, this stupid remark probably used up more of my wisdom allotment than a year's worth of considered, thoughtful comment. Knowledge managers are - by and large - are fairly communal bunch, concerned with opening doors and making connections, and generally trying to get a sort of hippy-flavoured free love, everyone should love everyone vibe going. Which is fine, until a rapacious, under the hammer, desperately under-resourced leopard comes along and demolishes your work by consuming all your funding. I think maybe its time for KM to put away the carrot and start with the whip. So, here's to the start of a bit of k-NO-wledge management.