Q: Could you tell me about your first connections with KM and how that interest grew?
Karl-Erik: Well, I thought about this long before it was called KM. Let’s say that my first connection with it was when I left a career in Unilever and started off my own company together with some friends. The company was in publishing, and I was supposed to be the manager. The others were writers … this is a national magazine. And since I had been six years working, I presumably know something about management, at least that’s what I thought myself. And it turned out that I had very little understanding about how to manage this type of a business, and subsequently I felt out of my depth and had a real culture shock. This was sort of a wakeup call, if you like. I realized that this was a company where nothing really fit that I had learned in my education business school, nor in my experience in a traditional consumer product type of environment. This was a company where my colleagues actually knew more about the business and the customers than I did, and they were more in touch with them than I was. They were writing the articles. They were also smarter than I was and some of them certainly they had larger egos than I had. They were typical knowledge workers, although I didn’t know that term in those days. This was in 1979.
So I gradually started to learn about this, and how to manage. Nothing was written about it, so I learned by asking more experienced managers in companies who employed a lot of ‘knowledge workers’. I didn’t know the terminology at all in the beginning, so I just sort of intuitively tried to learn from companies that seemed similar to mine.
Q: When did you recognize that it was KM, that term, when did it come into your vocabulary?
K-E: A lot, lot later. This was about management of knowledge work and knowledge workers. We created a knowledge-based strategy in my company Affärsvärlden (it grew and later turned into the much larger Ekonomi - Teknik Förlag) —we called it ‘competence-based strategy’ —in the mid 80’s and that took us very successfully through the 80’s and on until 1993 when we sold the company. I got in touch with KM, I think it was around 1991. In 1990 I had written a book called Knowledge Management, but in the Swedish language. It was never translated. (In Swedish: Kunskapsledning). It’s the same word as knowledge management. And about a year later I read an article that contained the words knowledge management but it was about more advanced databases, more advanced searching of information. What I had been calling knowledge management in my book was the management of knowledge in the sense of human knowledge, not databases at all. So I got quite surprised that someone could call information the same thing as knowledge. Well, I’m still surprised actually.
Q: How do you define knowledge?
K-E: I define knowledge as the capacity to act in a context.
Q: And knowledge management?
K-E: The art of creating value by leveraging intangible assets.
Q: If KM is considered a management initiative such as TQ, Six Sigma, BPR, what do you think is different about it?
K-E: [Sigh] Well, TQM and Six Sigma are similar in that they are quality assurance concepts, and KM is different, at least in my interpretation of it, it is different because concerns the whole firm. It’s a perspective rather than an application of anything in particular, it’s a perspective of how you run your business. So that’s what makes it different from TQM and Six Sigma. I have among other things applied the perspective on strategy; I call it a knowledge-based strategy. It has some similarities with learning organization theory. The difference between learning organization theory and KM in my interpretation of it is the fact that KM includes the outer world, the customers, and how to approach the customers, which learning organization theory does not.
Q: Where do you think KM is in its life cycle?
K-E: It’s hard to tell, because you see … because of these two very different interpretations of it. I’d say the American interpretation—I’m generalizing now—but the American interpretation is that KM is the management of information, making it available in the whole organization, generating, capturing and harvesting, making explicit the knowledge in people’s heads so that it can be stored and retrieved. And this life cycle is, well, close to dead outside in the sense that the interest in this field is waning. There have been huge disappointments to big promises from the IT companies that have made managers suspicious.
You could say that it was all a bit like a bubble that burst … the IT bubble in 2000, and it’s been downhill since. It might pick up again, but it’s basically a technology trend. This is also what was driving a lot of the hype around KM in the late 90’s. The IT industry has a lot of marketing money to spend on conferences, on writers writing books on the medium.
Now the field of KM has what I call two tracks. We can call the ‘American’ approach the ‘management of information’ track, and I call this, my own focus, the ‘knowledge track’ or the ‘people-oriented track’. That is only right now beginning to emerge … it is almost like it is being rediscovered by a lot of organizations around the world. I’m not so sure about America yet … the rest of the world is certainly discovering it.
Q: Well, we’ll see if we can’t join in a little … [Laughter] Could you tell me about a time when you felt really passionate, excited about KM?
K-E: Well, first when I was running this publishing company, I was very excited about our knowledge-based strategy, or what we call in those days competence-based strategy, because it seemed to work so well. And what made me passionate was the extent to which we could generate extraordinary production and creativity of the group of people that we had in our company. We would beat the competition quite clearly over 15 years. That’s probably my most passionate moment. KM in the 90’s gradually became quite aligned with the IT Internet and the database development and I could never feel any passion about that at all. Again, what makes me passionate are issues around creativity, value creation, people’s ability to create extraordinary results with the right environment created by the proper knowledge-based strategy. That I can feel passionate about.
Q: Are there any other things about KM that excite your passion? When I use the term KM it is in the sense of your definition, the second definition, the refocusing on people and creativity and learning.
K-E: Well, you know what it is like being in research … to a scholar the latest things are always the most interesting. [Laughter] That’s what I feel most passionate about.
Q: The new things?
K-E: Well, right now I am working on ancient aboriginal knowledge creation and the tools and the methods they had to store and retrieve tacit knowledge, to make it trade from one generation to another over thousands and thousands of years through storytelling. This is not just any story telling, it is aboriginal storytelling which is quite a complex art. And this is what excites me at the moment.
I am excited by anything that has to do with tacitness, the ability to transfer knowledge without having to make it explicit. Just by seeing another person you learn a lot about that person just by looking at him or her, and by one meeting a lot more information is exchanged. This is tacit knowledge. What is it that … how can we improve this type of transfer? How can we create environments conducive to tacit knowledge transfer without having to make it through computers? And finally, how can computers help us to generate tacit knowledge? Computers and the developers of computers are currently only interested in creating tools and mechanisms for information transfer, but I always challenge them when I get a chance to help us to create something that can enable tacit knowledge transfer. That’s the area I’m passionate about right now. I do field work. I’m in Australia next month on my third ‘walkabout’ — I lived in Australia for several years — and I’m now working together with aboriginal friends on this project.
Q: How to do you think computers could help the transfer of tacit knowledge? What type of thing do you challenge them with?
K-E: By definition computers can only handle information, so there’s no point in trying to figure out quicker ways of storing or transferring or retrieving information, because all you get out of that is more information. So the challenge is to create tools that help us be more creative, for instance, thinking tools, more educational tools like simulations. Take flight simulators, for instance, which are (frightfully) effective. Business simulations are poor in comparison, but I notice that business simulations are gaining ground again after several years of neglect. I suspect this a field that will increase dramatically over the next few years. Simulations enable people to interact with each other through a medium, or with the aid of a medium, which speeds up decision-making and speeds up feedback loops. This is what computers are good at.
Q: How has the passion that you feel about KM affected your work?
K-E: Well, it has guided me towards projects that are related to strategy, related to activities around people, it has guided me to develop tools, educational and planning tools, that engage more of the whole person. I have developed simulations and physical tools. Physical tools are interesting in that they engage the sense that we so seldom use, in business at least, and that is touch. So if you have a physical tool, things actually have a third dimension in reality, like the good old monopoly game. I’ve together with a very skilled learning tool creator in Sweden created business simulations that uses boards and cards. It’s not at all like monopoly, you don’t use dice and travel around the board, but it actually uses cards and boards and it’s physical quite deliberately. The money is in the form of coins, so you can see the build of cash, etc. in a physical sense.
Q: How has your energy around KM changed since you began this journey in the late 80’s.
K-E: Actually for me it started it in the late 70’s, early 80’s, I’m into my 25th year next year. Well, there was a period of high passion when I was actually implementing theory in action, you could say, during the 80’s, over period of 15 years. Then my interest waned in the early 90’s, then caught a renewed push when the interest in KM made people show an also interest in my early work, and I got more enthusiastic toward the end of the 90’s and early 2000 when I could see a shift in the trend away from IT and technology and more towards people.
Q: You talked a little bit about your passion toward creativity. Are there any other areas of thought other than KM that you find exciting or have passion about?
K-E: Well, I have developed some theories encompassing measuring. Measuring is actually something that evokes a lot of passion, usually the negative kind; for those who are measured upon it means control. I’m passionate about using measuring for learning. Tools like mathematics and statistics are very powerful languages that help us see things we don’t see with words and pictures, it crystallizes our thinking. So those languages must be used, should be used for learning, but currently they are abused as a means of exerting control, and then the good effects are being corrupted and manipulated by people who feel abused and controlled. So we see a lot of misuse of mathematics and statistics while they could be used for a good purpose in helping us to see the world, this complex wonderful world around us clearer.
Q: It also sounds like you are very interested in symbols, in symbolic representations. Could you talk a little bit about that?
K-E: Yes, yes I am. Symbols and metaphors contain a huge amount of meaning for those that are in the know, and they are incredibly powerful for those who are initiated in their meaning and in their use. Some of the symbols that I use for instance in healing, spiritual healing and energy healing, are amazingly powerful if you are attuned to their energies.
Q: Could I explore that a little bit more with you? I also am a Reiki Master.
K-E: Are you? So am I [not quite, I am 3rd level but I stopped short of being initiated in the teacher symbols]. [Laughter] I somehow feel it is slightly outside the comfort zone for most people involved in KM.
Q: I think there may be a pleasant surprise in this area. In different ways, different individuals are searching beyond … whatever their path is … and I’ve been astounded with some of the discoveries. I’ll share all that with you. But I’d like to explore a little more about you if I may. How long have you been involved in Reiki?
K-E: It’s not that long ago, not more than a year.
Q: Then you’ve moved through very fast.
K-E: Yes, I have, because I discovered a natural affinity and talent with it. In a way I was sensitized with it by early experience outside Reiki, but more in the spiritual realm. So it wasn’t difficult to take it on board. Suffice to say that I know in my own head and with my own experience that the spiritual realm is much closer than we think, and if we can use more of that in our work here on earth we are much better off. I’m searching for ways and means of using that. It’s not something I’m prepared to talk a lot about at this moment. But my book working with the aboriginal knowledge will touch that field.
Q: Could I ask you about the relationship of the work you’re doing in this field with knowledge and knowledge management?
K-E: Well, [sigh] you see when we talk about knowledge you get into definitional issues around what knowledge really is, but all we can see tangible proof of as humans is the knowledge limited to the physical head or the physical body. What is it that comes to us from seemingly nowhere? This nowhere is of course somewhere. Then it’s a matter of what we define as the borders of our knowledge. I believe we should search outside the traditional lines, the traditional tangible realm to get closer to the real source of knowledge. Unless we do this, or are prepared to do this, we will just be incredibly poor compared to what we—I mean poor in a knowledge sense not in a money sense--compared to if we actually embrace it and work with it.
Q: What is your source of information for creating new ideas?
K-E: I think it’s that realm, that outside realm, or I know it is actually.
[…]
Q: So your source of information for creating ideas is that they’re there, just waiting to be recognized, and you’re open to them … am I putting words in your mouth?
K-E: No, that’s fine.
Q: Are there others who help you in developing new ideas.
K-E: Yes, both visible and invisible.
Q: So you have a network of people also?
K-E: Yes, I have a network of people where we … it’s not formalized in the sense that we actually meet and have meetings. It’s people who we trust each other and we exchange ideas and we work together in very informal ways.
Q: Could you describe some of the new ideas that you have contributed to the field of KM?
K-E: Well, the notion, let’s start with my first concept, I call it the ‘four power players in the knowledge organization’ which is a distinction between managerial knowledge and professional in the sense, from my publishing company, where the professional would be the journalist and the managerial would be the admin and marketing, etc. And I created one of those great popular two by two grids. It’s been moving around now for 20 years, and it was just recently … I just saw it in a book a few months ago being called one of the classic two by twos. That’s probably one concept.
Another one is the notion of three types of intangible resources which I’m sure you’re familiar with … something which is related to the external I called customer capital, and the other one I called structural capital but today I call it internal structure, and then we have the human capital which I used to call competence. If you’re familiar with those three categories … I’m the original source of them. [Laughter]
Q: I am familiar with them actually.
K-E: So my book, this is where I coined them in 1989, called the Invisible Balance Sheet. And today you see them in all different shapes and forms and words, but basically they are all based on that but people don’t know where they originated.
Q: How do you feel about these ideas now?
K-E: Well, good. [Laughter]
Q: And how have these ideas been received?
K-E: Apparently well, since they, and also the notion about the knowledge organization, this company where you produce nothing but knowledge and you have knowledge as inputs, is mine.
Q: So well received?
K-E: Let’s say they are all well received in the sense that they are used and emulated and built upon and I guess imitation is the highest flattery. So, yes, I think they are well received.
Q: A few minutes ago you talked about that fact that for a lot of these ideas you were the original source for them but a lot of people don’t know that you were. Are you okay with that?
K-E: Oh, sure. Enough people that matter know who the originator is and I don’t care about the others. [Laughter]
Q: You’re letting those ideas go basically?
K-E: Yeah. Well … and then what would the alternative be? I’d stand up and shout look at me, I’m the one!? No. [Laughter] Also, because I know that the origin of these ideas really isn’t only my own brain. We are always influenced by more factors than we are consciously aware.
Q: So they belong to everyone and you’re forwarding them.
K-E: Yes, that’s what I feel, so they are not for me, for my ownership … it’s for humanity.
Q: That’s wonderful. Do you see yourself as a thought leader?
K-E: In some respects, possibly yes. One of many.
Q: And how has being a thought leader affected you?
K-E: Affected me? In what sense do you mean? Well, people call me up like you! I get a lot of unsolicited emails! [Laughter]
Q: There you go … people who won’t stop. [Laughter] Well, people do honor you and ask for your opinions certainly … any other ways that’s it affected you yourself, being a thought leader, the responsibility of it?
K-E: Probably in terms of work I’m invited to lots of interesting places … I probably meet more interesting people than I would otherwise, so in that sense it’s positive.
Q: What rewards have come to you from your work in KM?
K-E: That’s probably the major reward, the intangibles reward, and the ability to, the gift to work with gifted people. That’s something that has given me a lot of intangible value.
Q: In your opinion, who are the KM thought leaders? Who is it you think of?
K-E: Well I think about people who actually think outside the existing box. I’d say that’s Nonaka, he certainly thinks outside the box. Verna Allee is one. I’d say that Hubert Saint-Onge is one of them. Max Boisot … he’s written about codification of knowledge and distribution of information society. He’s not in KM … none of these authors call themselves KM … so I’d say that no author that puts the name KM on his book is someone I’d call a thought leader. All the people I respect don’t like the term!
Q: Despite the fact that you used it yourself in the late 80’s?
K-E: Oh, yes, but with a very different meaning than it is used today. I’m sort of resigned to the fact. I still don’t like it,because it gives the impression that you can manage knowledge, and you can’t.
Q: So it’s the term not what it represents?
K-E: Well, it’s the term and also to some extent what it has come to represent which is …
Q: The stage one, technology, but the stage two you’re okay with?
K-E: [Laughter]
Q: Why do you consider this group of people thought leaders?
K-E: Because they … they say something unexpected. If you read a book and it’s completely predictable, you yawn after the first five pages. They are not a thought leader, and there are lots of those books.
Q: Are there any specific characteristics that they all have that you think contribute to that leadership?
K-E: It’s the ability to think originally through … to come up with new fundamental ideas that challenge previous wisdom, that challenge conventional wisdom.
Q: In what ways has your thinking been influenced by these other thought leaders?
K-E: Well, my first concepts I know were influenced by Marshall McLuhan. That’s where I got this idea about structure … the media is the message. And then I’m, in terms of measuring, I’m influenced by accounting … not terribly creative, but I can’t help [Laughter] that I –with my accounting education - am influenced by accounting theory in measuring anyway.
Q: How do you think your ideas have influenced other thought leaders?
K-E: By the way, Shushana Zuboff and Margaret Wheatley are also thought leaders. Well, I can see that they are used in books and papers. The three concepts are: this two by two matrix, the division into three of what I call ‘families’, and the ‘knowledge organization’ (an organization that produces knowledge and information from knowledge information with no tangible output)… those three concepts I know are now quite prominent in this field.
Q: Can you share some of your core values or beliefs, can you share something that is very important to you, the way you live as an individual?
K-E: People are at the core. I like to live in a lot of light.
Q: Could we take that now and explore what is the relationship of that core belief of yours and KM in the sense that you define it.
K-E: The relationship is that I share as much as possible of my knowledge free of charge. I have uploaded everything I’ve written on my web site for free download, including my latest book to the dismay of my publisher, but … in such a way that you can’t download the whole book but you can download pieces and you can piece it together. [Laughter] I’ve uploaded five books on my web site all in all, all my papers … I never charge for any of those. And people … I now this is not common or still isn’t … I had uploaded already what I had in 95, and people say to me that it’s sort of stupid, you shouldn’t do this because you just give away what you have produced. People will steal form you and copy it and say it’s there’s and of course I’ve noticed that ... I’ve seen people doing it. I’ve also experienced at conferences … I also give away my slides when I’m speaking at conferences and I’ve come across people who have used my slides and deleted the copyright message at the bottom and not even bothered to change the colors. [Laughter]
Q: But this is part of your belief set, this sharing.
K-E: It is. It actually doesn’t matter … the person who does this is actually a pretty pathetic individual … I have got a lot more of value by being generous with these ideas.
Q: So I assume one of your core beliefs is the connectedness of all things?
K-E: Yes, it is. The value of sharing … I’ve (with few exceptions) generally experienced positive effects from giving away ideas and knowledge.
Q: Would you share one more core value or belief, anything that comes to mind?
K-E: [Sigh] Well, I guess it has … I’m not sure … probably the inviolability of humanity [I don’t think this word exists! I mean that we must never harm another person neither physically nor psychically] in all its fragility, and the importance of human beings.
Q: And how do you think that connects to the work you do in knowledge and KM?
K-E: That I do have a clear picture of … all the tools that I develop, all the texts I write, have this aim to improve connectedness, to improve people’s ability to share, to improve people’s ability to link and learn form each other irrespective of technology.
Q: Yes. Does KM have a shadow or negative side?
K-E: One negative is the tail of wagon-riders who jump on the bandwagon of all successful concepts and … exploit it for their own good without regard of the core issues … just to spoil it for their own benefit, usually very narrow, tangible money benefits. But that’s not specific to KM … it’s generally for all successful concepts.
Specific to KM, it’s the ability through the knowledge to use technologies and tools to exert more control over people, rather than liberating people instead controlling them more, limiting people more. This what has happened with the technology already, and I see it happen in measuring too (using it for control rather than for learning).
Q: I’d like to ratchet our thinking up to a very high level, and ask what future opportunity do you think KM in the sense that you’ve defined it, the greater sense, offers individuals?
K-E: Individuals? Well, again with the limitations we’ve talked about, talking about my understanding of it, I’d say that on a very personal basis you can actually use the concept on yourself as an individual and think in terms of your own knowledge base for yourself as an individual and, in a more broader sense, the benefits are in using KM as a perspective in helping, enabling you to ask questions that lead you to a more knowledge-based and thereby human way of managing organizations, creating better organizations for people.
Q: Now, once again, at a very high level, how has your work in KM changed you? How are you different because of the focus and work you’ve done in this area?
K-E: I am certainly understanding, or I believe I understand more than I did 25 years ago, I know I do, so I’m more knowledgeable, but that’s not particularly helpful. I can’t say that it’s changed me except that I know more now … well, I begin to see things differently. Sorry, to sound a bit cryptic, but you will see what I mean in my next book.
Q: Now, how do you think KM is changing organizations, at the very highest level?
K-E: I’m not sure that it actually changes any organization at the moment … there might be organizations that actually do change, but I’m sure they are rare and few far between. This is because KM is primarily seen by top management as yet another application, something we should ‘implement’, rather than seeing it as a way of thinking to change their whole view about why they are there and what the mission of the business is and how to organize themselves to make better organizations.
Q: So if it is recognized in that way, what is the potential here …
K-E: The potential is, of course, to recognize it in that way, but I’m not particularly hopeful for the big existing organizations, because they are so stuck in their ruts that they can’t really change. I’m more hopeful for the new ones that are born over the last five or ten years and those that are being born right now.
Q: What is the potential for KM defined in the larger way to change the world?
K-E: It’s clearly people generally … you see, my work is primarily in large organizations, not so much in government levels. When I work with public sector organizations, again, it’s not government … so I don’t know. Again, I’m cynical, I believe that most world leaders and politicians don’t bother about KM. Actually, it’s interesting. While I’m saying this, I’m reminded that here in Finland is one of the few countries where they actually have a knowledge-based policy for the count5ry as a whole. It’s quite interesting, because over the last few years Finland has emerged at the top of all of these ranking lists that you see on knowledge society indicators. Finland is always somewhere at the top, far ahead of the U.S., for instance, and many others. I’m not sure the indicators express really that society is moving in the right direction, but it might be some indicator, when you embrace it on the larger scale, you actually engage policy and spend money on it, it actually might have an impact.
Q: Do you have anything else you want to say on the record? I’m going to turn this tape off …
K-E: I think you’ve been pretty exhaustive with your questions. [Laughter]. Thank you for the interview. You have had some very interesting questions that must come from a deep insight!
|
Alex Bennett is former Chief Knowledge Officer of the U.S. Department of the Navy and former Co-chair of the Federal KM Working Group. This interview was conducted as part of a larger doctoral research exploring those aspects of knowledge management that create passion in its thought leaders and the patterns that emerge across thought leaders. Alex Bennett and her partner and spouse, David, have recently published a book entitled Organizational Survival in the New World: the Intelligent Complex Adaptive System, a new theory of the firm. Simultaneously, Alex and David have founded the Mountain Quest Institute in the Allegheny Mountains of West Virginia dedicated to helping individuals and organizations achieve sustainable high performance through the understanding and application of knowledge and wisdom. See http://www.mountainquestinstitute.com/ and http://www.mountainquestinn.com/
|