I have been thinking lately about my job: Knowledge Management (KM) consultant. Though it is not my formal designation, it is how I see my role in the organisation (after all I’m part of the KM team in the organisation that I work for). After trying hard to convince my colleagues to share their knowledge and failing most of the time, I have reached a conclusion that asking people to share their knowledge is like searching for the Holy Grail, i.e. much efforts and enthusiasms but little results. Of course during my studies, I was told that cultivating a knowledge sharing culture is going to be difficult and I was not worried because there was a ‘model’ answer to address this issue.

So what’s the ‘model’ answer? The classic KM textbook answer to get people share their knowledge, is: (1) weave KM processes into the work processes; (2) gather ‘low-hanging fruits’; (3) and then show the management about the value of KM to the organization. Eventually the management will give their blessing and staff in the organization will be doing KM without they even knowing it (which is a very ideal situation – I should have known that ‘model’ answer, by definition, implied idealism). The textbook answer is wonderful and quite close to useless at the same time. To understand why, let’s take a closer look at the ‘model’ answer:

• Weave KM processes into the work process. We are in the 21st century (and thus technology can always make business processes more efficient, can’t it?). And this means, according to the KM ‘experts’, we can build intranet with workflows to ensure people capture their knowledge – for example in the form of After Action Reviews (AAR), or stories. Yes technology allows us to build workflows. But does prompting people to complete the workflows can really capture knowledge? Does technology can really persuade or coerce people to spend time to store and share their knowledge? I don’t think so. Compliance does not guarantee the quality of work. There is a real possibility that people are not capturing knowledge that is of value to the organisation, i.e. the people fill up the knowledge repository, for example best practice database, with whatever they can remember, and without much discussion and reflection of what they have learned.
• Gather ‘low-hanging fruits’. Ok this is vague. How to ensure everybody has shared understanding of ‘low-hanging fruits’? It is difficult indeed. Furthermore, quick wins, or ‘low-hanging fruits’, can be associated with results with low value, and thus they don’t always translate to the top management’s support and commitment.
• It follows that if we can’t weave KM processes into the work processes and gather ‘low-hanging fruits’, then there is little we can do to win the top management’s commitment that we badly needed to roll out KM initiatives.

Therein lies the problem. If we can’t show the value of KM to the organisation, how are we going to show our worth as KM professionals to the top management? In order for KM to be of strategic value to any organisation, it has to deal with wicked problems in the organisation. Wicked problems, by their nature, are difficult to define. Here is a quick way to understand wicked problems: multi-causal problems with no clear solution,  socially complex problems, and problems that involve changing behavior, for example: smoking control, tackling AIDS, climate change. Wicked problems, however, don’t always have to be inter-organisational problems, they can also be found within the organisation, for instance: Innovation, improving customer/staff satisfaction.

There is no sure fire strategy, or framework, to solve wicked problems, though collaboration is seen as key to crack the problems. And when people collaborate, they are sharing their knowledge! without knowledge sharing, collaboration will not happen. Of course the assumption here is people are willing to collaborate. So, do people collaborate when dealing with wicked problems? I’m confident that they do because when dealing with wicked problems, people find value in bouncing of ideas from each other, and in tapping other people’s experience and expertise – which motivate them to seek out others with similar interest or stake in the wicked problems.

Collaboration can not be mandated. And more collaborations do not necessarily lead to better results, because each collaboration carries a transaction cost, that is (mostly) time.  So, in order for collaboration to be useful and effective, the value of collaboration has to exceed its transaction cost. If I can do the task by myself then there is little incentive for me to seek others, because I can be more productive by doing the task alone. Thus, collaboration is worth the effort (transaction cost) when people – as a group - can surmise that they will be more productive through collaboration and working collectively. The caveat here is we should identify the problems first, then foster collaboration, and not do the other way. It can be very painful to ask or coax people to collaborate to solve problems, especially when they don’t see the need to collaborate.

In conclusion, as a KM professional, we can prove our worth to the organisation by fostering and managing collaborations around wicked problems.