I had a really interesting discussion last Friday with someone I cannot name, and who is working for a French global company I cannot name either. After many failed attempts for the last ten years to establish a good knowledge management practice in that company, its top management apparently came to the conclusion that it was probably not in the company’s DNA, and therefore that maybe the company should consider a completely different approach and maybe “outsource its KM”.
Now that is a very interesting thought, and I think a very powerful one. If companies cannot develop a culture of knowledge sharing and innovation, it’s primarily because they are having a hard time measuring the benefits. All metrics of intangibles –and KM in particular- are shaky, and the most promising ones, based on network analysis (VNA) still have a long way to go before they become generally accepted practices.
In the meantime, organizing a knowledge market might be the best way to go. Let’s imagine what it would look like…
]]>
First, a separate organization for shared knowledge services would have to be set up, if it doesn’t exist already. For lack of a better phrase, let’s cal it the corporate university. The problem is that corporate universities, when they exist, are focused on executive programs, which is a very small part of the problem.
The corporate university would have to be set up as a separate business unit, providing chargeable services to the rest of the organization. These services would both be customer-facing and employee-facing. They would include:
- Classroom training (management and technical domains)
- Organizing and facilitating learning seminars and events
- Setting up and running community spaces on the web (intranet and extranet)
- Providing community coordination services
There would be many external partnerships of course, with universities and research centers in particular, but also with specialized consultants and social learning IT companies.
The Corporate University would elaborate its offering to support the strategy. There would be no catalog of courses but a yearly program established based on the priorities of the firm. The manager of the Corporate University would be a member of the executive committee and maybe at the board of directors too to make sure that the learning program is subordinated to the company’s strategy.
It would be funded in two ways. First by the company itself. The company funds the university because it needs one. In a sense it buys the outcome of the university’s activities: better recruitment, more retention of talent, more innovation, more reputation through publications, more sales etc. By funding the university, the company is building its brand. Second, by the various company departments who purchase some of the university’s services for their staff. It’s a market approach: If they don’t need learning services they are not obliged to purchase any.
Governance principles:
- The corporate university’s program is discussed and approved yearly by the company’s CEO
- The corporate university recruits its staff and “faculty” on the basis of competence. It can hire part-time professors , facilitators and community coordinators in and out of the company. In case of a part-time assignment given to a company employee, the employee’s manager must agree to it and has the right to veto the employee’s candidacy for business reasons.
- Likewise, the corporate university does not automatically admit employees sent by their managers. It has a right to veto admission or community membership to employees who do no have the required level of proficiency in the domain at stake. This level is determined either by testing or by recommendation of internal sponsors having the required level of expertise.
- The corporate university is open to employees and potential recruits, customers and prospects, and employees from various aother partners and stakeholders. However some of the classes, community spaces, activities or content are restricted to employees and even to sub-groups of employees in the case of highly confidential matters. As such, some of the university’s staff, and the “dean” in particular, are entitled to access highly classified material of the company.
- The corporate university’s IT system, focused on learning activities, is distinct from the rest of the company’s IT system, which is focused on operations. Most IT aplications, whether home applications or productivity applications are different anyway. For company employees, those services are merged in the employee portal.
- The corporate university’s IT system is regularly audited for security, to make sure that the company’s protected knowledge is kept safe inside the boundaries of entitled communities.
- The company owns all the IP produced by the corporate university
It appears to me that such principles would be a sound basis for Shared Knowledge Services in a big organization.
]]>
wrote a whole book on this: "The Black Swan"
