Analyzing players in your market

The Chief Knowledge Officer of my organization was asked to find an international organization that could be considered a good practice and provide initiatives that we could replicate in house. A list of reviewed organizations was presented with a disclaimer: it was not easy to find information and initiatives, since most of them have no culture to publicly share; the research was comprehensive but not complete.

The research did not include organizations that regularly spend vast amounts of resources in knowledge management such as World Bank, ADB and UNDP, since following these organizations would be unreasonable and unrealistic.

Four approaches were presented:

1. Some organizations believed that knowledge could be codified and what staff members know could be converted into text, paper, images and video. For them, publishing this information and sending it to the member countries was a value added activity.

2. Other organizations believed that by categorizing and analyzing knowledge on development, value could be added to member countries.

3. For other organizations, main knowledge was in people’s heads. What people know would be most important and putting this knowledge into paper would be costly and difficult. Such organizations would end up managing people instead of information.

4. Finally, there were a number of organizations that believed that creating networks and creating links among them was the best way to generate value.

All organizations believed the aim of knowledge management was twofold: Firstly, to improve management inside; secondly, to improve impact in the member countries.

An example of the first approach was UNIDO. They had developed a database of industrial information sources. Sources included documentation centers, banks, training institutes, development agencies and manufacturers associations. UNIDO collected those links in a big size publication which was delivered to member countries.

DESA was a good example of second approach. A good example of their knowledge management approach was the report by Yogesh Malhotra, one of the biggest gurus from an Indian background who was hired for a report on measuring knowledge assets in nations. This publication had a great impact in countries.

Another example of second approach was UN Public Administration Network (UNPAN). They had a Knowledge Management Branch and undertook analytical, technical, advocacy, training and networking activities. Chief Knowledge Officer mentioned that we were already a knowledge organization, since most of its activities aimed at creating knowledge, disseminating it and fostering its application to policy making. In fact, most of the budget, both regular and extra budgetary, was spent on knowledge activities. Not less than 50 % of all resources were spent in knowledge management. UNDP, ADB and World Bank spent similar percentage and called themselves knowledge organizations. They conceptualize themselves in a different manner. Moreover, internal organizational structure at Toyota was based on processes (production, marketing, sales and others) while internal organizational structure at this organization was based on knowledge (emerging social issues, trade and investment, environment…). Besides spending resources in knowledge activities, it organized itself knowledge based.

An example of third approach was UNFPA. According to their strategy, they focused on three elements:

1. Knowledge Networks as formally established groups of thought leaders focused on sharing knowledge that was critical to UNFPA;
2. Knowledge Assets as ‘living’ repositories that provided know-how from UNFPA’s work including most critical asset, people; and
3. Program that applied world leading knowledge sharing practices in real action to meet real challenges.

Knowledge Networks were lists of experts in population connected together as an asset that UNFPA understood strategic. It was not a repository of documents but a repository of people. Instead of managing documents, UNPFA better managed people. The relevance for ESCAP was the following: most work at ESCAP dealt with bringing people together; however, there was no comprehensive list of representatives of governments, research institutions, academia, civil service organizations or consultants in each field. Lists were created in an ad-hoc basis. Sometimes, people left the organization and took contact lists with them. The organization needed a comprehensive approach and explicit initiative to tackle this problem. UNFPA had developed a solution that could be successfully replicated.

UNDP was an example of the fourth approach. They summarized their strategy as:

1. Coordinating networks;
2. Connecting communities of practice; and
3. Creating a common UN roster of experts.

Another organization that developed an integrated approach to knowledge management was WHO. Its knowledge management strategy focused on three main areas:

1. Strengthening country health systems through better knowledge management;
2. Establishing KM in public health, and
3. Enabling WHO to become a better learning org.

They tackled at the same time the internal and external issues. This was relevant for us in the area of publications. Sometimes reports were not reaching target audiences sufficiently. WHO used knowledge management tools to improve bidirectional communication with its member countries. Instead of only publishing, WHO was able to create discussions and provoke debates.

Finally, two good practices in developing a knowledge management strategy paper were mentioned: IFAD and ECA.

The CEO said we lived in a flood of information and knowledge management should aim at helping member states in policy implementation. Document management was the basics of knowledge management, but we should aim at something bigger, at providing lists of experts within areas of expertise. Networking was the goal. He said selection of experts and representatives for meetings could be improved.

One of the Chiefs said we are migrating from money management to knowledge management.

Rafael would have painted it like this.