The nonsense of ‘knowledge management’

A paper from 2002 I just ran into (really don’t what made it load in one of my tabs), however most of the conclusions are still quite true.  If you relate to social media: it is not the fact that social does not work, it is that it currently does not work for certain companies. Although referenced to as an Utopia, I strongly believe that there are a lot of benefits in exchanging data and information, to give individuals autonomy in the development of their expertise, however most organizations cannot handle this, since their hierarchies and processes will not allow it. However that is just a metter of time, since social media is almost everywhere, except in most enterprises…

The inescapable conclusion of this analysis of the ‘knowledge management’ idea is that it is, in large part, a management fad, promulgated mainly by certain consultancy companies, and the probability is that it will fade away like previous fads. It rests on two foundations: the management of information – where a large part of the fad exists (and where the ‘search and replace marketing’ phenomenon is found), and the effective management of work practices. However, these latter practices are predicated upon a Utopian idea of organizational culture in which the benefits of information exchange are shared by all, where individuals are given autonomy in the development of their expertise, and where ‘communities’ within the organization can determine how that expertise will be used. Sadly, we are a long way removed from that Utopia: whatever businesses claim about people being their most important resource, they are never reluctant to rid themselves of that resource (and the knowledge it possesses) when market conditions decline. In the U.K. we can point to British Airways, which, in the aftermath of the terrorist attack of the 11th September 2001, paid off more than 7,000 of its ‘knowledge resources’ – financial observers suggested that they were simply waiting for a suitable excuse to do so, management having taken disastrous business decisions which had reduced profitability. We can also point to Barclays Bank, with profits of more than £2 billion in 2001 and profit growth that year of almost 3.0%, which, nevertheless, paid off some 10% of its total global workforce. No imagination appears to have been used by either of these companies to determine ways in which their ‘most important resource’ might be more effectively employed to increase turnover and profits.

The two companies mentioned are not atypical and we have to ask, ‘If getting promotion, or holding your job, or finding a new one is based on the knowledge you possess – what incentive is there to reveal that knowledge and share it?’