Knowledge Sharing and Collaboration Knowledge Cafés – Do it yourself knowledge sharing?
by
Dan Remenyi
Visiting Professor
TrinityCollegeDublin
Ireland
Abstract
It is now clear that knowledge management is not just another fad which has been hyped up by the management consultants and technology vendors. In fact it has a long pedigree with considerable support from a number of management thinkers of our times. Although knowledge management has much to offer it is no simple matter to implement it successfully. Although very large sums of money have been spent, technologically based knowledge management solutions have produced questionable results. Simply knowledge management is far more than a technological issue and thus, what is really needed is a rethink with an emphasis on the people side of knowledge management. One such approach is the use of a knowledge café. A knowledge café may be defined as a way of brining together a group of people who have some sort of common interest and who will be able to benefit from talking together and listening to each other on the subject of issues related to and surrounding that common interest. The individuals who will benefit from a knowledge café need to have an open mindset, have a common objective and have similar shared values and be people who like to collaborate in their working relationships. The operation of a knowledge café is actually more complex than it first appears and this paper discusses how to operate a successful knowledge café.
Key words and phrases
Knowledge, knowledge management, intranet, knowledge hierarchy, knowledge cafés
The owl was the wisest of animals. A centipede with 99 sore feet came to him seeking advice. 'Walk for two weeks one inch above the ground; the air under your feet and the lack of pressure will cure you,' said the owl. 'How am I to do that?' asked the centipede. 'I have solved your conceptual problem, do not bother me with the trivia concerning implementation,' replied the owl.
Shubik M, A Game-Theoretic Approach to Political Economy, The MIT Press, USA, 1988.
Knowledge management and knowledge itself are both very slippery concepts. In some sense everyone knows what knowledge is – it takes knowledge to know how to drive your car and it takes knowledge to know how to find your way home from work – but when it comes to a formal definition of knowledge, even the most astute philosophers run into problems and paradoxes (Davenport and Prusak 1998; Nonaka and Takeuchi 1991; Senge 1998; Snowden 2003). There is simply no clearly articulated and generally agreed definition of knowledge (Pierce 2002; Suresh 2002). But at least many people know in both business and academe that knowledge management is very important and it is very important to both individuals and to organisations (Drucker 2000; Toffler 1990; Quinn 1993). This notion of the importance of knowledge goes back a very long way indeed. Sir Francis Bacon made reference to the central importance of knowledge when he said, “Knowledge is Power” (Bohn 1994). Davenport and Prusak (2003) point out that both Adam Smith and Alfred Marshall highlight the importance of knowledge. In modern times Russell Ackoff developed the hierarchy - data, information, knowledge and wisdom that is used in many textbooks and articles that talk about knowledge management (Ackoff 1978). In this description the things that are known come in a variety of forms and as we process them their usefulness improves. Thus data are just simple facts and figures, which have not yet been given any structure. Information is the result of processing data and putting it in a form with which decisions can be made. Knowledge then becomes how we facilitate the use of information to achieve our objective[1]. In this analysis wisdom is some higher level of superior understanding, which some people achieve. Although the definition of knowledge is challenging the definition of wisdom is considerably more problematic. This approach to trying to understand knowledge is of course all very interesting, but it is not that useful and it is easy to find different interpretations of the Ackoff model and the different levels of understanding.
To make knowledge and knowledge management useful some organisations have spent millions and millions of dollars or pounds on technology (International Data Corporation 1999; Price Waterhouse Coopers 2000), specifically information and communications technology (ICT). The belief behind this approach was that if we could capture knowledge and put it in a computer then it could be shared. This sharing would ensure the highest possible utilisation of knowledge across the entire organisation. As electronic communications have become easier and cheaper over the past ten years, having knowledge captured in a computer in one part of the world ensured that it would be available worldwide and that organisations could aspire to having “best practice” policies implemented in every office, branch or outlet. It is argued that such collaboration could only lead to improved performance.
The advocates of this ICT approach to knowledge management went on to argue that even better than sharing across geographical space during a given time period, the use of ICT would allow knowledge sharing to take place cross multiple time periods. The basis of this argument is that if “best practice” is captured in silicon then it is retained by the organisation and available to it even when key individuals retire, resign or in some other way leave. In this thinking the siliconisation of the organisational memory provides continuity and reduces the organisations’ reliance on specific individuals.
The technology here is normally referred to as an intranet and it has been responsible for selling many large and powerful computers as well as terabytes of mass storage to many organisations around the world. But despite the huge investment it is not very clear how much knowledge sharing has been achieved (Bain 2003, Computer World 2000) by the use of ICT. The problems or challenges of knowledge sharing are now known not to be in the area of fast processor, mass storage, speed of retrieval or bandwidth. The problems or challenges are much more subtle than any of these issues.
Even when the intranet orientation to knowledge management is accepted there are two major challenges for this “hardware” or technology approach to knowledge management and these are to decide what knowledge should be recorded and then how to elicit this knowledge from the appropriate individuals who have it (Ruggles 1997; Brown and Duguid 2000). Being able to ascertain what knowledge is require and then who has it and finally how to encourage them to deliver it so that it could be deposited in a computer is no mean task. The methodologies suggested for these tasks have not shown themselves to be particularly robust and many problems have arisen while trying to achieve these goals.
But even in those cases when the knowledge has been carefully and accurately recorded in silicon there is the major job of getting other people to know that it is there and then to want to use it. Knowledge sharing in this rather impersonal way through the use of intranets has been difficult (Bain 2003, Storey and Barnett 2000). Despite the large amounts invested in intranets, this has not been an easy area in which to work and the results of this hardware or technology approach to knowledge management have generally been poor. This has lead to further suggestions that knowledge management may simply be just another management fad (Viswanathan 2002) created by management consultants and computer vendors.
Although there are some academics, consultants and professionals who believe that knowledge management is a fad, they are in the minority. The belief in the importance of Knowledge Management is surprisingly resilient. The current interest in Knowledge Management has now been on the corporate agenda for over a decade. Despite the slowness of many organisations to make great headways with the technology solutions to the knowledge challenge it is increasingly understood that those who can mobilise and focus their corporate knowledge have a distinct competitive advantage (Porter and Millar, 2004). Indeed it is true that the amount that has been achieved by knowledge management initiatives is highly variable. But this is not because knowledge is an unimportant issue or that knowledge management is simply a hyped up issue. The patchiness of achievement has been in many cases due to the fact that knowledge management is not a technological issue but rather a human interaction issue, which has to be approached in a different way. Changing human interactions is difficult and needs a completely different approach than just the availability of technology. What has been learnt in the past few years is that implementing knowledge management is not a trivial matter at all and requires a rethinking of organisational processes, strategies and maybe even objectives. Time and again we hear that knowledge is still stuck in well-protected organisational silos and sometime organisational executives are heard sayingIf only we knew what we know (Brown and Duguid 1999; Goodhue et al. 2002).
Today most people recognise that knowledge sharing is a key issue for knowledge management and thus for organisational success. But real knowledge sharing has little to do with hardware or technology and a lot to do with people and their attitudes (Wenger and Synder 2000). To make knowledge sharing work well three conditions are required. There are:
- an open mindset for the individuals involved
- people who have a common objective and who have similar shared values
- and people who like to collaborate in their working relationships.
Creating the environment where these conditions exist is the central challenge for many organisations wishing to promote knowledge sharing. Many readers will recognise this problem when they think about how difficult it can be to get people to just talk openly to one another other about their specific corporate interests, opportunities and responsibilities.
The creation of Communities of Practice in some organisations has been an important step forward in achieving the sharing of knowledge. This approach tries to bring people together that have mutual interests and who want to collaborate and share knowledge. But it has not been all that easy to get these Communities of Practice started. What has really been lacking is a technique to initiate or “kick-start” these Communities of Practice as well as a way of helping them continue and evolve (Wenger and Synder 2000, Snowden 2003).
One way of energising an organisation to achieve real knowledge sharing benefits is to use Knowledge-Cafés. A Knowledge-Café is an effective vehicle for opening up conversations and discussions that will lead to knowledge sharing (Pierce 2004). The term Knowledge-Café is interesting in that it may suggest a venue such as a coffee house or some other location where hot drinks are served and consumed. But a Café is also a venue where people meet and where people also talk. It is the talking and perhaps thinking aspect of the notion of a Café that is the important dimension here.
Thus a Knowledge-Café may be defined as a way of brining together a group of people who have some sort of common interest and who will be able to benefit from talking together and listening to each other on the subject of issues related to and surrounding that common interest.
To operate a Knowledge-Café drinks, hot or cold, do not have to be served. Also it needs to be pointed out that when people meet in a Café they generally do so in small groups unlike the way they come together in a church or at a political rally. Much of the action in a Knowledge-Café occurs in small groups. There is a plenary group at the beginning of the Knowledge-Café and again towards the end of it where all the participants come together, but the main value obtained from the Knowledge-Café experience, reported by most people, occurs in the small group discussions.
As described by Gurteen (2004) there are a number of formats for the operation of a Knowledge-Café. Some Knowledge-Café conveners require quite elaborate props or facilities. For example it is sometimes suggested that to conduct a Knowledge-Café it is necessary to set up a Café environment with small round tables with tablecloths and cut flowers and with a continuous supply of hot drinks. Sometimes it is said that there can only be four chairs per table.
However for a successful Knowledge-Café event none of this is actually necessary. The following is a sound approach for a successful knowledge sharing event.
First of all you need a group of people who you believe should be sharing their knowledge more effectively. Ideally there should be about 20 to 30 people involved. So invite these people to a two-hour Knowledge-Café. Remember the sort of people you ideally require are those who have a relatively open mind-set, who have common objectives and values and who like to work in a collaborative way. Make sure that everyone knows the names of all the other members of the group by supplying badges and perhaps a list of names and perhaps e-mail addresses. It is important that people can contact each other after the Knowledge-Café. By the way it might be useful to actually lay-on some coffee or some other refreshments but that’s not at all essential and many Knowledge-Cafés do without this.
When all the members of the group arrive you need to explain that the object of the meeting is to share knowledge and propose to them a question around which you want them to share their knowledge. The question needs to be highly relevant to all those participating in this event. This explanation of the Knowledge-Café is best done by a senior member of staff as this signals that this is a serious event and not just a casual social gathering. This briefing should take no more than 10 minutes.
Ask the group of 20 to break up into small groups of preferably 4 people and ask them to sit together and discuss the question. It is not necessary to have tables and chairs set out although this is sometime convenient. Sometimes the groups stand in a small circles. Sometimes they even sit on the floor. In some respects, the less formal the seating arrangements are, the better. The only important issue is that the environment is not specifically uncomfortable or hostile.
Allow 45 to 60 minutes for this small group discussion. It is important to emphasise that you are looking for an exchange of knowledge and that you are asking everyone to be non-adversarial and non-threatening in his or her discussions. A Knowledge-Café is not an opportunity to debate but rather an opportunity to listen and to understand each other. This is important as people seldom actually learn from arguments. The watchwords are Try to understand the other members of your group before trying to help them understand you.
After the 45 to 60 minutes in the small groups invite everyone back and hold a full group conversation on the subject of what individuals have learnt from their participation in the small groups. It at all possible this large group should be seated in a circle or a semi-circle. This large group conversation needs to be facilitated by someone with experience of encouraging individuals to speak and in so doing to describe what they have heard of interest. The large group conversation should not become a debate but should be an exercise in reflecting on new ideas and new insights which individuals have been exposed to during the small group discussions. Hearing members of different small groups reflect on what they heard will expose Knowledge-Café members to an even wider perspective on the question posed. The discussion should not require more than about 60 minutes.
The role of the facilitator is quite important and a poorly skilled individual can make this part of the Knowledge-Café ineffective.
Some conveners of Knowledge-Cafés believe that this large group conversation should be recorded or videoed for Café participants to take away. But this is not a central issue to the success of the knowledge sharing which occurs during the Café. But as Gurteen (2004) points some organisations prefer to have a record of the event.
Participants of Knowledge-Cafés frequently report that these events have been highly valuable. They generally state that they have obtained new insights into the issues being discussed. They often claim that not only have they learnt from the other members of the Knowledge-Café, but that they have better understood what they know and what they believe about the subject being discussed. Participants of Knowledge-Cafés also make new acquaintances with whom they can network in the future. If the Knowledge-Café is run in-company it can then be the opening event of an internal Community of Practice. If the Knowledge-Café has been a public one then those who are interested can continue to network in any way they choose.
In summary a Knowledge-Café used properly can:-
- Focus your organisation’s Knowledge
- Strengthen your organisation’s Knowledge Network
- Get a Community of Practise really going
- Make Knowledge Sharing a reality for your organisation
Knowledge-Cafés are run by knowledge Gurus in many countries. It is a relatively straight forward technique. However to conduct a successful Knowledge Café is not a trivial matter. In some respects it is like the advice given by the Owl in the epigram above – it is easy to say how to do it and quite difficult to do it well. However provided that the facilitatoris skilful in encouraging conversations and knows how to avoid confrontation and debatea Knowledge Café is a valuable start to a Community of Practice or just a start to having individuals share knowledge. If you are interested there is information about Knowledge Cafés on the web and a useful website to start an investigation of Knowledge Cafes procedures is