Boring work post…
Yes, this is going to be DULL…
It seems that I am indeed slated as the Knowledge Manager for my company now. With that, the work has been pouring in so I have to juggle my normal support load along with the KM load during the roll out of our KM Tool project.
Part of this work load today was to define the Knowledge Management and Review Teams. This task was almost like writing a job description, only a bit less specific. Following is what will be sent to the Global Support group tomorrow or Monday to garner any interest from support reps to join the teams, ie. essentially weeding out who does and who doesn’t wish to be involved. Luckily, as the Knowledge Manager, I get to design the teams to my liking… ah, it has its perks already!
Following is what I have come up with thus far. It will most likely change slightly by tomorrow morning before it gets sent out to the entire support collective:
Defining the Review Team:
The review team will take directive from the Knowledge Management Team with regards to purpose and overall workflow as to ensure accuracy in the content of all knowledge objects reviewed. The review team will continue to report to their direct managers with a dotted line to the Knowledge Management Team (KMT) for work specific to the review process.
The review team’s primary responsibility will be to act as an intermediate step between authoring and publication of a knowledge object. This will include identifying the following issues for any newly created knowledge object or any existing published object which has come up for review:
• Purpose – Why does the resource exist? Does the object fulfill its intended purpose?
• Relevance – Is the knowledge object relevant to current or future conditions? Is it appropriate for internal or external consumption?
• Quality – Is the knowledge object of good ‘quality’ e.g. up-to-date, reliable, obsolete, does it contain errors in spelling and/or grammar?
• Technical Accuracy – Is the knowledge object technically correct? This level or review will require product specific technical expertise.
The review team will interact directly with knowledge authors as well as subject matter experts (SMEs) to ensure accuracy for each knowledge object published. The review team will assume responsibility for all published content both externally and internally visible.
Defining the KM Team:
The Knowledge Management Team (heretofore referred to as the KMT) members will report to their direct managers with a dotted line to the Knowledge Manager (the lead of the KMT) for directives specific to the KM team.
The KMT will initially maintain a primary responsibility of defining authoring and review processes. The KMT will also conduct knowledge audits based on analytics reports on a continuing basis. These reports will help the KMT identify the following:
• What are the organization’s knowledge needs?
• What gaps exist in the collective knowledge?
• What knowledge we have – numbers, types and categories of documents, databases, libraries, intranet websites, spidered links to external resources etc?
• Where the knowledge is – locations in the organization, and in its various systems?
• Organization and access – how are knowledge resources organized, how easy is it for people to find and access them?
• Usage – are they actually being used, by whom, how often, what for?
The knowledge audit will provide an evidence based assessment of where the KMT organization needs to focus its knowledge management efforts and resources. This will also serve to reveal the knowledge management needs, strengths, weaknesses, threats and risks to allow the KMT to address the appropriate opportunities for improvement.
To further clarify the team’s role, the KMT will be responsible for not only identifying the knowledge needs, but will also:
• Create knowledge strategies to guide the overall approach
• Introduce processes to help people locate and use the knowledge of others.
• Teach people to share knowledge in ways that inspire usage of the toolset.
• Encourage people to prioritize knowledge capturing as part of their daily work.
• Clarify processes – are the defined processes for authoring, reviewing, and publishing efficient and working to improve the knowledge available?
• Identify blockages to the knowledge flow, and what can be done to bypass the challenges? E.g. to what extent do the people, processes, and technology currently support or hamper the effective flow of knowledge and how do we improve the efficiency of the flow?
• Identify how existing resources can be leveraged to improve knowledge dispersement.
• Delegate the identified work to the appropriate authors/reviewers or authoring/reviewing teams.
On a larger scale, the KMT will be tasked with “big picture” thinking to help drive the organization in a successful direction. The team, from the higher level, will take a key role in defining the direction of knowledge management as a whole.
See…. DULL. Boring. But insanely interesting to ME.