- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
12-09-2024 08:55 AM
Hi all,
Does anyone have experience in identifying the best practices for a Knowledge Management processes? Specifically, I'm looking to establish a robust Knowledge Management governance framework that defines who is responsible for maintaining, sharing, and editing knowledge within the organization. Does anyone have some insights or advices - from a process perspective, even if its generic or just an overview.
Thanks a lot 🙂
Solved! Go to Solution.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
12-09-2024 09:45 AM
Don't start with robust, grow into it.
Way back in the day when I was the ServiceNow lead for a customer, we tried deploying KM at least once a year. Failed each year. Here's a few unsorted notes.
- You can't impose rigid processes (which are de-facto time consumers) to peer teams. If you're compelling new work, that MUST come from the top.
- You can't impose rigid processes without clear outcomes. Those whose labor is demanded in the process need clear visceral knowledge of WHY the new effort matters.
- You can't make effort disappear. If someone is responsible for updating articles, where will those hours come from?
- A process without an owner is both a daydream and a coercion. "Make sure you obey this process! Or else nobody is going to do anything about it. But you still have to do it".
Getting people to buy into any level of KM *AT ALL* is probably a better target than a robust process if none currently exists.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
12-09-2024 09:45 AM
Don't start with robust, grow into it.
Way back in the day when I was the ServiceNow lead for a customer, we tried deploying KM at least once a year. Failed each year. Here's a few unsorted notes.
- You can't impose rigid processes (which are de-facto time consumers) to peer teams. If you're compelling new work, that MUST come from the top.
- You can't impose rigid processes without clear outcomes. Those whose labor is demanded in the process need clear visceral knowledge of WHY the new effort matters.
- You can't make effort disappear. If someone is responsible for updating articles, where will those hours come from?
- A process without an owner is both a daydream and a coercion. "Make sure you obey this process! Or else nobody is going to do anything about it. But you still have to do it".
Getting people to buy into any level of KM *AT ALL* is probably a better target than a robust process if none currently exists.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
12-10-2024 12:01 AM
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. That gives me some minded insights. 🙂
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
12-10-2024 03:50 AM
I'm not going to say this will work for everyone, but the way we got KM to work was via gamification.
No super robust process... just recognition and visibility to those who were doing things that provided good outcomes.
Simple principles:
- creation of Knowledge is good
- updating of Knowledge is good
- retiring of Knowledge is good
And so we had a dashboard that our ITIL process owner would showcase on all his daily standups and group management reviews to show what teams / individuals were getting stuff done, and its impact.
Was it "good enough" was probably debatable, but it had far more engagement than anything we tried previously.
