Taming the Monster II

With regard to my previous post, I have done some thinking of my own (albeit during coffee breaks & while commuting to & from work).

I'm not going to offer my opinion on whether Citigroup should break up or not, but rather what I would do in each scenario.

If Citigroup were to break up, then the main task would be to ensure that the parts do not lose their organisational memory. This means making sure that staff with sufficient knowledge of how the unit operates vis-a-vis the entire group are retained. This is important because losing organisational memory might translate to loss of potential business opportunities or being blindsided by operational issues. For example, if the business unit has been insourcing or outsourcing certain functions from the group, it might make sense to consider growing or abandoning it (whichever scenario dictates).

If Citigroup were to remain intact, then the culture of all business units would need to be align to that of the group. This means looking at the strength of each business unit to see how it can contribute to the growth of the group. This can be carried out in the following ways:

1. Conduct a knowledge audit to inventorise the knowledge assets within the organisation
2. Map the knowledge assets to the business units (define the creators, users & owners)
3. Map the knowledge assets to the business processes of the units (this can actually lead to the discovery of synergies between the units)

Of the two options, the breakup is the easiest to carry out. The impact to the organisation will be minimal (if we are to believe what the pundits are saying about Citigroup being a collection of businesses). However, keeping the company intact is where the value proposition lies. But the alignment of culture, resources, IT systems, values, etc; will be a mammoth task that no CEO will look forward to. But if executed successfully, this can be a rewarding experience.

From this standpoint, I am for the idea of a financial hypermarket. But while that is the case, I need to add a caveat. The building of a financial hypermarket dream is what got Citigroup into this mess in the first place.

Perhaps the critics have been right all along.

Knowledge Management: Art or Science?

Scott Adam's view of Knowledge Management. This comic was written in 1998 - at a time where many IT firms are hawking their wares as KM tools - so understandably, there is a heavy dose of cynicism here.

Though I am in this field, I can understand perfectly why people have this notion of Knowledge Managers as snake oil salesman. One of my friends point out to me (and rightly, I might add) that KM is a discipline that tries to lay a claim on everything.

But try as I might, I do not see how KM can be be clearly delineated into specific practices. My thoughts on this? In my first post, I had endorsed my former lecturer's definition of KM. For me it's that simple - if it works, that's the type of KM that your organisation needs.

An article by my friend on the debate of whether management is an art of science gave me insights into how KM should be perceived. KM is a SKILL. Like all skills, it has to be cultivated. One does not become an expert overnight. Ian Thorpe had to overcome a chlorine allergy in order to swim in his first race, but he subsequently went on to win 5 Olympic gold medals.

That means organisations must not be afraid to dust themselves off & get up on their feet again if they stumble & fall while implementing their KM projects. If not, how will they ever learn or polish their KM skills?

Taming the Monster

Consider this scenario:

Your company has 320,000 employees with offices spanning the globe. The business units are as diverse as the nationalities in an international school & operate independently of each other. As a matter of fact, they compete fiercely WITH each other. This was the result of mergers & acquisitions that failed to deliver on the promised synergies. The company has been underperforming compared to its industry peers. Over the past few years, the company had been battling regulatory blues - from losing its right to operate a highly lucrative business in Japan to an expensive class action suit. Your CEO just lost his job for not being able to get the team to march to the same beat & the company is deemed to be so ungovernable that even the former Treasury Secretary of the U.S. has declined to take up the job. What would you as the knowledge manager do?

Welcome to Citigroup.

Bear in mind that Citigroup's business range from investment banking to retail banking to credit cards to brokerage to private banking to... ok, I think you probably get the idea by now.

The previous CEO, Sandy Weil, had clobbered together this businesses in the hope of building a financial hypermarket. But while Sandy was busy acquiring these businesses, he forgot to gel them together. Some reports cited diverse IT platforms as one of the key obstacles to producing the synergies needed. That means the banker at the branch probably had no idea that you are also a client of his company's brokerage & insurance services as well.

I am interested to hear your opinions on how you would re-organise/restructure/rebuild the bank. Would you keep the financial hypermarket dream alive or do you think it is time to wake up to smell the break-up grim?

Facebook or LinkedIn?

Read an interesting discourse between the two by Tom Davenport. I'm sure most of you would be familiar with either or both by now.

First of all, let me make a confession by saying that until a month ago... I was deadset against the idea of having a presence on Facebook. The fact that it was so hyped about in the media in Singapore did help either. I mean seriously... why the heck would I want to receive an electronic glass of whiskey when I can get the real thing easily at Boat Quay or Clarke Quay?

This bias also came partially from the fact that I (like most people) guard my professional image jealously. "Down with Facebook" I'll said. What would my business associates, colleagues & industry peers say if they ever saw me on Facebook? (Ok. I admit. I'm making a big assumption that people outside my family even care about my existence. Ok, ok. I'm making an even bigger assumption that my family cares about what I do online.)

So I'll have to say that I was literally forced onto Facebook by my boss who was interested to see how we can create a collaborative online environment. Although I wouldn't go as far as to say I'm an active user, I am pretty hooked.

But first, why my original preference for LinkedIn? As you've probably guessed by now, it has more to do with my personal preference to separate business & social activities. LinkedIn is touted as a professional social networking website where "serious" people can discuss about "serious" issues. So I figured this would probably be the one for me & I was very impressed (at first). The details required to be filled in & the extend to which the website guards your privacy gave me a sense of exclusivity & importance. It said to me: This isn't a Friendster. We only want "serious" people here & we only look at "serious" issues.

Unfortunately, LinkedIn became a little TOO serious for my liking. I guess this has to do with the fact that it was meant to be a business networking website. Somehow I couldn't help but feel that there were too many sell-side participants on LinkedIn. But to be fair I have post a question on LinkedIn seek advice on on how I should a tackle work related issue which had generated some interesting feedback. But you do need to initiate an action before getting results.

I still have a LinkedIn account. But like Tom, I use it mostly as an address book.

This is where Facebook comes in. It allows you (or your friends) to be proactive by sending you online cocktails, trivial surveys, online flowers, etc; without antagonising you. After all, this is suppose to be a "fun" website & not a "serious"one. Of course, you have the option of reciprocating... you do not have to.

But the fact that some many people use Facebook also means that if I do not use it, I'll be out of the loop on the latest developments. So I am also forced to maintain a presence on Facebook & check it regularly.

That's not to say that I have become a Facebook fanatic. I like the idea that I can see my friends online & that I can keep up-to-date on what they have been doing. But the whole "poking" & "super poking" thing just isn't working out for me. I'm not in the habit of poking anyone in the real world & don't think I''ll ever get into that habit in the virtual one.

My thoughts on "What is Knowledge Management?"

Just what is KM?

You ask 10 different persons that question & chances are you will get 10 different answers. The irony here, of course, is that all of them are probably right.

In my role as a Masters student (previously), I grappled with this question constantly. I figured if I was aiming to become an expert at KM, I should at the very least understand what is it about. I might as well have asked myself how this world came about. For every person I spoke to had a different interpretation/definition of KM.

Eventually, I realised that sometimes it is not so much how you define it but rather what you hope to achieve from it. I guess it's kind of like what Shakespeare said about a rose by any other name smelling just as sweet.

As a practitioner (now), I've come to realise that whatever you call it (KM, Balanced Score Card, Learning Organisation... yada yada yada), it is all about helping the organisation achieve it's goals. Depending on the organisation - whether it is for profit, not for profit, on the buy side, on the sell side - these goals can vary.

So why Gonzo?

I figured since this topic was so subjective (and might even seem bizzare!)... the "gonzo" descriptor fits what I do nicely. Like Hunter S. Thompson, who had enmashed himself into his articles, I find that it is quite difficult for me to remove myself from the subject on which I am broaching. This is especially so if you consider that KM is ultimately about Culture (i.e. people).

I cannot emphazie this enough. For all the KM projects that I have been involved in, engaging the key stakholders is a crucial & fundamental criterion for success. Neglect this & you risk having them turn on you when you finally roll out your plans.

Still, how should knowledge managers define what we do? It's nice to talk about this in an informal environment away from the pressures (and realities!) of the workplace. Try pitching this to your CEO or Board of Directors & my guess is that you'll probably be hunting for a new job real soon!

Of all the definitions I've come across, I liked the one that was given to me by my previous lecturer, Kan Siew Ning, from my Masters course. He defined it as "Connecting people to people & connecting people to information in order to drive business results".

Being a pragmatic Singaporean, I'll have to say that that works for me.