Customer Reviews

Common Knowledge: How Companies Thrive by Sharing What They Know

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This is the best book available on knowledge transfer. Based upon the author's deep understanding of organizational learning theory and her careful examination of the practices of major corporations, it offers clear definitions of five types of knowledge transfer, along with criteria, design guidelines, business drivers and potential barriers for each. Examples of each transfer type (from teams reviewing their actions in order to perform better together in a new setting to strategic learning and sharing of expert knowledge) are employed less to bolster a thesis than to illustrate how classifications were evolved and tested. Intelligently crafted categories based upon similarities of tasks and contexts, the nature of tasks, and knowledge type provide a framework for organizations to build a system for employing "common knowledge" for business objectives. Written with clarity and grace, this volume explores the power of metaphor and of the values of sharing, listening and trust, while developing our most practical guide for integrating effective knowledge transfer into organizations' strategic architecture. Highly recommended.

Dixon does indeed explain HOW companies thrive by sharing what they know. (She apparently agrees with Derek Bok, former president of Harvard, when responding to irate parents after a tuition increase: "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.") In her Introduction, she identifies three myths (or assumptions about the idea of knowledge sharing: (1) build it and they will come (the so-called "Field of Dreams Syndrome"), (2) technology can replace face-to-face, and (3) first you have to create a learning culture. "Many of the organizations I studied started with one or more of these assumptions and then had to make corrections to get back on track." She then explains why each myth or assumption is either wrong or inadequate. After that, she observes: My major goal in writing this book is to broaden readers' thinking about how a company might share knowledge. Therefore I discuss many ways in which real companies have successfully transferred knowledge....Another goal is to help readers figure out which of these many systems [subsequently analyzed] would be most effective in their own settings -- how to tell whether BP's Peer Assist would be more effective than Ford's Best Practice Replication." All this in the Introduction (!) which serves as the first of the nine chapters within which her material is organized.

The objective of Dixon's study of ten organizations (ranging from Bechtel to the U.S. Army) was to understand why some knowledge transfer systems are effective...and why others are not. Eventually, she concluded that "These organizations know a great deal about how...but much less about why." Moreover, "Organizations like the ones I have written about in this book, that are on the leading edge of knowledge transfer have been learning on their own, primarily through trial and error." To which I presume to add, that we must understand how to learn if any knowledge (about anything else) is to be gained. Moreover, there are also quite specific skills required when helping others to learn what we know. In her book, Dixon provides a wealth of information which includes cases and examples, a "synthesis that retains the separate voices of the examples", "stories" which preserve the emotions and values of people involved. general principles derived from the cases, and an "articulation" of the reasoning behind the various categories (eg absorptive capacity) inorder to reveal the WHY behind the categories. Those who share my high regard for this book are urged to check out Peter Senge's The Fifth Discipline and his more recent The Dance of Change.

This is a very important book and (I predict) will have a long-lasting effect on the field of knowledge management. Dixon organizes the field, providing a vocabulary and a framework for what is emerging in leading edge companies around the globe as a strategic advantage.

The book is beautifully written. The clear examples and case studies illuminate and add depth to her materials. This book should be the first thing that anyone reads who is considering how to transfer the knowledge (both tacit and explicit) that already exists within a company to others in the company who need it. Dixon is careful to point out that she is not providing a "recipe book" ("one size fits all"); rather, she is giving guidance on what works in particular situations and then inviting readers to begin on their own exploration. Dixon describes that exploration as a necessary first step in creating a knowledge transfer system within a company.

Incidentally, her chapter dealing with how knowledge is changing (moving from the "warehouse" model to the "flow of water" model) makes me want to ask her to write another book -- soon -- to expand on her ideas.

A pleasure to read. I have already recommended it to two clients and I intend to tell others about it soon.

In presenting alternative systems of knowledge sharing, and their strengths and weakenesses for the types, times, and range of knowledge, Dixon's best contribution is to guide the reader from following certain dead-ends, though not necessarily ensuring a success down the right path.

This book, though incredibly well-written in clarity and focus, is not so practical for the working manager faced with creating a "KM Solution" that will stick, as it is for those task forces and executives thinking about KM solutions and wanting to avoid mistakes - oh so common in today's organizations!

So, if you are looking for high-level descriptions of the various systems of knowledge sharing, their strenghts and weakenesses, the cases in the book are lively, thought-provoking, and interesting to follow along.

Looking for in-depth case studies of KM in action at large organisations? This book offers a superb collection and analysis of knowledge transfer techniques at companies like Ernst&Young, Bechtel, Ford, Chevron, British Petroleum, Texas Instruments, and the U.S. Army.

The material is divided into 9 chapters, and the writing style is very focused and precise. Useful flowcharts and checklists make the material a must-read for KM professionals and management strategists.

Dixon begins by deconstructing some common myths  such as build it and they will come. Knowledge transfer which is merely based on accumulating electronic databases will bring about neither appropriate contributions nor adequate retrievals; incentives, discipline, actionable results, alignment with objectives, and face-to-face communication are key requisites.

Going beyond broad generalizations of organizational knowledge management, the book focuses specifically on the issue of knowledge transfer, and identifies five key categories of lesson sharing in large companies: serial transfer, near transfer, far transfer, strategic transfer and expert transfer.

They differ in terms of who the intended knowledge receiver is (same or different from the source), the nature of the task involved (frequency and routine), and the type of knowledge being transferred (tacit/explicit).

One chapter each is devoted to the five kinds of transfer mechanisms, and two chapters tie all the material together in terms of guidelines for building knowledge transfer systems.

In serial transfer, the collective knowledge a team has gained from doing its task in one setting is transferred to the next time that the same team does the task in a different setting. The tasks are frequent, so meetings are held regularly and assessment questions are standardized.

In near transfer of explicit knowledge, the source and recipient teams are different  but the tasks are quite similar. The tasks are routine; selected goal-oriented information is disseminated electronically, along with supplemental personal interaction; information usage is monitored and assessed.

In far transfer, the tacit knowledge a team gained from doing a non-routine task is made available to other teams doing similar work in another part of the organization. There is a reciprocal exchange of knowledge, and face-to-face meetings as well as movement of experts are involved.

Examples include BPs Peer Assist (initiated in 1994, to share experience in challenging areas like deciding whether to invest in a new rig; the transfer includes a visit to rig sites by peers), Chevrons Capital Project Management (with online forums as well as physical movement of project managers to spread learned lessons across the company), and Lockheed Martins LM21 Best Practices (to identify and eliminate redundant facilities, capabilities and structures across its 30 subsidiaries; assessments were made of performance and financial performance).

Other examples include Japans Dai-Ichi Pharmaceuticals, where researchers are expected to spend 20 minutes a day in talk rooms where anyone can dialogue with them. Tacit knowledge can be transferred by moving the people who have the knowledge around. Calling on tacit knowledge is not just a memory task, it is as often an act of creation or invention, says Dixon.

Top-level commitment to the process is called for. Some companies like Ernst&Young designate certain knowledgeable people as shared resources, who spend a chunk of their time sharing their knowledge companywide.

Strategic transfer is called for when the collective knowledge of the organization is needed to accomplish a strategic task that occurs infrequently  but is critical to the whole organization. The knowledge gathering is conducted during the actual operation; it can be expensive and resource-intensive, and also involves knowledge specialists who collect information, conduct interviews, videotape discussions, interpret the examples, and synthesise knowledge.

A useful methodology here is MITs learning history process, which results in a narrative document describing an event and incorporating quotes from multiple sources and even contradictory perspectives. The process should include subsequent reflective research and validation. These events need not have to be the best, but will always have useful learnings.

The resulting documentation from strategic transfer can be disseminated on Intranets, and should have guidelines, checklists, people profiles, contact information, colourful overall narratives, records, and artifacts. Once created by KM specialists, the product is handed over to a community of practice that has the responsibility of keeping it current.

Expert transfer involves the transfer of explicit knowledge from an expert to someone who faces a problem beyond their current scope. Knowledge is pulled from the expert on demand, via threaded electronic forums to which support is dedicated for monitoring, escalation and support.

Examples include Buckman Labs TechForums (started in 1992, monitored by librarians and sysops, and supported by editorial help in producing weekly summaries of discussions), Tandem Computers Second Class Mail (for tech support), Chevrons Best Practices Resource Map (a yellow pages of employee resources), the World Banks internal help line, and Ernst&Youngs Knowledge Stewards. Online infrastructure is critical here for multinationals, and there can be infrastructure problems in developing countries.

In terms of RoI, Ford reportedly claims that US$34 million were saved in just one year by transferring ideas between Vehicle Operations plants; Texas Instruments saved enough from transferring knowledge between wafer fabrication plants to pay for building a whole new facility.

The books shows how each organization can have multiple ways of transferring knowledge, involving databases, response systems, monitoring, meetings, and dedicated KM staff. Appropriate audits of knowledge assets, knowledge gaps, existing knowledge flows, and critical processes need to be conducted, sometimes with external assistance.

As for branding knowledge transfer initiatives, Dixon observes that they often dont even mention the word knowledge  the emphasis is on words like peering, assistance, team building, and networking.

In sum, this book provides an excellent view of knowledge practices right from the trenches of companies at the cutting edge of KM. The inductive analysis and roadmaps for implementing knowledge transfer are essential reading for knowledge professionals in all manner of large organizations.

>>>>>>>

Madanmohan Rao is the author of "The Asia-Pacific Internet Handbook" and can be reached at madan@inomy.com

Nancy Dixon's new book gives 5 knowledge transfer methods that result from the interaction between the intended receiver (similarity of task and context), the nature of the task (how routine & frequent) and the type of knowledge (explicit vs. tacit) being transfered.

Serial transfer: Same team, same task, different settings. After action reviews, learning histories and set meetings, open diaglog, local facilitation.

Near transfer: Explicit knowledge of frequent & routine tasks moved across organizational boundaries. Electronic dissemination, supplemented by personal interaction, 'push', best practices are shared where context is not an issue.

Far transfer: Tacit knowledge is moved by coaching and consulting, same task different context, reciprocal exchange, peers travel to assist.

Strategic transfer: Infrequent and non-routine, complex system, knowledge is gathered by specialists, multiple 'voices' are synthesized mostly in realtime.

Expert transfer: Explicit knowledge is pulled from forums, summarized and recorded in terms of solutions, rules and distinctions. Context is the same but the task differs, e.g. technical questions to 2nd level helpdesks.

Somehow the whole notion of knowledge transfer does not sit too well with me, feels too much like an object is being exchanged rather than an individual or group learning experience! Are we starting to see greater clarity and the emergence of some KM theory here? I'm thinking of Dixon's transfer types, KM models from Don Mezei, Bo Newman and others, knowledge validation practices from KMCI, ontologies and classifications of tool sets, KM strategy options.....

Task characteristics and knowledge sharing:

Nancy uses, how routine the task is, not in the sense of similariry, but how easily the task can be expressed in terms of explicit steps and the frequency. These are important attributes for knowledge transfer (along with an appreciation of key changes in context). I'm not so sure these are the best task characteristics when we look at learning and knowledge sharing, which are important aspects of to consider when looking at transfer in a holistic (ecosystem) perspective. Here I tend to favor the generic task ontology developed by Chandrasekaran and colleagues: e.g. classification, diagnosis, problem solving and others.

Transfer & learning:

There is little attention to reciprocity, dialog and generative knowledge exchanges in Nancy's categories. I get the feeling Nancy favors knowledge transfer as passing objects and only recognizes transfer resulting in greater than the parts in "far transfer" (tacit exchange). Seems in true knowledge sharing there is always some measure of reciprocity, knowledge creation and learning on both sides. One of the most effective ways to share knowledge is to take time to share meanings, surface assumptions through constructing ontologies, practicing deep dialog and crafting distinctions.

I missed FAQs, co-location, yellowpages and boundary spanning between communities as alternative promising ways to share. Knowledge travels via relationships and I think this aspect could have received more attention in the book. Knowledge transfer goes far deeper than just passing information and Nancy's treatment of context and absoption potential was new and through. It is encouraging to see an entire book devoted to this key knowledge practice, think this is an important text, deserving of a place alongside Brown and Duguid's "The social life of information".

Use of simulation and cases, in particular, Time-Revealed Senarios (TRS) are recent advances to assist with knowledge sharing: TRS as used in Wisdom Tools.

Dixon does indeed explain HOW companies thrive by sharing what they know. (She apparently agrees with Derek Bok, former president of Harvard, when responding to irate parents after a tuition increase: "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.") In her Introduction, she identifies three myths (or assumptions) about the idea of knowledge sharing: (1) build it and they will come (the so-called "Field of Dreams Syndrome"), (2) technology can replace face-to-face, and (3) first you have to create a learning culture. "Many of the organizations I studied started with one or more of these assumptions and then had to make corrections to get back on track." She then explains why each myth or assumption is either wrong or inadequate. After that, she observes: My major goal in writing this book is to broaden readers' thinking about how a company might share knowledge. Therefore I discuss many ways in which real companies have successfully transferred knowledge....Another goal is to help readers figure out which of these many systems [subsequently analyzed] would be most effective in their own settings -- how to tell whether BP's Peer Assist would be more effective than Ford's Best Practice Replication." All this in the Introduction (!) which serves as the first of the nine chapters within which her material is organized.

The objective of Dixon's study of ten organizations (ranging from Bechtel to the U.S. Army) was to understand why some knowledge transfer systems are effective...and why others are not. Eventually, she concluded that "These organizations know a great deal about how...but much less about why." Moreover, "Organizations like the ones I have written about in this book, that are on the leading edge of knowledge transfer have been learning on their own, primarily through trial and error." To which I presume to add, that we must understand how to learn if any knowledge (about anything else) is to be gained. Moreover, there are also quite specific skills required when helping others to learn what we know. In her book, Dixon provides a wealth of information which includes cases and examples, a "synthesis that retains the separate voices of the examples", "stories" which preserve the emotions and values of people involved. general principles derived from the cases, and an "articulation" of the reasoning behind the various categories (eg absorptive capacity) inorder to reveal the WHY behind the categories. Those who share my high regard for this book are urged to check out Peter Senge's The Fifth Discipline and his more recent The Dance of Change.

Dixon's book, Common Knowledge, is an insightful exploration and explanation of the transfer of knowledge in organizations. It is a pleasure to read as Dixon takes a potentially puzzling subject and captures it in clear and logical terms. Through the use of examples, illustrative tables, and conscientious narration Dixon makes her conclusions apparent to learners of all types. The efficient sharing of knowledge is an opportunity for an organization to truly advance itself and this book can and will facilitate this improvement. It is a must for anyone concerned with the inclusion of their organization in the upward progression of the New Business era.

In the increasingly complex world of information technology, effective knowledge transfer is at once critical to the success of an organization or a program. Such knowledge transfer or knowledge sharing has typically been viewed as either a vertical or lateral flow of information with a feedback mechanism. In _Common Knowledge_, Nancy Dixon, an associate professor of Administrative Sciences at the George Washington University, takes commonly accepted patterns of information sharing; breaks them down into design, intent, and effect components; and interweaves them into a system of practices that takes into account sources and users of information, types of knowledge and frequency of knowledge transfer; and provides design guidelines and real-life examples in an organized, example-laden manner.

In Chapter 1, Dixon dispels the value of typical, dogmatic, passive, intellectual attitudes of information sharing in a corporate structure, and defines "common knowledge." Dixon describes her goal in Chapter 1: Introduction as, "[To] broaden readers' thinking about how a company might share knowledge." In Chapter 2, she offers her overarching thesis--"creating [and] leveraging common knowledge." In Chapters 3 through 7, she describes categories of knowledge transfer and compares them to each other. This works to mixed success as Chapters 3 through 7, while seemingly well-organized, slowly blend into each other. Chapter 8 is particularly well organized, summative, and to the point. Chapter 9 is excellent in bringing it all together and making _Common Knowledge_ relevant in business, as well as other organizational, settings.

It might simply be a preference in style, but the book might have been more effective had there been a more detailed overview in the beginning followed by specifics, and concluding with a case for the content's relevance in today's and tomorrow's businesses, i.e., presenting Chapter 8 before Chapter 3. Dixon's references are heavy with subject matters on learning and management and less on knowledge transfer, perhaps reflecting the relatively scant publications in knowledge transfer. The index is overly compulsive and needlessly descriptive for the amount of information actually contained in the book.

_Common Knowledge_ does not describe step-by-step instructions on how knowledge can be transferred. Dixon helps the reader understand the process of transforming knowledge into _Common Knowledge_ by breaking down the traditional pattern of knowledge flow and reassembling them to be discrete and descript, and at the same time being integrative. She makes it easier for the reader to understand design strategies for knowledge transfer under specific circumstances, compartmentalize resources and organize actions to develop an effective knowledge transfer scheme, and monitor and control the system to ensure its success. The book should be read in two parts--first, chapters 1, 2, 8, and 9; followed by Chapters 3 through 7, and rereading Chapters 8 and 9.

Common Knowledge: How Companies Thrive by Sharing What They Know, by Nancy M. Dixon (Harvard Business School Press, 2000), provides valuable insight into the idea of common knowledge, differentiating the types of knowledge transfer, and providing strategies to achieve the types of knowledge transfer described in the book. Her work is largely business focused, the author having looked at major corporations such as Chevron, Ernst and Young, Ford, Bechtel, and British Petroleum. However, she also uses a successful model developed by the U.S. Army. I read the book from a public health perspective, focusing on examining the relevance of each knowledge type and strategies to my own perspective in public health programs. In this paper, I will present the book's perspective, and intertwine the potential application in the public health arena, which was quite abundant in the book.

The author defines common knowledge as the knowledge that employees can learn from doing organizational tasks. It is the know `how' of a company verses the know `what'. It applies to information that is unique to a company or corporate culture. (Page 13)

The author's goals are to 1) broaden the reader's thinking about how a company might share knowledge, not only the `how', but the `why', as well, and 2) to allow readers to determine which system(s) would be most effective in their own settings. Her focus is on teams, not individuals.

The book begins by dispelling three myths about knowledge sharing:
1. "Build the technology and they will come" mentality. A common mistake made is that a knowledge transfer system is put into place and lays largely dormant or improperly used.
2. Technology can replace face to face encounters. She uses experiences from the Ford motor company as her model example here. Several years ago they began sending key staff to overseas Ford plants to exchange ideas, which ended up saving tens of millions of dollars to the corporation. They have a built in mandate that each year a given plant will increase efficiency by 5%, no small task year in and year out!
3. That you must first develop a learning culture. It is believed by many that successful corporations greedily hang on to information to maintain a competitive edge. The author found quite the contrary to be true in the successful corporations she examined, at least from within a complex organization.

Personally, the `knowledge is power' mentality has prevailed at times in our own public health professional environment. When I began in public health the motto of many of my superiors was `keep your cards close to your chest', get as much information as you can without divulging much; however, that thinking has largely changed as public health systems have changed from direct service orientation to linkage to service and collaboration. Also, an anecdotal observation is that a sharing mentality is healthy and that withholding information breeches the trust of the public health and creates divisions within an organizational structure.

The author distinguishes between two important types of knowledge, explicit verses tacit. Explicit knowledge is knowledge that could be directly transferred to the learner in the form of a recipe or manual. If you follow the directions, then you will achieve the same product. Tacit knowledge is the knowledge that a highly trained, or technically complicated, situation occurs. There is a tacit knowledge base in the expert, but at each decision node, there is a complicated array of possibilities, not easily conveyed in a simple manual. Examples of tacit knowledge would be: a cardiologist examining a heart patient. In this scenario there are numerous factors to consider, such as patient history, blood chemistry, vascular and stress tests, genetics, age, race/ethnicity, gender, smoking history, etc. To make the correct decision, the physician must look at many facets of the patient, using his/her accumulated wealth of knowledge about the subject. The idea of tacit knowledge is important in public health in that, where national and state agencies are involved, best practices and experiences, if properly conveyed to a receiving organization, can benefit that organization or jurisdiction. Often, it is tacit knowledge that is needed to best determine what the best fit for an agency is, and what formula or recommendations might work best.

"Tacit knowledge is not only the facts but the relationships among the facts - that is, how people might combine certain facts to deal with a specific situation" (Page 94). Some organizations have begun to designate certain knowledgeable people as "shared resources", with the expectation that a portion of their work time be spent sharing their knowledge company-wide, leaving the other 90 percent for the project.

In chapter 2, the author argues that, in order to create and leverage common knowledge an organization must:
1. Determine effective ways to translate ongoing experiences into knowledge, and
2. Transfer knowledge across time and space.

Many organizations fail to allow for time to debrief a project team or review a recently completed event. If some analysis of the process does not occur, an organization may achieve extraordinary success along the way on a given project and not be able to replicate that knowledge in future projects.

In the author's view, one size does not fit all, (Page 21-22). To determine how a knowledge transfer method will work, one must consider:
1) Who the intended receiver is, in terms of task and context? What is the receiving team's aborptive capacity? In other words, the team receiving the knowledge transfer must have a level of understanding already to `absorb' new knowledge (i.e., you can't learn division until you understand multiplication!). Being able to function as a team increases the absorptive capacity to implement knowledge transfer.
2) The nature of the task, i.e. whether it is routine/non-routine and how frequent the task is.
3) The type of knowledge being transferred - tacit or explicit.

Types of knowledge transfer:

1. Serial Transfer: A team performs a task and then repeats the task in a new context. Examples given were the U.S. Army's After Action Review (or, AAR), that examines what was supposed to happen, what happened, and what accounts for the change. Some private corporations have adopted a similar model.

The receiving team (which is also the source team in this case) does a similar task in a new context. The nature of the task is both frequent and non-routine. It may involve tacit or explicit knowledge.

An example of serial transfer in a public health context might be: A syphilis elimination team engages in a syphilis blitz in Birmingham, then, later in Miami - similar tasks, but different contexts.

Meetings are held regularly and are brief. Everyone is involved in action participation. There are no recriminations. Reports are not forwarded to other levels, though notes are retained for local use. Meetings are facilitated locally.

Some of the barriers to this strategy are that team members won't take the time to meet and discuss. Team members may lack the proper skills to have knowledge producing conversations. Also, staff may disperse prior to the end of the project period. This can be especially true at the local public health level, where staff may be young, underpaid, and trying to advance their careers.

To successfully implement serial transfer, the following should be in place:
q A standardized format of questions
q A team facilitator
q Basic norms of truth telling
q A no recriminations policy

2. Near transfer: Transferring explicit knowledge from a source team to another team doing a similar repeated task in a similar context but in a different location or context. In this context users specify the content and format of the knowledge being transferred.

Knowledge is `pushed', meaning that the information appears automatically, rather than users searching for the knowledge. In the modern context this could be through emails or electronic bulletins. The information is actively disseminated, with brief, not lengthy, explanations. The context of the messages being pushed is very specific. The author points out (page 72) that comprehensive systems usually fail, there's just too much information, so nothing ends up being important. Targeted databases work better.

The goal of Near Transfer is not to share knowledge, but to meet a specific business goal established by management.

Barriers to near transfer are based in people's fears of little-used data-bases, or a frustrated attempt to get teams to use a new or innovative practice or process. Some organizations have cultures that are resistant to outside successes. "If it wasn't invented here we won't use it." Finally, some people are `too busy to share' successful approaches.

Public health example: During the Global Smallpox elimination effort, prior to the electronic age, initial efforts involved attempts to vaccinate all people; however, there wasn't enough vaccine to do this worldwi