I think the ideas presented here are valid but I wonder if they will have traction in organizations that are already struggling? Does this answer a need and is the solution compelling? Does this add or decrease complexity? What is the primary reason to adopt this?

A little background behind the appeal of this idea: for several years at Babson we've run a couple of sponsored research programs — one involving knowledge management and one based on process management. I've had a long-term interest in both topics, but each is limited as an approach to business performance improvement. We had a meeting last week of the knowledge management group. At that meeting, we advocated for merging knowledge management with some other function — most likely the human resources/organizational learning/talent management constellation. We felt that knowledge management groups don't often have the critical mass to stand alone, and knowledge and learning are very similar concepts anyway.

Some of the participants pointed out that if you're going to be merging things, you might as well go a bit further. They noted, for example, that if you want to align knowledge and learning with work, you need to know something about business processes and how to improve them. And if you're going to align processes with the content needed to perform them effectively, you need to know something about the technology that would deliver the content in accordance with job tasks.

Full HBR blog at:

Views: 7

Reply to This

© 2018   Created by Kathryn Jackson.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service