4- Unconscious KM and Conscious KM

We have seen from two previous posts that (a) intangible assets generally contribute more than tangible assets in producing the results that organizations value, and (b) knowledge assets are only a subset of intangible assets.

M&E of KM in development is therefore embedded in the larger issue of M&E of intangibles.

In late 1995, World Bank President Wolfensohn announced before the world’s finance ministers that the World Bank is not only a lending bank but also a “Knowledge Bank”. Of course, knowledge assets had always been creating value for the Bank even before 1995; but World Bank managers formally recognized this fact only after Wolfensohn’s announcement.

Organizations and projects are creating value from their intangible assets with or without any conscious or formal KM strategy/program. Their managers are managing their knowledge assets but they do not call what they are doing “knowledge management”. They use other terms such as “human resource management”, “succession planning”, “replication of best practice”, “role-based portal”, “work templates”, “mentoring”, “customer relations management”, etc. They are doing what we may call “unconscious KM” or management without a knowledge-based framework.

Various M&E tools for tracking intangible assets are in use in the corporate sector: KPIs (key performance indicators), Balanced Scorecard, Malcolm Baldridge criteria, ROI of training (Accenture model, Covey model, etc.), Sveiby’s Intangible Assets Monitor and Edvinsson’s Scandia Framework.

Similarly, successful performance of a development project is attributable to the effective use of knowledge assets, even if its project managers were unaware of KM or were not consciously applying a KM framework. If a project manager formally adopts KM or hires a project KM officer, what does “M&E of KM” mean? The KM officer would likely want to justify his/her job by tracking only the incremental improvements as a result of the new KM program (value added by “conscious KM” over “unconscious KM”). But if a project manager is aware that intangible knowledge assets are creating value, he/she would prefer to track how ALL knowledge and other intangible assets are deployed and how they could ALL TOGETHER be managed more effectively. “M&E of intangibles” makes more management sense than just “M&E of KM”!

Let me tell two stories from our experiences in applying KM in development — stories about how “conscious KM” enables a manager to have “new eyes”.

In the Philippines, we scanned and studied 10 best practices from more than 950 anti-poverty projects. Why were they successful?

The answer surprised us: the communities concerned were successful because the projects leveraged on the wealth of intangibles that the “poor” communities already had: network of relationships (social capital), access to natural resources (natural capital + social sanction), dedicated leaders (human capital), useful linkages outside (stakeholder capital), collaborative practices (cultural capital), indigenous knowledge (intellectual capital), etc. The greater contribution of intangible assets is true both for community development as well as for corporate profit-making! (all these are described in our freely-downloadable e-book: “Community Wealth Rediscovered: Knowledge for Poverty Alleviation” from our website)

Many local communities are “poor” only in tangible assets — they are wealthy in intangible assets. People who call them “poor” are people whose development paradigm is based solely on financial or material (i.e. tangible) mental models.

Our research also opened our eyes in another way: KM for development is not just a matter of facilitating information/knowledge flows — this is a mental model that belies a development practitioner mindset, which is basically an outsider perspective. If we take an insider or community perspective, KM for development becomes a process of recognizing, appreciating and leveraging on the wealth of intangible assets that a community usually already has.

A manager of one of our development partners once remarked, “I see no difference between a Lessons-Learned Session and the project evaluation that we already do.” We formulated the simple table below to help him see the difference. A project may be a “failure” (project objectives were not met) but it may have generated useful knowledge! Such knowledge should be captured via LLS to benefit next similar projects.

Traditional Project Evaluation versus Lessons-Learned Session

Traditional Project Evaluation versus Lessons-Learned Session

2 Responses

  1. Would the various tools, methodology and the information gathered from M & E contribute to KM? Or is M & E part of KM in an organization when there is a conscious effort to capture the wealth of experiences or knowledge between organizations and groups to improve an organizations competitive advantage or aid effectiveness. I see programs successful, regardless of its difficulties, but the lessons learn from such difficulties – it goes beyond the rating, if KM including emerging outcome is to be considered. And not just the PDO.

    On a personal experience, I find a certain project years ago, more fulfilling regardless headaches, sleepless night and the marginally unsatisfactory rating. Simply because the very experience contributed to the enhanced CDD approach including several policy enactment and/or implementation. What matters is to ensure empowerment, timeliness of service delivery and sustainability. Knowing as well, that the future CDD projects will have concrete sector (or in KM, the COP) experience. Going back in another project – I see former project beneficiaries doing the forward approach, from the backward intervention, after almost 5 years of absence (country and sector).

    Unfortunately, development projects are evaluated based on criteria such as: unsatisfactory, satisfactory, marginally unsatisfactory, etc. Lessons learned are not knowledge if but how it is integrated not only in the project but as well as the organization, as a whole

    Then, how is KM integrated in the project management cycle and project cycle?

    Monitoring results. If the ROI is translated into socio-economic-cultural benefits, would the M & E level is conducted TIERS considering sources and audience – assuming that KM is built in the project implementation. For example: donors (update of the country programme strategy, for example), institutions (within the organization and network partners) and partner cooperators itself.

    Who is then involved in the knowledge capture?
    From the beneficiaries point of view – if knowledge (capacity building, network building) relates to an XXX impact or the outcome. What were the adaptations at the community level – taking into consideration their context, political process, culture etc. That regardless of the criteria of selection, for example, communities has their own interpretation of who is poor. By asking a community member to co-facilitate, they have their own indicators (including the intangibles) which would include the norms – good behavior and even sanctions.

    In a participatory evaluation, regardless of the outcome indicators. Community perception often captures the intangibles – the knowledge adapted may be “other or indirect” project impact contributes to the MDG/project sustainability. The intangibles are considered critical by the partner communities but may not be included as an outcome indicator of the project itself.

  2. […] saw earlier in “4- Unconscious KM and Conscious KM” that successful anti-poverty projects are those that leveraged well the intangible assets owned by […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: