Originally published on January 8, 2018
Fourth in the Profiles in Knowledge series
I worked at Deloitte from 2008 to 2016, leading the communities program from 2008 to 2012 and the Yammer program from 2012 to 2016. My role was Community Evangelist.
- Key KM Contributors
- Center for the Edge Leaders
- Other Thought Leaders
- Deloitte KM
Section 1: Key KM Contributors
1. Lee Romero
Lee has been at Deloitte since 2009, specializing in portals, taxonomy, and enterprise search. I didn’t know Lee until Lauren Klein told me that he would be a good addition to the Midwest KM Community. I recruited him to join the community, and then to join Deloitte. We became good friends, have worked together on a number of efforts, and continue to meet regularly as KM colleagues.
- Wiki Implementation: Challenging, but Not Overwhelming
- Wikis Are Alive and Kicking in the Enterprise — (continued)
- 90–9–1 Rule of Thumb: Fact or Fiction?
- Does Size Matter in Communities?
- Analyze this: Useful ESN analytics
- How to motivate knowledge sharing using gamification, goals, recognition, and rewards
- 100 Questions & Answers on Collaboration & Communities — Community of Practice Metrics and Membership by Lee Romero, November 10–25, 2008
2. 2017 Midwest KM Symposium — Enterprise Search at Deloitte
3. 2005 AIIM Conference — Evolving a Content Management Practice
4. 2013 APQC
- How Deloitte Uses Analytics and Social Search to Improve Content Findability
- Improving Findability in the Enterprise
5. Enterprise Search & Discovery (formerly Enterprise Search Summit)
- West 2007 Using Search Logs: From Best Bets to Business Intelligence
- Fall 2011 Search Quality in the Real World: Case Study (with Ankit Desai)
- 2015 Teamwork Improves Search
- 2017 Making Search Optimization Effective, Repeatable, and Scalable
- 2019 Implementing a Personalized Search Experience
6. Taxonomy Boot Camp
- 2007 The Process and Politics of Implementing a Corporate Taxonomy — Novell has successfully established an enterprise taxonomy. Learn how it established a taxonomy review board from across the business, about the processes for managing the taxonomy, and how the taxonomy has become embedded in Novell’s content management system and a number of corporate repositories to provide a cohesive language for the company’s knowledge workers. Hear about the business rules that are now in place to enhance search throughout Novell’s knowledge repositories.
- 2010 Enterprise Taxonomy: A Vision — This discussion focuses on an overarching vision for an enterprise taxonomy which guided the development and management of one organization’s taxonomy. It provides clear examples of the value of the vision and specifics about how the vision tied into the management process. Insights include managing taxonomy as its own asset (defining the classifications and the values used within those classifications), using appropriate systems of record to define the set of values used for a particular classification; and enabling monitoring of changes to the taxonomy values by content managers. For more details and tips on how to adopt a vision to guide what a taxonomy is intended to be and how it should be managed and governed, join our experienced practitioner as he shares techniques and practices that you can use in your organization. Enterprise taxonomy: Six components of a vision
8. SIKM Leaders Community
- 2009–10 Community Metrics: The Novell Approach
- 2012–07 Search Analytics: Understanding the Long Tail
- 2014–10 Yammer Groups & Business Value: Does size matter?
- Leading with Knowledge: Knowledge Management Practices in Global Infotech Companies edited by Madanmohan Rao — Chapter 11: KM at Novell: Community Support, Mergers, and Synergies
There was a discussion on the com-Prac list about the “death of a community” and a follow-up discussion about what or how CoPs should capture discussion-produced knowledge.
I found these to be very interesting and thought-provoking discussions. In this post, I will write about two aspects of these discussions — the retiring of a community and also a case study in how a community centered around a mailing list meets the challenge of knowledge capture.
Before getting into the details — I wanted to (re-)state that I recognize that a community is (much) more than a mailing list — community members interact in many ways, some online, some in “real space”. That being said, I also know that for many communities the tool of choice for group communication is a mailing list, so in this post, I will write about issues related to the use of mailing lists, though the ideas can be transferred to other means of electronic exchange. As John D. Smith notes in the second thread:
“All of the discussion about summarization so far assumes that a community almost exclusively lives on one platform. As Nancy alluded to, I think the reality is quite a bit more messy. Note the private emails between Eric and Miguel that were mentioned in this thread. We ourselves interact in LOTS of different locations.”
In other words, even if you could solve the knowledge capture challenge for one mode of discussion (mailing lists) you are still likely missing out on a lot of the learning and knowledge sharing going on in the community. Keep that in mind!
Retiring a Community, or at least a community’s mailing list
As I’ve written about before, within the context of my employer’s community program, mailing lists, and their related archives are an important part of our community of practice initiative (and, by extension our KM program). We have not developed a formal means to retire (or “execute” in the terms used in the first thread mentioned above) a community, but we do have a formal process for retiring mailing lists. While the following is about mailing lists, I think the concepts can scale up to any community — though it might require aggregating similar insights about other channels used by the community.
Within our infrastructure, many of the existing mailing lists are associated with one (or more) communities and we provide a simple means for anyone to request a new mailing list. There is a very light review process, primarily focused on ensuring that the requested list is different enough from existing lists and also doesn’t have such a small topic space that it will likely be very under-utilized), which means that over time we can end up with a lot of mailing lists. Without some regular house-cleaning, this situation can have a very negative impact on how a user’s discovery process — hundreds and hundreds of mailing lists means a lot of confusion.
One way we grapple with this is to use the communities as a categorization of mailing lists. Instead of leaving a user with hundreds of mailing lists to wade through, we encourage them to look for a community in which they’re interested and, through that community, find associated mailing lists. This normally reduces the number of mailing lists to consider down to a small handful.
However, we still have needed a house-cleaning process, so several years ago, this is what we set up:
- All mailing lists are reviewed on a periodic basis — usually around once every six to twelve months.
- When reviewed, the following criteria are used to identify candidates for retirement
- Age of the list (it must be a certain age in order to give new lists time to “get off their feet”)
- New subscriptions to the list (if someone newly joins what is otherwise an un-utilized list, that represents at least *potential* utilization in the future — so no need to shut it off)
- Posting activity on the list (if a list is old enough and has not had anyone newly join and has not had any activity in a specific span of time, it becomes a candidate). Note that even a single post removes the list from candidacy (we do not attempt to quantify the value of a post or anything like that).
- Once a list of candidate mailing lists is identified, the moderators for that list are contacted and asked if the list is needed
- If a list has no identified moderators or (more commonly) the moderators of record are no longer with the company, the entire list of members are contacted,
- This is done via an email sent directly to the members, not via the mailing list itself as that introduces the “one” post that then keeps the list “alive” in the next review.
- Regardless of who the question is asked of, the contact with the list is positioned as a proposal to retire the list and people only need to reply if they do not align with that proposal; a target date for reply is also provided (no reply by that date is taken as alignment with retiring the list).
- Replies saying, “Go ahead and retire” do nothing except confirm the proposal.
- However, even one reply requesting retention of the list takes the list off the list of retirement candidates — that is, everyone has the same weight to veto the retirement.
- As for the archives of the list, we also state that the archives will be retained even if the list is retired unless a moderator states that the archives are not needed. (The archives are included in our enterprise search, so they remain as a potential knowledge source even if the list does not have continued value in supporting on-going discussions.)
- Assuming a list is not removed from the candidate list (i.e., it can be retired), the remaining process is simply to remove it from the list server — I won’t bore you with the details of that here.
In our environment, doing this once a year typically reduces the count of lists by about 10% — though the count of lists has remained remarkably stable over time, which would say that we then have that same kind of growth over the next year. On the other hand, if we did not proactively review and retire lists like this, we would be seeing an ever-growing list of mailing lists, making it harder for everyone to find the lists that are engendering valuable discussions.
Or… How to lift knowledge out of the on-going discussion of a community into a better form of reusability.
If a community uses a tool like a mailing list to engender discussion and knowledge sharing — how does a community capture “nuggets” of knowledge from the discussion into a more easily digestible form? Does the community need to (perhaps not given a sophisticated enough means to find information in the archives)?
I have no magic solution to this problem but I did find another comment to be very illustrative of one aspect of the original discussion — who “owns” the archives of a community’s discussion and what is the value of those archives? Even in their raw form, why do those archives have value? As Nancy White notes:
“I suspect that only a small percentage of the members (over time) would actually use the archives. But because they hold the words of members, there may be both individual and collective sense of ownership that have little to do with “utility.””
The rest of this post will be a brief description of a knowledge capture process I’m very familiar with — though I’m not sure if it will transfer well into other domains. For this description, I’m going completely outside of the enterprise and to a community of which I’m a member that revolves around a table-top fantasy war game named Warhammer.
- A bit of background: Warhammer is a rather complex game, with a rulebook that weighs in at several hundred pages and about a dozen additional books that provides details on the various types of armies players can use. All told, probably something like 1,000 pages describing the rules and background of the game. Given the complexity of the game, it is very common that during any given game, the players will run into situations not covered well by the rules — these are usually areas involving interactions of special rules for the armies playing. In the many online forums / mailing lists that exist, one of the most frequent types of discussions revolves around these situations and how to interpret the rules. Many of the same questions come up repeatedly — obvious fodder for an FAQ.
- (As an aside, given that Warhammer is published and sold by a company — Games Workshop — one could that they should publish all of the relevant FAQs. They do publish FAQs and errata but they do so at a sporadic pace at best and do not address many of the frequently asked questions.)
One particular Warhammer-related community of which I’m a member — the Direwolf (DW) community — has established a pretty well defined means to gather these FAQs and publish them back to the Warhammer community at large. A brief overview of the process:
- A subset of the community is elected by the community each year to act as the FAQ council. This group normally includes one person responsible for questions related to the main rule book, one for each specific army and one person who’s responsible for maintaining the FAQ documents themselves (so all totaled, about 15 people). [As another aside, I happen to be a member of this FAQ council currently, which is how I’m familiar with the process it uses.]
- Each member of the group is responsible for monitoring discussions within the community’s mailing list related to their specific area of focus and bringing those questions to the FAQ council for consideration when they are believed to be “frequently asked” enough to warrant inclusion.
- In addition, the council actively solicits questions specific to individual armies when a new book comes out for an army,
- This solicitation includes both members of the DW community and also a few other highly populated Warhammer-related communities.
- Once a question (or set of questions) is identified for the FAQ council, the group discusses (in a mailing list available just to FAQ council members) potential answers and comes to a consensus (or at least a majority) on the answer.
- Most commonly, the group will agree on an interpretation,
- But occasionally, explicit polling is done to ensure at least a majority of the group agrees with an interpretation.
- The FAQ documentation is then updated to include the relevant questions and answers and then are published on the internet and made available to anyone who plays the game.
Netting it out: A community-selected subset of the community monitors the community for questions in their area of expertise, vettes an answer with the rest of the FAQ council, and then the FAQ documentation is updated as appropriate.
This is pretty straightforward, but the value of this effort is reflected in the fact that the game publisher now very commonly uses input from the Direwolf FAQ council in considering their own responses to FAQs and also in the fact that many players from around the world use the Direwolf FAQ to ensure a consistent interpretation of those “fuzzy” areas of the game. A true value add for the Warhammer community at large.
That being said, this process does take quite a bit of energy and commitment, especially on the part of the “keeper” of the documentation, to keep things up to date. In this case, I believe that the value-add for members of the council is knowing that they are contributing to the Warhammer community at large and also knowing that they are helping themselves in their own engagement of playing the game.
How does this translate into a community of practice within an enterprise?
- It’s possible that an exact parallel of the above could work in many communities.
- Even if the position isn’t “elected,” some type of rotating responsibility among community members to monitor and gather FAQs (or other knowledge artifacts) could be very valuable for both the community and the member(s) who perform the job.
- Within an enterprise that seems like an approach that will have longer legs than having a community manager responsible for this.
- A community manager is someone who helps facilitate the community but who might otherwise not have a strong vested interest in the domain of the community.
- Ensuring that community members do perceive value in their involvement in the process is going to be a key component — What’s in it for them? The answer could be any number of things
- Professional development opportunities (learning a lot more about areas in which they don’t normally work)
- Visibility to other members of the community / career growth opportunities
- Helping themselves be more successful in their own job (they are ensuring there is a source of gathered knowledge to be used)
Curtis worked at Deloitte from 2008 to 2012 as collaboration analyst and community coordinator. I knew of him through his blog and web site before we became colleagues. In the community coordinator role, he was a valuable member of the communities team that I led. He has been active in KM Chicago, helped facilitate the Midwest KM Symposium, and recorded calls for the SIKM Leaders Community.
- Blog Archives
- Factors Critical to Knowledge Management Success — with Wei Zheng
- SIKM Leaders Community Posts
2. KM Chicago
- The KM program at Perkins Eastman and the connection to his PhD research on critical success factors in KM
- What makes KM work in your industry
- Knowledge Retention: How to Keep Knowledge from Walking out the Door
3. SIKM Leaders Community
- 2012–10 Community Leadership (with Lori Brown)
- 2015–06 Discussion on Expertise Location
- 2016–05 Knowledge Management’s Role in the Consumerization of IT
- Managing the Web 2.0 life cycle
- Discussions on KM, Collaboration and Learning
- Personal KM
- Does Size Matter in Communities?
- Collaborative Knowledge Networks — Chapter 5: Identifying critical success factors for Enterprise Social Network success — Factors related to the ESN initiative, organization, ESN manager, ESN team, external environment
How do you describe all of the areas that you receive information from? How does what information you consume impact your future consumption habits?? How does this impact your professional life?
I’ve been trying to come up with a way to describe this concept. At this point I believe that “Personal Information Ecosystem” is a good fit for what I’m trying to describe. Although I thought I was clever and thought of this term first I see a couple others (1) (2) have gotten there before me — although their focus seems to be primarily on personal device synchronization/management. When I say Personal Information Ecosystem (PIE), the idea I’m trying to summarize is the following:
Elements within any ecosystem interact with one another, changing or sometimes totally transforming the landscape of an ecosystem. The Personal Information Ecosystem of each person is no different. As elements within the ecosystem interact and new ones are introduced, each person’s information ecosystem adapts and evolves, over time transforming ecosystem.
Instinctively, I think that most changes to your PIE happen on a micro level, but the possibility for bigger change is certainly there. Take blogs for example — most of the posts that show up in my feed reader are good food for thought, some are insightful and, although rare, every now and then one shows up that challenges my thinking or provides an ‘ah-ha’ moment that provides deeper understanding and a true insight on an issue or concept. How I change based on what I consume in my PIE is what I’m most interested in with this concept. How does each individual’s PIE influence their professional or even personal life?
In this post I’d like to tackle the following areas:
- Information elements in my Personal Information Ecosystem
- Example of how my Personal Information Ecosystem has shifted as a result of the elements within (as a result of the interaction of various information elements)
- Reflections to date on this subject?
Information Elements in my PIE:
I’m sure I’ve missed some in here, and please feel free to share information elements that I haven’t listed that you find valuable as well. Information elements in my own Personal Information Ecosystem consist of the following:
- RSS Feeds
- Web Alerts
- Online Journals
- Peer-reviewed Journals
- Social Bookmarking Site (Del.ici.ous, Reddit, Digg, etc.)
- Online Communities (KM Focus, CoP Focus, etc.)
- Online Discussion Forums, Listservs, etc.
Example: A Changing Ecosystem
A personal example of this is when I first began to incorporate RSS feeds and blogs into my daily reading and PIE. When I set up my first feed reader there were roughly 20 feeds I added to it. After time, this began to grow (and grow, and grow, and grow…) — primarily due to references from the authors showing up in my feed reader. I also began to learn of new journals and online communities that also became incorporated into my PIE. While my PIE had a heavy KM focus, the breadth and depth of it is now is much greater than it was even just a year ago. But more than that, the new information elements that I’ve started incorporating into my PIE have also shifted my information ecosystem because I’ve been introduced to new topics, or had other topics presented in a new light. These new and/or clarified concepts have not only shifted what information elements I consume, but they have also crept into my dissertation and my daily work in KM.
You are what you eat, and I suppose it isn’t any different when it comes to the information elements consumed either.
Reflections on this Subject
This is a concept that has really just been kicking around in my head and this was my first attempt at making it explicit. I still feel as if I haven’t totally been able to describe what I’m thinking, but any thoughts you have on this would be great. What other information elements am I missing? Are there any publications or research in this area that I haven’t stumbled upon yet? How might this, if at all, fit in with PKM?
3. Ray Sims
Ray worked as a knowledge manager at Deloitte from 2008 to 2018. He had previously been director of knowledge management at Novell, where Lee Romero worked for him.
- The 12th Chapter
- Blog Archives
- Book: Leading with Knowledge: Knowledge Management Practices in Global Infotech Companies edited by Madanmohan Rao — Chapter 11: KM at Novell: Community Support, Mergers, and Synergies
- KM 2.0 and Knowledge Management: Part Eighteen, Ray Sims and Defining KM
- KM 2.0 and Knowledge Management: Part Nineteen, Ray Sims, Web 2.0, E 2.0, and KM
For many years I’ve been saying that I didn’t like the term “knowledge management” as (a) it was fundamentally an oxymoron, (b) there was no consensus within the industry as to what the term meant, and (c) in many companies the term carries negative connotations due to a perceived lack of value from earlier so-called knowledge management efforts and/or belief that knowledge management was a fad that we have moved on past or has been absorbed into other disciplines. On top of this add claims by many writers that the term has been hijacked by technology vendors, management consultants, or academics.
Now, with my imminent return to professionally holding a “knowledge management” title, I felt compelled to confront this definitional issue — not to somehow come away with the (at least in my own mind) enduring definition, but rather to acquire a deeper understanding of the range of opinion and make some further sense out of the mess. If I am going to carry a business card that says “knowledge management,” then I feel I have a responsibility to at least grapple with this. So grapple I shall…in this and follow-on posts.
This grappling was further motivated by spending some time with Joseph Firestone’s writing these past few weeks; including at the actKM discussion list, Key Issues in Knowledge Management (which includes a critique of several knowledge management definitions), the web site All Life is Problem Solving, and his recently published paper On Doing Knowledge Management where he wrote:
What we should not do is to force researchers and practitioners to agree on a definition of KM through premature efforts at standardization. While this might bring about the consensus we need in order to do evaluations of ‘KM’s’ track record, any consensus forged in the political atmosphere of standards organizations may well be a consensus constructed around a compromise that has no conceptual unity, and which results in a version of ‘KM’ that is bound to fail.
Another thing we should not do is to evaluate KM projects without benefit of an effort at explicit definition or specification of what we mean by KM. It’s surprising how frequently one sees this happening in practitioner circles, and how damaging it can be.
My motivation and approach is then further informed by the following from Arian Ward:
I would like to challenge the concept of needing to define something. I find definitions to be extremely limiting. They become permanent representations of the thing being defined and leave no room for interpretation, adaptation, or evolution over time. Instead I like to think about the distinctions of something. This is an evolving description — a running list of the manifestations and characteristics of the thing. Distinctions allow something to take on different guises in different contexts. They allow you to accumulate a list of those manifestations and characteristics over time. They also allow you to include what something is not in addition to what it is, to set boundaries around the thing being described. They provide people with a much richer sense of meaning and understanding. In short, something moves from being a dead set of words to being alive in the mind of the receiver. Including different people’s definitions of intellectual capital or knowledge in a book or article is a method of beginning to list their distinctions.
So, to begin, I decided to pull together a cross-section of existing knowledge management definitions. In assembling the definitions, I cast my net widely as I was not only interested in what the credible peer-reviewed published works might say; but also what the The Wisdom[?] of Crowds said. See Knowledge Management Definitions.
4. Gloria Burke
Gloria joined Deloitte in 2016, after serving as Chief Knowledge Officer at Unisys. I invited her to present at a Deloitte KM meeting in Dallas in 2015, and this eventually led to her accepting a KM position in Global Risk Advisory.
- Explore Frontiers Of Social Business At E2 by David F. Carr
- The BrainYard’s 7 Social Business Leaders Of 2012 by David F. Carr
- 10 Social Business Leaders For 2013 by David F. Carr
- Unisys Lets Employees Drive Face Of Social Business by David F. Carr
- Setting A Vision For The Collaborative Workplace Is Essential — Interview With Gloria Burke by Yana Prokopets
- APQC Knowledge Management Conference — May 2–3, 2013 — Unisys Case Study: Best Practices in Socially-enabling A Global Workforce
- The Best Intranets from the Intranet Global Forum
- Enterprise Social Business Transformation: Deriving Maximum Value From Social Technologies Across The Enterprise
- How Companies Succeed in Social Business: Case Studies and Lessons from Adobe, Cisco, Unisys, and 18 More Brands — Chapter 4: Trailblazing a Successful Path to Enterprise Social Business Transformation at Unisys
- Prove It! Using Data Analytics to Drive SharePoint Adoption and ROI by Loren Johnson, Kunall Kapoor, Kip Wagner, and Gloria Burke
- Social Collaboration For Dummies By David F. Carr
5. Marti Heyman
Marti worked at Deloitte from 2000 to 2006 and 2009 to 2011. She was responsible for the initiative to develop, communicate, disseminate and manage global KM business processes, metrics, policies, standards and guidelines.
- SIKM Leaders Community Post
- Marti Heyman on ROI for Taxonomy Initiatives by Patrick Lambe
- Where Do We Go from Here?: Charleston Conference Proceedings 2015 — Not So Strange Bedfellows: Information Standards for Librarians AND Publishers — Pages 536–538 — PDF
ROI Analysis for Taxonomy Programs
1. Part 1
2. Part 2
3. Part 3
1. Taxonomy Boot Camp
- 2005 Developing an Enterprise-wide, Global Taxonomy (Case Study) With Peter Doliska, Taxonomist, Deloitte Services LP — Hear two taxonomists describe their solution to effective knowledge sharing and the need for a multilingual, controlled vocabulary that was flexible enough to fit the structure of their organization. Learn how and why they developed an enterprise-wide taxonomy strategy, including the processes and techniques used to develop the global taxonomy and local extensions (both geographic and by language), the adoption and implementation of the taxonomy, and the vocabulary management software tools that were critical to the successful enablement of their taxonomy strategy.
- 2007 Spec & Select: How to Be Efficient & Effective in Purchasing Taxonomy Software — It’s hard not to be dazzled and baffled by vendors when itís time to purchase software to support your taxonomy development and management efforts. Yet this may be a critical step to ensuring the success, or the failure, of your taxonomy program. How do you know what you need to avoid buying too much, or too little, functionality? This session presents a data-based process to guide you in selecting the right tool based on your requirements and constraints and provides you with a logical argument supporting your selection of software that will enable a successful taxonomy program.
- 2014 Getting Started
Section 2: Center for the Edge Leaders
1. John Hagel
John has been Co-chairman of the Deloitte Center for the Edge since 2007. At McKinsey & Company from 1984 to 2000, he helped open their first office in Silicon Valley, served as a leader of their Strategy Practice, helped build their Information Technology practice, founded their business process re-engineering practice in 1988, and founded their e-commerce practice in 1993. He is the co-author of The Power of Pull: How Small Moves, Smartly Made, Can Set Big Things in Motion, with John Seely Brown and Lang Davison. I met John when he visited Detroit, and we have kept in touch through social media.
- The Future of the Business Landscape: What’s in Store for Companies
- SIKM Leaders Community, May 2012
John has been Independent Co-chairman of the Deloitte Center for the Edge since 2007. He was Chief Scientist and Director at Xerox PARC, working at Xerox from 1986 to 2002. His book, The Social Life of Information, co-written with Paul Duguid, shows how a better understanding of the contribution that communities, organizations, and institutions make to learning, working, and innovating can lead to the richest possible use of technology in our work and everyday lives.
Presentations — KMWorld
Pete has worked at Deloitte since 1993. A retired partner, he is Chief Edge Officer, Centre for the Edge, Deloitte Australia on a part-time basis. I met Pete when I visited Australia in 2010, gaining an appreciation for his distinctive philosophy and approach.
- The future of payments is not to have payments
- Provenance and the search for blockchain’s killer app
- Q&A with Peter Williams of Deloitte’s Centre for the Edge
- Case Study: Deloitte Digital — Wikis are one of the fastest and most effective ways to aggregate information from a diverse range of sources or people
Section 3: Other Thought Leaders
1. Jean Pagani
Jean has worked at Deloitte since 2013, when Monitor was acquired by Deloitte. At Monitor, she was Chief Knowledge Officer from 1995 to 2013. We became chatted about knowledge management and became friends.
- 2012 Taxonomy Boot Camp: Leveraging Taxonomies to Create Descriptions of People & Expertise — In the 21st century, KM is all about people. Our focus is shifting from documents — which may be a snapshot of what someone knows or says at a particular point in time — to the larger repository that is represented in an individual’s experience, knowledge, behavior and communications. Just as we used multifaceted profiles and information management systems to manage documents and content in the industrial economy, so we must have deep, representative and multifaceted profiles to represent people in the knowledge economy — profiles that describe their social intelligence, narrative intelligence, emotional intelligence, knowledge quotient, and areas of expertise. Panelists discuss two case studies in which taxonomies and semantic technologies were used to generate deep profiles of individuals: a Performance Appraisal Feedback exercise at the World Bank and a collaborative research project between Kent State University and the Monitor Group LLP.
- Book: Smarter Innovation: Using Interactive Processes to Drive Better Business Results- Chapter 12: Thoughts in Progress: An extended conversation, Catalytic collaboration and reach, Commercial impact and broad expansion
2. Chris Heuer
Chris worked as a social business specialist leader at Deloitte from 2011 to 2013. We became friends while working together on promoting Yammer. Chris is well-known and highly respected in the world of social media.
Andrew worked at Deloitte Australia from 2014 to 2015. He is the founder of the Worldwide Intranet Challenge and is an intranet transformation expert.
Robert has worked at Deloitte Australia since 2008. He is particularly known for his work in information management as a founding president of The Data Warehousing Institute in Australia, co-founding MIKE2.0 (an industry standard approach to information management), his 2010 book Information-Driven Business and most recently his 2013 collaboration on Information Development using MIKE2.0 written with colleagues from the MIKE2.0 Governance Association.
- Information-Driven Business
- LinkedIn Articles
- The future of payments is not to have payments
- Digital Disruption: Short fuse, big bang?
- Information-Driven Business: Using information governance to create a more adaptable organisation
- Introduction to MIKE2.0: An open approach to Information Management
5. Ido Namir
Ido joined Deloitte Israel in 2015 when the company he founded, Ergo Consulting Group, was acquired by Deloitte. He specializes in development and execution of knowledge management initiatives which include strategy development, business process modeling, system requirements definition, design and implementation, content management strategies, integration, analytics enabled insights, change management, risk management, and mentoring.
- Knowledge Management Center of Excellence Leader
- LinkedIn Posts
- Misconceptions about Knowledge Management
Symon worked for Deloitte UK from 2015 to 2017, advising clients on their internal digital transformation strategies. He is now at Microsoft, where his technology interests include AI and machine learning, Blockchain and distributed ledger systems, the Internet-of-Things, virtual and augmented reality, and the adoption of cloud technologies in financial services.
- LinkedIn Articles
- European SharePoint Conference
- SharePoint Saturday UK
- Share Conference
- The Executive‘s Guide To The Digital Workplace
- How To Successfully Deliver Your (SharePoint) Change Project In (10) 8 Easy Steps
- Driving Social Business Transformation with the Microsoft Platform
7. Daniel Lee
Daniel worked at Deloitte Canada from 2015 to 2016. He worked with the Marketing and Sales Support leadership to integrate knowledge management and competitive intelligence to create a single, high-performing team.
- LinkedIn Articles
- Daniel Lee Named Recipient of ProQuest Dialog Member Achievement Award
- UX, Design & Customer Engagement
Chris worked for Deloitte in Australia from 2001–2008. He was Director of Knowledge Management, Asia Pacific region for the Consulting division of Deloitte.
9. Dave Thomas
Dave joined Deloitte in 2005, left to join Amazon in 2014, and returned to Deloitte in 2015. He helped launch the Deloitte Cognitive Center of Excellence.
- Chatbot on The Future of Mobility
- Chatbot on Cognitive Technologies
- SIKM Leaders Community, April 2011
10. Lucas McDonnell
Lucas worked at Deloitte from 2005 to 2006 as a knowledge manager in Deloitte Canada and 2009 to 2012 as global product manager for enterprise search.
11. Adriaan Jooste
Adriaan has been with Deloitte since 1998. He is Chief Knowledge Officer (CKO) of Deloitte Advisory, a Director of Deloitte Financial Advisory Services LLP, and CKO for Global Financial Advisory in Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
- SIKM Leaders Community, October 2015
- Book: Handbook of Knowledge Management Vol. 2 — Chapter 45: Exploiting Knowledge for Productivity Gains — with Karl Wiig
12. Hank Malik
Hank worked at Deloitte from 2011 to 2013 as the UK Manager of Enterprise Content Management.
- SIKM Leaders Community, July, 2020: Managing Our Knowledge: Delivering Real Benefits — KM at Petroleum Development Oman
- Knowledge Management: A primer and catalyst to support Digital Transformation with Jordan Richards
- A Guide to Global Best Practice and Standards in KM — Chapter 8: Supporting and resourcing knowledge management
- Tom Davenport has been a Deloitte Analytics Senior Advisor since 2011 and is profiled in a separate article.
- Kaye Vivian worked at Deloitte from 1990 to 1993 and is profiled in a separate article.
- Peggy Parskey worked at Deloitte from 2009 to 2010 and is profiled in the HP article.
Section 4: Deloitte KM
- 2016 Global MAKE Hall of Fame — Over the past 19 years, only 65 organizations have been recognized as Global MAKE Winners. Another select group of organizations form the 2016 Global MAKE Hall of Fame. These 23 organizations have been Global MAKE Finalists in each of the past five annual studies: Accenture, Alphabet (formerly Google), Amazon.com, Apple, APQC, ConocoPhillips, Deloitte, Ecopetrol, EY, Facebook, Fluor, IBM, Infosys Limited, McKinsey & Company, Microsoft, MITRE, PwC, Samsung Group, Schlumberger, Siemens, Tata Group, Toyota and Wipro Limited.
- Deloitte (Global) — In the 2016 Global MAKE study, Deloitte is recognized for creating a learning organization. This is the fifth time that Deloitte has been recognized as a Global MAKE Winner.
- 2017 Global MAKE Finalists Announced — Teleos, in association with The KNOW Network, has announced the Finalists in the 2017 Global (Parent) Most Admired Knowledge Enterprises (MAKE) study. This 20th annual Global (Parent) MAKE study recognize the world’s leading organizations for their ability to leverage enterprise knowledge to deliver superior performance in the areas of innovation, operational effectiveness, and excellence in products, services and solutions. This year’s 40 Global (Parent) MAKE Finalists include Deloitte (Global).
Deloitte posted a picture of “50 brilliant people validating and updating the strategy of Deloitte KM” — all very nice. So, seeing as they were publicizing/celebrating their contribution to KM, I challenged them to change the vector for KM (direction, speed and energy).
Their response demonstrated old wine in new bottles, a love of buzzwords and, frankly contempt for the potential for unintended consequences and the future of human advantage in the workplace.
From Ido Namir of Deloitte: “KM, as we see it, is a blanket term that encompasses more specific terms like AI based search engines and bots, robotics embedded knowledge repositories, social collaboration, mobile, digital workplace and others. Companies want its people to quickly get proficient and productive in new practice areas, whether they are new hires or existing staff moving into new practice disciplines. But classic training methods won’t work neither as a stand alone digital learning solution. The amount of knowledge is too large and is dynamically and rapidly changing. Our goal is to leverage the advanced digital workplace and AI capabilities in order to get the right knowledge to the right employee when needed.”
The right knowledge to the right employee, when needed — think about that for a minute. Beyond traditional, antiquated (Lean) KM thinking, I would like you to consider the implications associated with AI governed KM practice; a place where knowledge can be externalized, stored and transported on demand.
The assumption seems to be that Artificial Intelligence will “know” what the “right” knowledge is and can predetermine the outcome of our interaction with the knowledge object it (AI) presents to us. If that is the case, why can AI not make the links and also create the solution? In such an environment, how do we achieve human-led innovation or invention — the notion, in the case of innovation, seemingly being that AI can see the gap and suggest the knowledge required to plug the gap (Hey presto, innovation!), in which case why do we need people in the first place?
Deloitte speaks about human proficiency, which I would argue is outmoded. Proficiency is assessed against benchmarks for quality. However, in the face of accelerating returns, we have to ask how people will outperform technology — in other words, how will we develop and enable the depth, completeness and security of human knowledge, alongside competence (what you know — technical knowledge), competency (ability knowledge — how you do things) and capability (taking what you know and how you do things to be applied in non-routine circumstances)? How will humans compete in a world where they will be asked more-and-more to collaborate with technology? Where is the human captured in Deloitte’s version/vision for KM?
Deloitte seems to be saying that the world is linear and can be constrained in the name of proficiency. This is a mistake of traditional management thinking and is, frankly, disappointing when being communicated by an organisation such as Deloitte.
AI-driven KM suggests a deterministic view of the world, one constrained by those who create the algorithms that serve to ‘control’ people and their agency in the name of pro(e)fficiency. People are an inconvenience in such a constrained view of KM, one where the focus is on engineering the human and our propensity for discovery through error out of the process. To not anticipate the consequences of such actions is short-termist, irresponsible thinking that betrays the need to develop long-term human advantage to outperform technology — a view cemented by the response to my commentary from Deloitte: “I’ll be happy to meet and show you the great ROI we have in our KM projects next time I’m in the U.K.”
ROI. Really? Are Deloitte really that much of a dinosaur? Are they so blinkered by the here-and-now that they are willing to sacrifice people on the altar of ROI? People are the solution, not the problem. You don’t need to engineer people out of the system, you need to develop people to outperform the system — surely, if you are interested in resilience and adaptability, you have to be interested in people!
In Deloitte’s vision for the world, how will humans outperform technology? For me, such thinking demonstrates a failure to anticipate the consequence of the adoption of AI/Robotics. Furthermore, such a position demonstrates how people and their competitive advantage are being constrained by those motivated by traditional management thinking in a world where management will soon be a robot or an algorithm. Sorry to say, but the consequences for society could be catastrophic.
6. 10 Issues that hold Deloitte Consulting back by Firmsconsulting
7) Deloitte Consulting has a mediocre knowledge management system. Knowledge management is the lifeblood of management consulting. Deloitte Consulting has a mediocre knowledge management system. Forgetting the technical system itself, offices are particularly reluctant to place their best material on a knowledge sharing system which can be accessed by an office in a different partnership, which will use the material to sell work, which will likely exclude the office which produced the material which sold the work.
Therefore, offices hoard work and it is excruciatingly difficult to get the best material.
9) Weak thought leadership. Critical infrastructure such as knowledge management systems, research centers and industry groups are rarely shared. Yes, an effort is made, but these are superficial efforts at best.
Communities are groups of people, who, for a specific topic, share one or more:
- Specialty or role
- Passion or interest in a given topic
- Concern or a set of problems
People join communities in order to:
- Share new ideas, lessons learned, proven practices, insights, and practical suggestions and other useful information
- Innovate through brainstorming, building on each other’s ideas, and developing new and better ways of doing things
- Reuse solutions through asking and answering questions, applying shared insights, and retrieving posted material
- Collaborate through threaded discussions, conversations, and interactions
- Learn from other members of the community; from invited guest speakers about successes, failures, case studies, new trends; and through mentoring
People deepen their understanding of the topic by:
- Sharing ideas
- Collaborating and interacting on an on-going basis
- Asking and answering questions
- Solving problems for one another
8. An Interview with Stan Garfield, Community Evangelist, Deloitte by Nancy Davis Kho in EContent Magazine
Stan Garfield considers himself a maven, a salesman, and a connector in his role as leader of the collaboration program for Deloitte’s consulting business. “I provide advice and support on communities, enterprise social networking (ESN), and social media, primarily to internal users,” Garfield says. This involves training, monitoring, and encouraging users of Deloitte’s ESN to “narrate their work, or work out loud,” Garfield says, for more efficient communication and knowledge sharing within the organization.
In a Day’s Work
On a typical day, Garfield might find himself serving as an internal subject matter expert on communities, ESN, and collaboration as well as advocating the benefits of global collaboration and communities. “I write FAQs, create presentations, and deliver training,” Garfield says, “as well as post daily in the ESN and encourage groups to cooperate, collaborate, and communicate.” His main task? To lead collaboration by example.
Most Memorable Customer Encounter
“I once received a request to deliver a presentation two days later at a major client event on knowledge retention strategies, a topic on which I had not previously presented. It was tempting to say there wasn’t enough time, but I did it and the attendees were pleased. Sometimes when there’s no time to delay, unexpectedly good things can happen.”
APQC asked a roundtable of KM professionals about how organizations can improve their content management approaches. The roundtable included the following participants: Stan Garfield, community evangelist at Deloitte and Chris Piereman, senior knowledge manager at Deloitte. Below are responses from each participant related to designing around stakeholder needs.
Q: APQC’s research says great content management systems have content developed around stakeholder needs. Why is this not always the case, and what can companies do to make sure it happens?
A1: (from Stan Garfield) Organizations tend to think that their content is of interest to their stakeholders, so they attempt to push it out. Instead, organizations should make content attractive so that people will desire to pull it out. To use pull instead of push, organizations should ask stakeholders what they want and listen carefully to their answers, and then be responsive. Organizations can also review search results, queries, email messages sent to distribution lists and official mailboxes, and requests made to knowledge brokers. Look for patterns of missing or hard-to-find content, and then take steps to provide that content and make it easy to find.
A2: (from Chris Piereman) At Deloitte, we ensure focus on stakeholder needs by keenly focusing on our business customers’ products, services, methods, and tools. We align ourselves to Deloitte’s client service delivery functions, as well as the overall member firm client and market structure. We create tailored content domains that are directly tied to our client service delivery activities as a professional services firm. This, by and large, precludes us from straying too far from the intent of the business and stakeholder need.
10. KM Maturity: A Panel Presentation and Discussion at the 2011 APQC KM Conference — Deloitte Global Consulting Knowledge Management: Our journey to maturity
12. Other KMWorld Presentations by Deloitte
- 2016 Harnessing Knowledge Sharing
- 2012 Making Business Social
- 2011 What Knowledge Workers Want
- 2011 Analyzing KM Analytics & CoPs
- 2011 Are Enterprise 2.0 & Web 2.0 Different?
- 2011 Social Computing & SharePoint
- 2010 Collaboration 2.0: Two Cases
- 2010 Measuring Value: COP Life Cycle Metrics
- 2007 Managing Expertise: A Key Focus for KM
- 2004 Driving Enterprise Knowledge-Sharing