Knowledge Profiles carry the knowledge DNA of an organization. As transporters of the genetic code of corporate knowledge, knowledge profiles transfer to successive employee generations the critical operational knowledge through which an organization builds its productivity, its quality, and its capacity for innovation. The cycle of knowledge preservation and creation that the profile enables makes it possible for each employee generation to profit from the lessons of preceding generations and so produce a powerful knowledge legacy and a true learning organization. This virtuous cycle enhances employee competencies and delivers the prized competitive advantages that characterize a continuity-managed organization.
K-Quest is the instrument through which critical operational knowledge is harvested from incumbent employees, but the knowledge profile is the means through which successors acquire it. The focus of K-Quest is on knowledge capture and the incumbent employee. The focus of the knowledge profile is on knowledge acquisition and the successor employee. The two instruments reflect two different goals, and two different perspectives even though they deal with precisely the same knowledge.
Once technology has converted the completed K-Quests into knowledge profiles, a three-part process is employed to validate the operational knowledge and ensure its currency:
The following section explains the process in more detail.
The Dream Team had determined early on that a review of the knowledge gleaned from K-Quest and contained in the knowledge profile was warranted. Everyone liked the idea of peer incumbents meeting formally to discuss what they had learned from completing their knowledge questionnaires. Therefore, we proposed a one-day meeting of peer incumbents to discuss, validate, and expand the operational knowledge they had identified in K-Quest. If the knowledge profile provides a structure for WedgeMark employees to understand the critical operational knowledge they use, peer incumbent meetings give them the opportunity to analyze that knowledge structure, test its validity, and monitor its contents. Peer incumbent meetings generate knowledge because they force incumbents to analyze their knowledge bases and their evolving knowledge needs in light of existing and emergent knowledge requirements, but always in the context of achieving individual and corporate objectives. No other forum at WedgeMark affords incumbents such a rich opportunity.
While the meetings were made up of incumbents in the same job classification, none of us particularly liked the term peer incumbent meeting, because we thought it sounded formal, forced, and nonproductive. Some of us lobbied for peer incumbent gathering because it better described the collaborative nature of these learning opportunities for employees with common interests. But we decided that the phrase was disingenuous (we weren't gathering, we were attending) and then the acronym—PIG—posed a problem.
The term we finally settled on was PEAK meeting, with PEAK an acronym for peer evaluation of accumulated knowledge. PEAK meetings were held for all incumbents within a single job classification. The format of the meeting was straightforward. Each PEAK group selected one of its members to serve as informal leader. The purposes of the meeting were to assess the effectiveness of the knowledge questionnaire, validate the operational knowledge gathered through K-Quest, develop additional pre-answers for K-Quest, generate new questions of K-PAQ, and expand the knowledge networks of the participants.
PEAK participants were asked to evaluate the instructions, format, content, and administration of K-Quest and to make recommendations for improving them. Some of the questions that we suggested PEAK leaders propose included:
Instructions
Were the K-Quest instructions clearly stated, and did they provide adequate guidance for answering the questions? Two concerns that surfaced in the meetings were how much knowledge should be included in an answer and how the answers should be formatted (bullets, phrases, complete sentences, etc).
Was it clear how and when to modify pre-answered questions?
Were the instructions for the technology used in completing K-Quest comprehensive and easy to understand?
Was it apparent that peer collaboration was encouraged during K-Quest administration?
Format
What suggestions do you have for improving the format of K-Quest?
Did the knowledge categories and related questions appear in the proper order?
Was the technology effective?
How could the technology be improved?
What format changes would have facilitated the development of your answers or improved their quality?
Questions in K-Quest
In relation to your job classification and, again, in relation to your specific job: What questions, if any, were redundant, irrelevant, unclear, or in need of being combined with other questions?
What questions should be added to K-Quest to better harvest the operational knowledge for your position or your job classification? These questions will be added to future versions.
Administration
How could Continuity Management Orientation Day be improved?
How could the administration of K-Quest be improved?
One of the primary purposes of the PEAK meetings was to validate the answers to K-Quest and, hence, to validate the operational knowledge content of the knowledge profiles. We asked the peers to help each other in validating knowledge that was held in common across the job classification. In this way, the peer incumbents vetted the operational knowledge of the profiles. The methodology employed was for the leader to take the group through K-Quest, knowledge category by knowledge category (sometimes question by question), calling on those who were willing to share their answers with others and managing the sometimes lively discussions that followed.
In the process of validating their answers, incumbents shared operational knowledge among themselves, often for the first time. This aspect of the PEAK meeting integrates continuity management and knowledge management by combining knowledge harvesting with knowledge sharing. As a result, incumbents were challenged to create new knowledge, which they did, as well as to incorporate new knowledge from their peers into their own operational knowledge bases. In some cases, they corrected perceptual or knowledge errors that had constrained their productivity and performance. The PEAK meetings thus facilitated the sharing of best practices.
Some of the most fruitful discussions centered around the knowledge analysis in K-Quest: knowledge leverage points, missing knowledge, and obsolete knowledge. The analysis of job characteristics also produced important insights, especially in the area of job functions and the relationship of productivity to knowledge. Many of the incumbents confirmed that they left the PEAK meeting with a clearer understanding of how they used knowledge and also of the kind of knowledge they needed to jump-start their performance. Incumbents also came away with a better understanding of their goals, skills, and resources and how they could be marshaled for high-yield activities. The results were subtle and, in some cases, not-so-subtle job redesigns that capitalized on new opportunities.
Knowledge that is relatively uniform across the job classification is captured by pre-answered questions developed by the peer design team. Some pre-answers are complete and some are not, requiring additions or modifications. A complete pre-answer might be the corporate history or mission statement of WedgeMark. Performance appraisal, by contrast, may contain official doctrine provided by HR as well as amendments developed by incumbents that more accurately reflect the process.
The pre-answered questions in K-Quest speed its completion, because incumbents have only to modify these answers rather than create them from scratch. The PEAK meeting provides an opportunity for all peer incumbents in the job classification to expand the pre-answers or to propose new ones.
K-PAQ is a databank of knowledge-focused questions for all job classifications and positions at WedgeMark. It describes the comprehensive structure of operational knowledge at WedgeMark, offering a concise look at the core knowledge used by the company to develop, produce, and sell its products and services and to generate its revenue and profits. The operational knowledge structure at WedgeMark (i.e., the 20 knowledge categories that define operational knowledge at WedgeMark), is expected to vary little over time. But the subcategories and knowledge content of those categories is constantly changing as the operational knowledge itself changes.
PEAK meetings were designed to create a setting for personal interaction that would expand an incumbent's knowledge network, encourage the formation of future communities of practice, and build excitement for continuity management. At WedgeMark, they facilitated knowledge sharing throughout the job classifications by creating a sense of community, a common purpose, and a mutual commitment among incumbents. The meetings also encouraged employee buy-in of continuity management processes and increased the motivation to participate.
We found that the benefits gained from group conversation and knowledge exchange could be recreated in follow-up PEAK meetings held annually. These annual meetings contributed to the evolving operational knowledge of incumbents. But they did something else. They added knowledge input from new incumbents—successors who had never participated in a PEAK meeting before—to the collective knowledge of their peers. These meetings were also used to revalidate preanswers to the knowledge core questions in K-Quest.
Follow-up PEAK meetings were so successful that we instituted quarterly PEAK forums on operational knowledge. These relatively short conferences were conducted entirely on the corporate intranet and were focused on high-impact knowledge updates and refinements developed over the past quarter. For a few job classifications, semiannual PEAK forum meetings were more appropriate than quarterly meetings. Some of these meetings evolved into communities of practice, which are discussed later in this chapter.
The number of PEAK meetings that were held for a single job classification was a function of the number of incumbents in that job classification as well as certain other factors, such as the number of people at a given location. PEAK meetings were not limited in size. When the meeting consisted of seven or more members, however, we divided the peers into PEAK groups of three to four participants. At the conclusion of the small group meetings, someone from each group reported the high points of the discussion to the meeting as a whole, so that the knowledge exchange was complete. In large organizations with many incumbents in the same job classification but at different sites, we found that holding a special meeting with representatives from all the sites was a helpful follow-up. These meetings made it possible for incumbents from different sites to exchange knowledge and viewpoints, an example of the integration of knowledge management and continuity management.
Although peers were not forced to reveal their answers, almost all of them did. They were enthusiastic in these discussions and conscientious in their responses. They had been looking for the opportunity to engage in this kind of knowledge exchange—the kind that had previously occurred only around the watercooler, in ad hoc gatherings at lunch, and informal meetings at the end of day. By providing a forum for incumbents to compare notes on their K-Quest answers, PEAK meetings allowed them to share their knowledge bases and to explore differences in their knowledge. As a result, the PEAKs stimulated exciting knowledge trades and spread new operational knowledge among incumbents.
Not all WedgeMark employees have a peer incumbent. In some job classifications, there are no peers at all. In other classifications, employees holding the same job classification perform such different tasks that they are barely peers. For employees in these positions, the task of completing K-Quest can be an isolating experience. To reduce that sense of isolation, we had them complete their K-Quests as full participants in Continuity Management Orientation Day and attend the PEAK meeting for the most closely related job classification. While not ideal, this proved to be an effective solution.
The emphasis in continuity management on identifying and sharing critical operational knowledge creates a natural environment for the creation of communities of practice, which are important elements of both continuity management and knowledge management. Communities of practice are relatively small groups of people with a common knowledge need and a common sense of purpose who choose to work together. Generally, they operate outside of the formal organizational hierarchy. Communities of practice can be encouraged and even catalyzed, but not mandated. They are usually self-selecting and often self-creating, but not always. They are permeable in the sense that members are free to come and go.
Communities of practice may be made up of peers who share a common job classification or employees from different job classifications who share a common project, task set, or goal. Communities of practice are, in the strictest sense, networks for knowledge exchange, validation, and creation. They promote the transfer of knowledge between experts and novices as well as among experts, who find their own knowledge augmented or corrected by newer or better ideas. A need for knowledge is the irritant around which the community-of-practice pearl is created.
The most important knowledge exchanges in an organization are likely to take place around the watercooler, whether literally or figuratively, as people meet to gather knowledge, sort through alternatives, or seek new solutions. Knowledge thus creates and uses its own networks—or takes advantage of existing networks perceived to be authentic. Communities of practice are a common form of these knowledge networks and are especially good at providing knowledge that can be brought to bear on specific problems.
At WedgeMark, true communities of practice developed from the PEAK meetings. Some of the peers who had profited from the knowledge sharing and had enjoyed the interaction of the PEAK meetings instituted informal meetings among themselves. Others inaugurated online exchanges that evolved into ongoing conversations with other WedgeMark employees, both within their own peer groups and, when warranted, across peer groups. Still others created bulletin boards that served the whole community of peers and became virtual communities of practice. The virtual communities proved to be especially exciting because they later spread throughout WedgeMark and often evolved into cross-disciplinary communities of practice.
Deloitte Research, a thought leadership organization established by Deloitte & Touche and Deloitte Consulting, reports on a similar phenomenon at Chevron. More than 100 such communities at Chevron (dubbed collaborative knowledge networks) link different professions around such diverse topics as process engineering, Web application development, and nonconventional drilling. The advantage of these virtual communities is their extraordinary capability for rapid knowledge sharing. This exchange results in improved processes, quicker responses to changing customer needs, streamlined product development, greater innovation, and higher productivity.
Ultimately, some of the communities of practice at WedgeMark became quite cohesive. The most famous declared itself a peer incumbent tribe, coined a name for itself, developed its own logo, referred to its meetings as PEAK experiences, and put up an electronic bulletin board that it shared with other peer groups. Perhaps inevitably, this peer incumbent tribe (PIT) referred to its bulletin board as the PIT Stop, which became the slang for all bulletin boards for PEAK groups and other communities of practice at WedgeMark. What started out as a need for sharing existing knowledge had turned into a knowledge genertor for incumbents as well as their successors.
The knowledge profile creates a virtual community of practice between new hires and their predecessors. Knowledge profiles make possible a kind of dialogue between incumbents and their successors, one that is grounded in mutual objectives, similar contexts, shared competencies, and common information needs. Modern technologies provide various means through which this dialogue can take place—from interactive databases to video-streamed storytelling to historical narratives to frequently asked questions. Multimedia-based material is a powerful means of incumbent knowledge transfer and successor acquisition. Through the knowledge profile, a successor has access to the thoughts, perceptions, and insights of generations of previous incumbents. Properly constructed and populated, the knowledge profile provides virtual mentors for every new hire.
The one aspect of technology that is critical to the knowledge profile but not relevant to K-Quest is the updating function. Because knowledge profiles are created through K-Quest but updated as profiles, this function is supremely important. The value of the knowledge profile, whether to incumbent or successor, is dependent on the timeliness and relevance of the operational knowledge it contains. Because the value of such knowledge is time- and situation-specific, that value rises or declines as a function of relevancy. Obsolete or missing information is worthless in the Information Age, and a knowledge profile that is not complete and up to date quickly losses its potency. New material must be added to the profile as it becomes relevant, and obsolete material must be eliminated or archived as it becomes irrelevant. Regularly scheduled updating of the profile is therefore mandatory. In an ideal continuity management system, technology facilitates this process by integrating the update with other knowledge operations. Because some job classifications are characterized by faster-changing knowledge than others, profile updates should be based on how rapidly the content of the profile changes. Knowledge categories that feature common knowledge shared by all incumbents in the same job classification, such as Key Operating Statistics or Key Information, might be updated daily by a knowledge profile Webmaster.
Beyond keeping the knowledge profile current, however, updating serves another function. It expands and enriches the operational knowledge in the profile. Incumbents know more about what they know and can access what they know in greater detail when they are using their knowledge than when they are trying to recall it. While K-Quest harvests basic operational knowledge and provides a framework for that knowledge, updating adds details and nuances that are remembered only as they are used.
As a result of the knowledge continuity assessment, we knew that certain WedgeMark employees would require less comprehensive knowledge profiles than others. Therefore, we divided the knowledge profiles into two types. We dubbed the less comprehensive version the knowledge profile lite, or, as we finally came to call it informally, the lite profile. Formally, we referred to it as profile-2. Each profile type follows a different developmental process. The lite profiles are easier and less costly to develop than the full profile because they harvest less operational knowledge, but they serve their purposes just as well. The following paragraphs describe the development processes for the lite profile and the circumstances under which such profiles are warranted.
The nature of the job-specific operational knowledge determines whether a full knowledge profile or a lite profile is appropriate. A lite profile is selected when the following criteria apply:
The operational knowledge is mostly explicit (contained in documents or databases).
Whatever tacit knowledge is contained in the profile is not unique, but is generally shared by all employees in the position.
The tacit knowledge changes little from one employee generation to another or can easily be converted to explicit knowledge for transfer to a successor.
Job activities are largely routine, involving few unique events or interactions with others that require complex decisions.
The job is not related to the core competencies of the organization, and its potential impact on the organization is low.
An analysis of knowledge leverage points, knowledge needs, or knowledge strengths and weaknesses can be conducted for the entire job classification and need not be conducted for individual positions within the classification.
Although the types of profiles (full and lite) appear dichotomous, they are actually points on a spectrum. Within the lite category, for example, there can be significant variations in the complexity of the operational knowledge. A sophisticated lite profile will approximate a less complex full profile. However, the two profile categories are developed through different processes. The developmental process for the full profile has already been described. The process for developing the lite profile is described in the paragraphs that follow.
The knowledge questionnaire for the lite profile is developed from the same K-PAQ database as the full profile. The major difference is that most of the questions in K-Quest Lite will be pre-answered, and little incumbent modification of those answers will take place. A peer design team composed of peer incumbents from each job classification is appointed to develop K-Quest Lite. Team members are selected on the basis of job performance and productivity. The team's objectives are:
To determine which K-PAQ questions are suitable for the job classification.
To determine which K-Quest Lite questions should be preanswered.
To develop preanswers for all appropriate questions by either generating new preanswers or by adapting preanswers from K-Quest.
The continuity management orientation day for K-Quest Lite is similar in format to the orientation day held for administration of K-Quest. The content is adapted from the full day to meet the needs of the particular job classification. Generally, less than a full day is required, because K-Quest Lite is less complex than K-Quest and so requires less time to complete. We believe strongly in holding the orientation day even for K-Quest Lite, however, because it focuses employees' attention on the need for knowledge continuity, familiarizes them with the nature of their operational knowledge, and commits them to regular profile updates.
Technology for K-Quest Lite may be less sophisticated than the technology employed for K-Quest. For example, the audio and video options in highly sophisticated K-Quest systems are not necessary for K-Quest Lite.
We debated whether PEAK meetings should be held so that incumbents could discuss and validate their answers to K-Quest Lite. We finally decided that it would depend on how comprehensive the resulting lite profiles were. At the less comprehensive end of the spectrum, we concluded that PEAK meetings were simply not necessary. Instead, meetings were held to brief incumbents on best practices that arose out of the meetings of the peer design team. At the more comprehensive end of the spectrum, however, PEAK meetings proved to be useful. One determining factor was whether we thought that the development of communities of practice for that job classification was desirable. If it was, we tended to recommend PEAK meetings; if it was not, we did not.
The knowledge profile is the central transfer vehicle for critical operational knowledge, but it is only a snapshot of knowledge taken at a moment in time. If the profile is to accurately reflect the dynamic process of knowledge creation, transfer, and acquisition, it must be continually updated, which may mean content, format, and process changes. Knowledge interviews conducted three months into a new hire's employment address form and process issues. In the knowledge interview, new hires are asked to evaluate format, content, and transfer procedures, including the effectiveness of their profile partner or phased mentor (profile partners and phased mentors are discussed in Chapter 12, "Operational Knowledge Transfer and Acquisition.") The evaluation of the knowledge profile included:
The ease with which the operational knowledge could be accessed, applied, and understood
The value of the operational knowledge, including most valuable and least valuable aspects
How well the profile technology facilitated or enhanced profile use, especially the acquisition or utilization of operational knowledge and the ease with which knowledge links and other profile-associated documents could be accessed
How well the profile-partner or phased-mentor system worked, including suggestions for improving it
Additional knowledge categories or subcategories or frequently asked questions
Additional questions for K-PAQ
Process suggestions regarding any aspect of profile creation or transfer
Process suggestions regarding K-Quest administration or PEAK meetings
We also asked the PEAK meetings to address these same process-improvement issues on a regular basis in order to ensure that the profiles remained as current in design and administration as they were in content.
Three caveats emerged from our conversations and debates about the continuity management process and the design of the knowledge profile. The caveats are not negatives as much as they are realities that have to be considered in implementing continuity management.
The start-up cost of developing a knowledge profile is significantly higher than the cost of maintaining it, because everything has to be created from scratch, including K-PAQ and K-Quest. The initial investment in time and technology to create the continuity management structure as well as the original contents of K-PAQ and the profiles should be allocated across the participating positions and amortized over the life of the job classifications.
The value of any knowledge profile is inevitably greater for the organization and for a successor than it is for the incumbent who created it. While many rewards come from the analysis that K-Quest completion requires and from incumbent participation in PEAK meetings and communities of practice, the value of the profile to the incumbent cannot compare to its value to the successor or to the organization itself. Knowledge continuity is more meaningful (and, hence, important) to successors than to incumbents, and it is for this reason that intrinsic and extrinsic reward systems must be aligned to support continuity management. However, significant benefits accrue to incumbents, and it is imperative that management continue to emphasize those benefits and to construct an organizational culture that supports continuity management.
The knowledge profile was created for successor employees. That context determines the design and implementation of the profile and is the basic criterion by which it should be judged. The knowledge profile is the means by which successor employees with little or no job-specific operational knowledge can learn their jobs in a quick, efficient, and effective manner. While few experienced employees will spend time searching extensive databases for answers to specific questions, new hires will spend time in extensive exploration of their knowledge profiles in order to acquire the basic operational knowledge they need to succeed in their new positions. The mechanisms of knowledge management transfer—and how well they are accepted by diverse employees—should not be confused with the mechanisms of continuity management transfer—and how well they are accepted by successors. The two mechanisms are not the same, because they were not designed to achieve the same purpose. The knowledge profile is highly effective in transferring critical operational knowledge to successors, particularly when it is used in a comprehensive knowledge transfer program involving a profile partner or phase mentor and supported by the organizational culture and reward system.
With the creation of the knowledge profile, our last remaining task was to determine how to transfer to successor employees the critical operational knowledge gathered through K-Quest and contained in the knowledge profile. The focus of our work thus shifted from capturing operational knowledge to passing that knowledge legacy to the next generation of employees.
"There are two processes we need to consider," the Chip said as we took up the task. "The first is how to get people to keep their profiles current so they still have value when they leave. The second is how to handle the knowledge transfer itself."
"You're talking motivation," Roger responded.
"In the first instance," the Chip agreed. "In the second, we're talking about knowledge transfer procedures and opportunities."
"I'm motivated," Roger said enthusiastically.
"But you're . . . unusual, Roger," the Chip suggested. "And you've been so involved in the process of developing continuity management that you've bought in to it."
"Our next project," Andre said, "is a comprehensive realignment of the organizational reward systems if we intend to make this work. While there are a lot of internal rewards to continuity management, it will fail if K-Quest administration, knowledge profile creation, profile updating, and knowledge transfer are not rewarded."
"We also have to develop the transfer procedures for the knowledge profile," Roger reminded us.
When we had finished that task, our design for continuity management at WedgeMark would be complete. Because we were learning as we went along, we knew that many changes were yet to come. These changes would collectively refine continuity management as it became an integral part of what we did at WedgeMark.
I was among the first to produce a knowledge profile. Although I had played a major role in creating continuity management at WedgeMark, I was not alone in developing a sense of ownership about my profile and a feeling that it was something valuable I had created. While operational knowledge may be personal, it is also an organizational asset. It belongs not just to us but to the organization that helped us create it and to our successors for whom it is destined. Many of us came to take great pride in our profiles and to regard them as true knowledge assets that we wanted to pass on to our successors. The profile was our handoff in the knowledge relay we were running. It was a worthy legacy.