Successful Knowledge Management

[djmcmath]

The Navy has just transferred me into a new job working for the Commander of the Submarine Force. One of the things I've been tasked with is looking at the way that the Sub Force learns lessons. We absolutely suck at learning from our mistakes, and current efforts to implement knowledge management are not helping. In my mind, it's really a knowledge management question -- how do you take knowledge that one element of the force has and get it to the people who need it?
I've been reaching out to other military and government knowledge managers (Navy Lessons Learned Database, Army Knowledge Online, Battle Command Knowledge System), and (no offense intended to the hard-working and well-meaning administrators of said systems) they all have a lot of the same stuff. There's some great ideas mixed in with some terrible ideas, but overwhelmingly, they don't work. I've been pulling my hair out trying to find a good round wheel so I don't have to re-invent the thing, but it seems like all of the mil/gov wheels are square.
Then I realized: for the past several years, I've been a part of a brilliantly successful knowledge management forum -- Pelican Parts. If I need information on anything from rebuilding a transmission to growing orchids in the desert, I can do a search and find what I'm looking for. The forum here is invaluable -- it is quick, efficient, and full of valuable information.
The hard question is "why?" I'd be particularly interested in Wayne's inputs, as the driving force behind the success of the forum, but I'm sure that the rest of you have valuable inputs too. What makes it work? What ideas do you have that could cross-apply to a military-based forum?

Thanks in advance,

Dan

[legion]

In my experience, as soon as you implement a Knowledge Management system, people immediately forget (sometimes intentionally) to document lessons learned, and no one ever reads them after the fact. Most are convinced that "my situation is different". You also have problems with knowledge items being mislabeled (usually the lesson is applied too narrowly) and are often poorly written, make it difficult for others to get anything useful out of them.

Most Knowledge Management systems are treated like a required place to throw documentation. The primary repository of knowledge is still experience.

This is unfortunate, but I've yet to think of a good way around these issues.

[competentone]

You're talking about the "free-flow" of information on a message board like Pelican.

This is not what you want in a military command scenario. "Compartmentalized information" is what military command needs to maintain the security over its information.

Trying to create efficiencies and allow "enough-flow" of information in a military command structure, but not "too-much-flow" that could result in security being threatened, is a very difficult task.

This is true even if you are talking about broader peace-time "training" knowledge -- you do not want a completely open system where information is exchanged too freely, since there will be too many risks of classified information leaking out.

You may find some models used in the private sector and private-government contracting sector -- especially as it relates to the handling of classified scientific information.

Just as you have a "forum moderator" to maintain a certain level of "order" on an information exchanging site like Pelican, you're probably going to find your best balance using things like "cognizant security officers" (term from DIA working with the private sector) to moderate the flow of information in a military organization.

[Rot 911]

I was in Army aviation for quite a while and it sounds like you want to do what we did. We had things like peer review evaluations to single out the weak links. Stand downs to review accidents and how to learn from them. Other things will come to mind as I think about it.

[HardDrive]

Microsoft Sharepoint.

[sammyg2]

You face two problems:
1) turnover rate. Guys with 5 or 10 years experience leaving the service and newbies replacing them. That falls to training and mentoring.
2) big brass not wanting attention when things go wrong. Only way around that is to reward honesty and create a culture where information gatekeepers are punished or at least frowned upon. Nothing you can do about that, it would have to come from the top.

I'm not that knowledgeable about the navy but it would seem that if you could get a big guy or two to buy into the idea, they could offer incentives and rewards for reporting opportunities for improvement, lessons learned.
Without help from the top you are prolly doomed to an excersise in futility.

[djmcmath]

A lot of good thoughts here -- I'll reply and add in order in an effort to keep some thoughts organized.

Legion -- you're absolutely right. Those are exactly the problems that we face. One of the things that makes Pelican work is that people come here because they enjoy it. It isn't work. If it was, and we had to participate in forums to meet some quota requirement, we'd never hang out here when we should be working. My suspicion is that smart people won't hang out in a Navy Professional Knowledge Forum (I made that name up on the spot) because it looks too much like work, and there's no direct payout, even if they are the kinds of people who would gladly hand out information if it wasn't work.

"My situation is different" -- and in some cases, it is. There has to be a way to make lessons learned be searchable in such a way that different situations are found based on their similarities without providing so much information as to be useless. Right?

Competent -- security is definitely an issue. Controlling access is a huge problem: if we have enough knowledge to be as valuable as I'd like to be, our adversaries will very likely find it valuable enough to invest in finding a hole -- most likely a person who can be bought. It only takes one well-placed individual to pass out an awful lot of classified information. Thanks for raising that concern; not sure how to address it, but it definitely adds to the list of things I need to worry about.

Kurt -- the Navy already does a lot of that kind of stuff. Safety stand-downs, lessons learned messages, all that nonsense. The trouble is that the word isn't getting around enough. A boat will have a major safety violation due to some specific work control practice failure. They'll do a safety stand-down, submit a lessons learned message, and conduct waterfront training on what they dorked up. Two weeks later, another boat will do EXACTLY THE SAME THING. What the Navy is doing just isn't working. If you had something that actually worked, I'd be _very_ interested to hear about it, though. What was different about how you did lessons learned and stand-downs that made yours effective and ours a waste of time?

Sammy -- great point, and it's worse than that. Nobody stays anywhere for 10 years -- heck, I was only in my last job for 10 MONTHS. I'll be here for 6. Guys going to Iraq get a great deal -- they're staying for 12-15 months. Granted, these are a little atypical, but guys normally don't stay on station for more than 2-3 years, tops. When they arrive, they're dumb. They learn a little from experience because the guys who have the knowledge are too busy doing the job to train them effectively. Then the senior guys leave, and the job's not getting done, and the junior guys (who are now senior, but have no knowledge) are forced to sink-or-swim to get the job done. It's a bad system -- and that's not even the specific problem I'm tasked with addressing, though it's closely related. My task is to get major lessons learned back to the fleet -- Newport News getting run over, Albany hitting the pier during a mooring evolution, guys falling off the MSP and drowning -- those sorts of things. I'm also concerned about the "smaller" things -- submarines coming back from the Gulf or the Med with lessons about what worked -- not just what didn't -- and sharing that experience with other boats.

Big Brass is liable to be a big problem with this whole effort. I'm going to get in trouble if anyone finds out I said this, but there are a lot of different "rice bowls" out there, a lot of different people doing completely unrelated "knowledge management" efforts. Some of them have budgets allocated to the task, with staffs and manning documents and "vision statements" with flag-level support -- and they're still failing miserably because they're fundamentally Bad Ideas. Trying to change the paradigm of how we, as a fleet, learn and transfer knowledge could be Really Hard.

HD, I'd look up MS Sharepoint, but you drive a Boxster, so I can't take you seriously. Thanks for the heads-up -- I'll take a look. Do you have a testimonial for it? I assume it worked for you in some way? What scale? What kind of knowledge?

This is good stuff -- this forum always amazes me. Who'd have thought that knowledge transfer on knowledge transfer could happen here?

Dan

[john70t]

Not sure what is in place now, but it seems like a multi-security level chat room could be used ladder-style with anonomizers.:
-The base level is for the general population and moderated.
-Interesting threads get (anonymously) kicked up to the next level for a preliminary brain-trust review.
-Those get kicked up further and the originating individuals can be selectively intervieved(one way) on their ideas before going to a second, real, review board.

Keeping each poster anonymous to others, and each access-level secure, would be the hard part. Color coded people for the access-area and numbeer for the levels might compartmentalize. Best to have actual redundant people who know the accessors inbetween breaks in the levels to prevent infiltration.

Just one thought.

[stevepaa]

Lessons learned from one division are shared via email to all divisions and all personnel. Everyone takes a quick look, some save, others don't, but enough remember.

[Dennis Kalma]

There is an IBM Fellow, name I think is Larry Pangracs....he had the right idea about knowledge management....3 types of knowledge:

Explicit, Embedded and Tacit.

Explicit knowledge is the type you can document in a book or guide. It generally can be learned on one's own...e.g. the science behind what thickness of beam required to hold up a bridge, generally materials knowledge, leverage, centroids and all that stuff. It teaches you the why and once absorbed you can then figure it out.

Embedded knowlege is the type that is part of a process....e.g. you can follow a procedure but step by step, and come out with an answer. You willl not necessarily learn the why's or how to apply it to another different problem with similar characteristics but you sure can make it work for what it was designed for. Computer automated processes are examples.

Tacit knowledge is the understanding of how to approach a problem set, what is done....rules of thumb. It is the toughest, because it can only be taught by story telling and examples - face to face. It is what your grandfather told you what he did in WW2 (the big one) where he really is teaching you about morals, ethics and so forth.

What I found interesting is that there are many examples of two teams or groups, one knows how to solve a particular problem, the other can't. You can send documents (explicit knowledge) or step by step instructions, but they still don't "get it". Make the two teams go to a bar for an evening of drinking and both will come out knowing how to solve the problem...maybe even make it better.

Based on this, what you want to do is get the old guys sitting with the new guys telling them about "the time when...." and the combination of new, uncluttered brains coupled with experienced ones will make the magic happen. You can't write it down until it becomes very mature doctrine as no one will read a document (or write it for that matter) that describes the whole situation including all the relevant points of view and data.

Once I "got" this...put it to work, Larry was right.....it does work and there is no way to really capture or document it.....it is a profoundly human process

Dennis

[BlueSkyJaunte]

In my experience (competitive corporate environment) you need to develop a system that recognizes and rewards enablers and knowledge sharers. Otherwise people will "hoard" information in order to further their own careers or agendas.

[djmcmath]

Wow, the good ideas just keep on coming. Thanks for contributing, all.

I spent several hours last night looking through the current program with the guy who's "leading the charge" for our staff. It's worse than I had imagined. SUBPAC (Submarine Forces Pacific) doesn't recognize the authority of SUBFOR (Submarine Force, which used to be just SUBLANT), so SUBPAC refuses to integrate their lessons learned into a single consolidated lessons learned. The Navy (as in Big Navy) runs a lessons learned site, complete with manning, resources, and the works -- but they refuse to consolidate, share, or participate in what we're doing. Many of the squadrons maintain databases of lessons learned -- but they're not sharing either. We've got all these little rice bowls, and nobody wants to share.

BSJ, that totally makes sense. The current situation is worse: we're fighting a culture that says "you don't report 'lessons learned' unless something went wrong, and you don't report Bad News unless you absolutely have to." ...As if somehow not admitting that you dorked something up makes it go away, or ensures that nobody else will do it. I don't know how to fix that cultural problem, either. I mean, boats screw stuff up all the time, and boats on the same pier will make the same mistake because they're just not talking to each other. Had they submitted a "lessons learned," the mistake would only happen once -- but the Captain doesn't want to take the "black eye" for having made a mistake, and nobody knows about it, so he doesn't report it. Ouch.


John -- I like the multi-level access concept. I'll brainstorm that with some of the guys around here and see what we can come up with. I like the idea of building a forum with some similarities to the standard online forum. There are several already in existence on one level or another on the secret side of the network. It should be feasible to take some good ideas and incorporate them into what already exists.


Dennis -- Thats profound, and just a little depressing. The current situation, as I understand it, is that civilian corporations assume that Explicit and Embedded knowledge is flowing freely about the organization, and they're just struggling with the best way to get Tacit knowledge around. SUBFOR is still struggling with Explicit and Embedded. I'll look up Larry Pangracs and see what else he's written of value -- it would be useful for me to be able to cite real resources when I take a plan to the Admiral.

Thanks again, all.

[jriera]

djmcmath, Knowledge Management is something I have been interested/involved for the past 10+ years. The company I work for is a big user and we have spend a very larger amount of money and resources (and of course time) trying to find the 'right way', there is none ...

The collection and management of knowledge is just a bunch of marketing 'fluff', the basics (at least to me) is to start by collecting data, convert that data in useful information that when applied by experts will become knowledge.

Take away the ability for users to save data (email, spreadsheets, word documents, etc) in local hard drives and have them store that data in common repositories (Content Management), that way the data becomes a corporate asset (or liability) and not an individual asset, from there apply taxonomies and filters and that data will become searchable and useful to all (information).

By default 'people' will not share what they know for the good of the common cause, we are 'trained' since infancy that sharing is not good (at least in the US). Some other very smart individuals at IBM Research and other organizations have spend countless hours trying to define the types of knowledge but so far no 'magic bullet' has been found.

Give me a ping if you want to hear more of my weird theories about Knowledge Management.

[competentone]

Originally Posted by djmcmath

The current situation is worse: we're fighting a culture that says "you don't report 'lessons learned' unless something went wrong, and you don't report Bad News unless you absolutely have to." ...As if somehow not admitting that you dorked something up makes it go away, or ensures that nobody else will do it. I don't know how to fix that cultural problem, either. I mean, boats screw stuff up all the time, and boats on the same pier will make the same mistake because they're just not talking to each other. Had they submitted a "lessons learned," the mistake would only happen once -- but the Captain doesn't want to take the "black eye" for having made a mistake, and nobody knows about it, so he doesn't report it. Ouch..

In business management there is the adage: "Praise in public, criticize in private."

If the "learning from mistakes" involves people "going public" with their mistakes, I think you've found your problem.

You need a "confessor" -- some trusted commanding officer -- who will hear the mistakes, convert them so anonymity for those who made the mistakes is maintained, but make sure others learn the lessons from the mess-up.

[Superman]

It's all about relationships and communication. I wish I had a dollar for every time I've said that.

People wonder about the value of conventions. You know, events where everyone gets together and has discussions and workshops. That's where information gets disseminated. You think conventions and workshops are expensive, consider the alternative. Ignorance. Learning the same lessons over and over again by making mistakes. Sure, it takes a lot of cocktails to hold these discussions but you know what they like to talk about most? Work stuff.

[djmcmath]

Jordi -- PM sent, thanks for the offer.

Competent -- good call. Some of what we do is done like that. Nuclear reactor related lessons go to Naval Reactors, who filters them and sends them back out to the fleet. Rather than announcing "The USS Umpty-fish dorked up such-and-such," the message says, "Recently, a ship of this class made such-and-such mistake while performing such-and-such maintenance." There are several problems with the implementation:
1 - True anonymity is impossible. There are only so many ships of such-and-such class doing such-and-such maintenance, and it's a small world, in that sense. Within 24 hours of a report from NR, word is out about which boats dorked up which things. The funny thing, of course, is that anonymity amongst boats isn't really a problem: we're not afraid to talk about our mistakes with each other. It's if the "boss" finds out that we're concerned.
2 - The designated "priest/confessor" is the boss -- the one person that we really don't want to find out that we've screwed up. The only way to get word of mistakes out to the other boats is to report yourself to the boss.

So to fix this, we'd have to change that culture, the culture of senior leadership to say "I don't want to hear Bad News, and I especially don't want to hear about any lessons you've learned that aren't important (important: Bad News)." I'll add that to my point paper. I don't think my boss is going to like this at all. "Sir, the reason that submarines are bad at sharing knowledge isn't something I can fix with snazzy new technology. It's actually a problem that nobody does well, but that we do worse at because of poor cultural decisions we've made over the last 20 years."


I welcome your continuing thoughts. I think that my efforts will be a drop in the bucket towards fixing the problem, and I'm going to go away seeing no major change, but it's definitely a goal worth working towards. Thanks, all.

Dan

[Dennis Kalma]

So what is the response when bad news gets out? Is there yelling and screaming, admirals gettting their knickers in a knot, much humiliation..public floggings with praise for non-participants?

Changing culture is hard, because leadership needs to change their behaviour....which can be hard for old farts. There needs to be a determined effort to behave differently, when bad news comes along....how do they react. It has to change from "Awww crap!" to more of "Hey, thanks....what do you think we ought to do about it?".

Management always wants the silver cannon shell by which they can solve their problem, usually with answers that do not involve any change on their part....I mean after all, their current behaviour has gotten them to their current demi-god state hasn't it?

A few points that I have learned very painfully.

1. Organizational change is personal change for each and every person in the organization - management, staff , floor cleaners you name it...you can't just change one level
2. People will change when 4 conditions are satisfied:

a. They are dissatisfied with the status quo
b. They come to understand a future state that they believe to be better
c. They are led to tangible next steps to achieve the future state
d. There is an answer to "What's in it for me if I go through this traumatic change thing"

3. Management constancy is the most critical aspect. If it changes too frequently or one behaves in a markedly different manner than another, then the division up top will give permission to the lower level's to not change..."they don't have their act together", "well I heard that so and so has another point of view, and he is a large cheese"

4. Organizations will respond by early adopters trying things out. If they are fried over an open fire for behaving as the organization SAYS they want every one to behave, the next guy sure as heck won't trying anything.

5. The informal reward system is critical....how do you really get promoted around here, pay attention to the old boys club.....


.....I could go on forever on this....

Dennis

[djmcmath]

Originally Posted by Superman

You think conventions and workshops are expensive, consider the alternative. Ignorance. Learning the same lessons over and over again by making mistakes.

May I use this quote in my point paper? That's really good.

[Superman]

Sure. We can discuss royalty payments later.

[djmcmath]

Originally Posted by Superman

Sure. We can discuss royalty payments later.

Excellent. Tell you what: I'll give you 50% of my commissions for every copy of the point paper that I sell. That's pretty generous, imho.



Dennis -- the response to bad news depends on the news, but it's consistently more than most normal-sane people would expect. The culture says that if your chain of command comes up with more imaginative ways to respond than you do, then you lose. If you lose too many times, you don't get promoted, get relieved early, etc. Commanding Officers have been relieved from command (e.g. "fired") because the Commodore "lost confidence" in that CO's "ability to command his ship." That's not always caused by a grounding or collision -- a collection of incidents where the Commodore didn't feel that the CO took aggressive enough action will do the trick.

Therefore, responses to Bad News is always as strong as anyone can possibly imagine; they've got to cover themselves.

I've seen a lot of your points in practice, Dennis. The "old farts" were raised in it -- they've been indoctrinated into the culture, which worked fine when they were less senior, so why should it change? And just because Admiral John is doing it one way doesn't mean that Admiral Bill will follow -- Bill and John were rivals back at The Boat School, and so they don't agree with each other on anything. I may be able to convince my Admiral of the need for change, but convincing PAC of the need may be more challenging -- and the failure to convince him may well result in your Point #3, which breaks the whole system.

Wow. Great stuff. If only there was a way to efficiently change the course of a half-million person organization....

Dan