This tendency to hoard knowledge is often cited as a core problem of corporate culture and the cause of poor collaboration. People guard their information and selectively release it.
The reality is that what employees say they know depends on who’s on the receiving end of that information. It’s like using the rearview mirror to navigate the road ahead.Even if all the right knowledge could be identified, the publishing model wrongly assumes that people are willing to share their most valuable knowledge equally and without some quid pro quo. Worse, it’s retrospective: Companies make decisions about which information to capture based on what’s been useful in the past. The expensive process is time consuming, and it doesn’t scale well. But because employees quickly create vast amounts of information, attempts to fully capture it are frustrated every time.Įven the most organized efforts collect just a fraction of what people know, and by the time this limited knowledge is published, it’s often obsolete. In the publishing model, someone collects information from employees, organizes it, advertises its availability, and sits back to see what happens. Where’s the payoff?The problem is that most organized corporate information sharing is based on a failed paradigm: publishing. Last year, U.S.Ĭompanies spent $4.5 billion on software and other technologies that claim to foster information sharing among employees. It’s time to abandon the fiction that knowledge management technology is working.
Then that could lead to a missed connection for both parties.' Mid-Century aesthetic lives on through local dealer's passion for sustainability.
0 kommentar(er)
