Process, Tools, and Culture: Three Dimensions of Knowledge Management

An ambulance is screeching toward the hospital, as the life of its precious cargo hangs in the balance. Response teams are battling multiple forces as an oil spill wreaks havoc off the coast. Analysts weave together pieces of the puzzle as the terrorists they seek scuttle to their retreat.

All efforts are rendered futile without the right information. Sometimes we miss information because we lack tools. Obtaining the right outcome requires an uncanny coordination of tools, culture, and process. Throughout my years in software development, health information technology (IT), and homeland security, I have learned that these dimensions of knowledge management play off each other similar to the project management triple play of scope, budget, and schedule.

In project management, adjustment of one constraint necessitates adjustment of the other two if the project is to be completed successfully on time and on budget. Similarly in knowledge management, adjustment of one dimension necessitates the adjustment of at least one other dimension of the triangle to accomplish the outcome. For example, if a business process does not have the budget to invest in technology (tools dimension) at a particular time, an adjustment in process could be made to obtain the necessary result. The tools dimension is shortened, while the process dimension is lengthened to compensate (assuming constant culture).

As businesses mature, greater investment in technology tools may be available, thus allowing for automation (less manual processing). In this situation, the length of the tools dimension increases, while the length of the process dimension decreases.

The KM Triangle

Each side of the knowledge management (KM) triangle represents the investment made for each dimension. In the first example above, the process for getting the job done costs x number of dollars. As a business leader, you must determine if the investment in technology is justified. If the cost of the technology is x + y dollars, then the cost of the process should be lessened by at least y dollars. Otherwise, the technology only adds to the cost without lowering the cost of the process for achieving the same business result.

While some investments (process, technology, or culture) may not necessarily achieve those savings, they may still be worthwhile if they allow the business to achieve greater results. The onus is on the agency—the mission owner—to determine if the increase in area under the triangle represents a net gain in business results or if it turns out to be a waste of resources. The KM triangle is less helpful in this type of analysis, but it is the proper tool to bring you to the point where you can ask such a question.

• Tools can be technology, architecture, information exchange standards, hardware, software, pens and pencils, or even just eyes that allow you to see. Technology improvements are represented by automation, a single common standard, identity management, access controls, reusability, scalability, and interoperability.
• Processes are those things you do to use the tools in front of you as well as those things you must do in lieu of having the proper tools to do the job. Process improvements are represented by an adherence to enterprise processes, the inclusion of innovation as part of the organizational process, and an organization that is proactive, rather than reactive.
• Cultural aspects are the organizational behavior factors that determine adherence to organizational processes and acceptance of new technology and incentive systems that promote the common goal of achieving business results. Cultural improvements include addressing the jobs characteristic model (skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback), implementing incentive systems in the knowledge market that promote information sharing, and preserving trust.
• Trust helps determine whether or not someone is willing to share information. (For example, Will it get to the right person? How do I know it won't be seen by others? Will I be mocked? Will I be punished?) Trust is also important for determining whether information will be used: Who sent this? How do I know it is really that person? Is this reliable? Why do I have two conflicting pieces of information from equally qualified sources?

Lessons From Healthcare IT

Lessons from healthcare IT show us that health information exchange helps save lives. When patients are transported to a hospital where they've never been, doctors need their health information before arrival so that they can preserve as much of that "golden hour" as possible. In medicine, the golden hour represents the time wherein medical intervention can best save the patient's life. The less time the doctors are waiting for patient medical background, previous radiology images taken, and current prescriptions, the better chance they have of saving the patient's life.

The healthcare exchange community focuses on a pragmatic outcomes-based approach. If we can use standards, wonderful! But if the adherence to a standard that may or may not be around a few years from now slows us down (or more likely, if it will take a few years before the investment on the standard actually pays off), then they move toward a solution that prioritizes outcomes over intellectual nirvana.

As a senior federal official, I have found that in government, we focus on enterprise architecture, compliance to standards, and conformance to frameworks. This financially responsible approach prevents us from duplicative spending on tools that have already been purchased or built.

So when an emergency such as Deep Water Horizon happens again, we can quickly adapt technologies, processes, and cultural aspects that worked during the event. For suspicious activity reports, we leverage a standards-based scalable architecture that allows intelligence analysts to connect the dots across multiple systems around the country.

In each of these scenarios, it is about what we do with information in crisis. What happens to information during times of crisis? And is the information we already share out in the world itself in a state of crisis? Is it at risk of being stolen? At risk of being used to wrongfully violate my civil liberties?

There are lessons to be learned across traditional borders, and we as public managers should look outside our domains to learn from others who are trying to tackle similar information sharing and knowledge management issues. The tool I presented here is just one of the many that we can use across all domains.