F4- Unconscious KM and Conscious KM

We have seen from two previous posts that (a) intangible assets generally contribute more than tangible assets in producing the results that organizations value, and (b) knowledge assets are only a subset of intangible assets.

M&E of KM in development is therefore embedded in the larger issue of M&E of intangibles.

In late 1995, World Bank President Wolfensohn announced before the world’s finance ministers that the World Bank is not only a lending bank but also a “Knowledge Bank”. Of course, knowledge assets had always been creating value for the Bank even before 1995; but World Bank managers formally recognized this fact only after Wolfensohn’s announcement.

Organizations and projects are creating value from their intangible assets with or without any conscious or formal KM strategy/program. Their managers are managing their knowledge assets but they do not call what they are doing “knowledge management”. They use other terms such as “human resource management”, “succession planning”, “replication of best practice”, “role-based portal”, “work templates”, “mentoring”, “customer relations management”, etc. They are doing what we may call “unconscious KM” or management without a knowledge-based framework.

Various M&E tools for tracking intangible assets are in use in the corporate sector: KPIs (key performance indicators), Balanced Scorecard, Malcolm Baldridge criteria, ROI of training (Accenture model, Covey model, etc.), Sveiby’s Intangible Assets Monitor and Edvinsson’s Scandia Framework. (see: “KM Tools: Qualitative to Quantitative”)

Similarly, successful performance of a development project is attributable to the effective use of knowledge assets, even if its project managers were unaware of KM or were not consciously applying a KM framework. If a project manager formally adopts KM or hires a project KM officer, what does “M&E of KM” mean? The KM officer would likely want to justify his/her job by tracking only the incremental improvements as a result of the new KM program (value added by “conscious KM” over “unconscious KM”). But if a project manager is aware that intangible knowledge assets are creating value, he/she would prefer to track how ALL knowledge and other intangible assets are deployed and how they could ALL TOGETHER be managed more effectively. “M&E of intangibles” makes more management sense than just “M&E of KM”!

Let me tell two stories from our experiences in applying KM in development — stories about how “conscious KM” enables the manager to have “new eyes”.

In the Philippines, we scanned and studied 10 best practices from more than 950 anti-poverty projects. Why were they successful?

The answer surprised us: the communities concerned were successful because the projects leveraged on the wealth of intangibles that the “poor” communities already had: network of relationships (social capital), access to natural resources (natural capital + social sanction), dedicated leaders (human capital), useful linkages outside (stakeholder capital), collaborative practices (cultural capital), indigenous knowledge (intellectual capital), etc. The greater contribution of intangible assets is true both for community development as well as for corporate profit-making!  All these are described in our freely-downloadable e-book: “Community Wealth Rediscovered: Knowledge for Poverty Alleviation” from our website.

Many local communities are “poor” only in tangible assets — they are wealthy in intangible assets. People who call them “poor” are people whose development paradigm is based solely on financial or material (i.e. tangible) mental models.

Our research also opened our eyes in another way: KM for development is not just a matter of facilitating information/knowledge flows — this is a mental model that belies a development practitioner mindset, which is basically an outsider perspective. If we take an insider or community perspective, KM for development is suddenly different: it is now a process of recognizing, appreciating and leveraging on the wealth of intangible assets that a community usually already has.

A manager of one of our development partners once remarked, “I see no difference between a Lessons-Learned Session and the project evaluation that we already do.” We formulated the simple table below to help him see the difference. A project may be a “failure” (project objectives were not met) but it may have generated useful knowledge! Such knowledge should be captured via LLS to benefit next similar projects.

Traditional Project Evaluation versus Lessons-Learned Session

Traditional Project Evaluation versus Lessons-Learned Session

See an expanded version of this table in “Vertical versus Horizontal Learning”.

=>Back to main page of Apin Talisayon’s Weblog
=>Jump to Clickable Master Index


Tags: ,

8 Responses to “F4- Unconscious KM and Conscious KM”

  1. 10- KM4D: Three Viewpoints « The giraffe Says:

    […] saw earlier in “4- Unconscious KM and Conscious KM” that successful anti-poverty projects are those that leveraged well the intangible assets owned by […]

  2. Penny Says:

    Hi Apin, the distinction you are making here seems to be based on single- and double- (or even triple-) loop learning, with the former relating to your pure evaluation, and the latter relating to the ‘lesson learnt’. Would you agree?

  3. apintalisayon Says:

    Hello Penny, yes, the left column is about -as you say – “pure evaluation” and the right column is about “lesson learnt.”

    I think the left column (the pure or traditional evaluation) can also be viewed as a form of learning, but the learning benefits only donors or administrators (I call this “vertical” learning) – which is too one-sided. So, we add learning by practitioners (what you call “lesson learnt” which I call “horizontal” or more democratic learning).


  4. tzijlstra Says:

    Hello Apin,

    Just wanted to commend you with a well written and comprehensible defense of the view that KM is mainly about intangible assets. I do wonder though, what is yoru view on codification of knowledge? I will read the rest of the entries as well, when I have some time… As well as get a copy of your e-book.

    Oh, a small readability tip: can you introduce the abbreviations you use (M&E, KM) I assume you did this in the first blog of this serie, but some people are ignorant and choose to start reading in the middle. (Like me!)

  5. apintalisayon Says:

    Hello Tim,

    I will now insert the meanings of abbreviations; thanks!

    Do you refer to tacit versus explicit knowledge? (I define tacit knowledge operationally as undocumented knowledge). This is different from tangible versus intangible assets (I adopt the accounting profession’s definition that intangible asset are those assets that are not yet included in the book of accounts or have not been assigned a money value).

    Cheers Tim!

  6. Nigel Dawes Says:

    Dear Apin & Tim,
    The auditor’s definition is slightly incorrect. Sorry to be pedantic but it is important.
    You state:intangible asset are those assets that are not yet included in the book of accounts or have not been assigned a money value.
    Whereas intangible assets remain intangible even AFTER they have been included in Balance Sheets i.e. Goodwill which many company’s already include.
    IAS 38 states the framework rules for intangibles and state:
    Must be owned by org.
    Must be of non-physical asset with monetary/economic gain (now or future)
    Must be valued using ‘reasonable’ assumptions. etc etc.
    IAS 36 (ammortization of intangibles) ( IAS 38 available upon request)
    Also, Intangible assets exist within an organisation and have a monetary value already attached. i.e business software (unfortunately included only on a ‘cost only’ basis by most auditors and therefore not properly calculated as having any ‘added value’. WRONG! in our opinion.
    This is where the accountancy world have to wake up and include PROPER monetary values. There are several different types of valuation models, including our own 77 patented formulae for calculating the added monetary value of all types of intangibles.
    I hope this helps clarify a couple of points raised.
    best regards
    Nigel W. Dawes
    Vice President
    Areopa S. E. Asia

  7. apintalisayon Says:

    Dear Nigel,
    Thanks a million for your correction. I will make needed changes in my blogs and can I credit you accordingly?
    I would appreciate getting more information about your 77 patented formulae.

  8. johnny Says:

    hKvRwu Thanks for good post

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: