Q2- KM is for Creating Value; Whose Value?

We saw in the F Series of blogs that KM supports value creation. A question is: whose value?

The answer is neat and unequivocal in the private sector: corporate KM is driven primarily by customer value. That is why use of KM and growth of the KM discipline have grown fastest in the private sector.

How about KM applied in the government sector? Who should define what is valuable for a government agency? The public served by the government agency? The head of the agency? The people’s elected representatives in Congress who appropriate taxpayers’ money to the agency? The electorate? Or who?

KM for development is more complex. Many actors and stakeholders are involved in development projects and each of them has its own and usually different idea of what valuable result they want from a development project:

  • Beneficiary community and each member of the beneficiary community
  • Project funder, lender or donor
  • Development NGO or institution which may be the lead implementor the project, and the development workers or professionals employed by the NGO
  • Local government which may be the recipient, conduit or guarantor of the development funds, and the elected or appointed officials therein
  • National government and the officials therein
  • Technology providers, construction companies, infrastructure and utilities providers, service providers
  • Academe, development research institutions and other support systems.

Applying the private sector perspective in the development sector, the end consumer which is the beneficiary community or social group should define what is valuable. Therefore KM for development should be driven by what the community truly wants or needs, right?

Well, perhaps not all the time. Let us look at two examples.

An upstream community wants to withdraw or use water from a river. Doing so satisfies its need and therefore creates value for them but at the same time subtracts opportunities for a downstream community which also wants to satisfy its own similar needs for water.

In many places in our planet, development can hardly proceed because of conflict — a sign of eroded or damaged social capital. In fact social capital can be double-edged: some social groups achieve unity among insiders (improving “bonding” social capital = exclusive social capital) at the expense of greater hostility to outsiders (worsening “bridging” social capital = inclusive social capital). When armed hostility obtains between two social groups, results valued by one group are harmful to the other group. Each group will use knowledge for destroying the other group. Remember that in KM, knowledge is defined as capacity for effective action and in the case of war, effective action is that which can destroy the capabilities and will of the enemy.

Then, what is the problem here? Is KM part of the solution, or is it part of the problem? Is there something else besides KM we need to consider? What is missing here?

What do you think?

=>Back to main page
=>Jump to Clickable Master Index

Tags: , ,

3 Responses to “Q2- KM is for Creating Value; Whose Value?”

  1. Kytt Mier Says:

    Private corporations and government agencies possess KM systems that they will use primarily to ensure their respective survival in the marketplace. There is the danger that each of these entities will sub-optimize on their objectives to the detriment of the whole national community. In a way, this seems to be what’s happening in the Philippines.

    What seems to be missing for the Philippines is a ‘higher order’ KM system that effectively aligns the KM systems of leaders of the business, civil society and state sectors therein. What’s needed is a KM system that produces national moral consensus among members of the national governance team.

    The PHilippines faces great challenges in setting up a working KM system for the national governance team as she is in the midst of efforts to survive several life-threatening concerns (regulatory capture by special interest groups, rampant corruption, insurgency, secessionism, terrorism and political destabilization). These concerns are all signs of eroded or eroding social capital.


  2. apintalisayon Says:

    National moral consensus — that would be the antidote to national “sub-optimization” right?

    How do we get there? Or maybe the “several life-threatening concerns” plaguing the Philippines now are unwittingly but surely getting us there? Hmmmm….

  3. Kytt Mier Says:

    I had to think hard for a long time how we can get to a state of national moral consensus. Our experience under the Ramos administration on this has not been completely successful from what we see in Philippine society today. In fact, if we look at the way politicians treat each other, it seems our political culture deteriorated further.

    Education – the traditional form of KM – has not transformed our people into a mature polity that can effectively and creatively counter the predations of vested interests and rent-seekers. Romy Neri’s allusion to regulatory capture is not fantasy. Three or four years ago, he tried to obtain help from the NSC to address this. We were too busy putting the communist insurgents out of business on or before 2010.

    Starting Monday, I’ll be in my annual retreat of three days in Makiling, Laguna. I may find time to mull this issue more thoroughly.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: