Book Review: "Working Knowledge:
How Organizations Manage What They Know"

by Jackie Damrau, Associate Fellow

Working Knowledge: How Organizations
Manage What They Know
Thomas H. Davenport & Laurence Prusak. 2000. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. [ISBN 1-57851-301-4. 197 pages, including index. $19.95 USD (softcover).]

Working knowledge takes you on a journey of learning how organizations manage what they know and how we should organize our own knowledge to better ourselves in the world of work. Davenport and Prusak share many stories about organizations like Microsoft and Dell that have interesting facts that I didn’t know.

In the Introduction, we learn that knowledge management requires researching three information areas: 1) why it [knowledge] isn’t managed well; 2) what managing information actually means; and 3) what kinds of specific improvements can be made in how we get the information and use it. We build our knowledge based on insights that we have after working alongside our co-workers and by doing our own research. Insights, however, do not provide “best practices, new ideas, creative synergies, or breakthrough process” (xxi) because information no matter how well managed cannot supply them.

The key message of Working knowledge is learning that “the only sustainable advantage a firm has comes from what it ‘collectively knows’, how ‘efficiently’ it uses what it ‘knows’, and how ‘readily’ it ‘acquires’ and ‘uses new knowledge’.” (xxiv, emphasis mine) We often think of data and information as one entity. Davenport and Prusak say that these terms are not interchangeable. They define data as “a set of discrete, objective facts about events…or structural records of transactions” (2), which organizations rely on as “essentially raw material for the creation of information” (3). With this understanding then, we can say that data is raw material that helps us create the information to which we so effectively write. The definition for information is that it gives shape to the person’s outlook or insight to make a difference in how that person views the data. We transform data into information when we apply the 5C’s to it. The 5C’s are (4): Contextualized, Categorized, Calculated, Corrected, and Condensed. Does this sound familiar to anyone?

Knowledge comes from having experiences in certain areas that are broader, deeper, and richer than someone else. “Knowledge derives from information as information derives from data” (6). We transform our knowledge through the 4Cs of Comparison, Consequences, Connections, and Conversation. Components of knowledge involve “experience, truth, judgement, and rules of thumb” (7). Experience is “what we have done and what has happened to us in the past” (7). It gives a historical perspective on why you or the organization did what you or it did. Experience also helps others understand new situations and events so that they can plan ahead for success. Of course, the historical perspective lets you review the failures, which you should also consider as a criteria when looking at your own knowledge experience.

“Ground truth means knowing what really works and what doesn’t” (8). Organizations are usually more adept at sharing their war stories because “they understand that knowledge of the everyday, complex, often messy reality of work is generally more valuable than theories about it” (9). Knowledge’s complexity helps you find and make better decisions by using clarity and certainty to know definitively that you have all the information needed to make a well-informed decision, opinion, or other business-related action. Judging knowledge requires refining that knowledge by experiencing new situations and information. Our former knowledge that has served us well becomes our rules of thumb, which are flexible guidelines that are developed through repeated trial and error and through experience and observations to ensure that the knowledge we have stands on solid ground.

Knowledge is also built upon values and beliefs. In Working knowledge, Davenport and Prusak say (12), “Values and beliefs are integral to knowledge, determining in large part what the knower sees, absorbs, and concludes from his observations.…The power of knowledge to organize, select, learn, and judge comes from values and beliefs as much as, and probably more than, from information and logic.” Much of the knowledge we technical communicators have comes from face-to-face meetings or phone conversation with subject matter experts and documents.

We search for knowledge because seeking it benefits our own knowledge and increases our experience. Our knowledge search comes through networking with others, reading industry materials, and googling the Internet. Within an organization, we can find knowledge by looking at our peers’ position and education, our informal networks, and communities of practice that exist within it. A person’s organizational title or position often leads us to assume that that person has had a breadth of experience and is the one who can share with others. Education is similar to title and position. Knowing that a person has an advanced degree signals that he or she knows his or her field of study. Yet, having an advanced degree does not signal that this person stays current with the latest research and innovations that are occurring in that field of study. We would not then consider this person to be a subject matter expert (SME), nor would we depend solely on this person’s knowledge and experience when writing our documentation.

Informal networks are great because they provide us with “personal contact and word of mouth, they engender the trust that is an essential of successful knowledge exchange” (37). While informal networks can be viewed as transferring knowledge about internal processes, this type of networking becomes hard to use because it is undocumented and relies upon others sharing information that they believe to be correct and valid. Communities of practice (CoP) share knowledge in specific areas. Within many organizations, you can find CoPs to help with the sharing of tribal knowledge among each other to further everyone’s knowledge and build an informal network of SMEs within your organization.

Knowing where knowledge resides within an organization is often difficult to track, which Davenport and Prusak call knowledge management inefficiencies (KMIs). There are three KMIs that organizations need to be aware of:

1. Incompleteness of information, which is not knowing where information is
2. Knowledge asymmetry, which is not sharing information with others
3. Knowledge localness, which is relying on the person nearby instead of seeking the knowledge management expert.

The flow of knowledge can become drastically distorted via knowledge management pathologies of monopolies, artificial scarcity, and trade barriers. A monopoly occurs when “one person or group holds knowledge that others need” (43) and refuses to share that knowledge. Artificial scarcity occurs when a knowledge monopoly happens or when an organization downsizes or re-engineers and lets its knowledge (tribal knowledge) walk out the door by laying off the more experienced workers. Trade barriers hamper knowledge from being shared when people try to hoard the information they know because they feel that you should do the same amount of research or have the same level of experiences as they do. By not sharing your knowledge, you are not furthering yourself. Remember, sharing with someone who knows less than you do helps them to share with you when they find new information. This is the meaning of a CoP, like that of our own professional organization.

Knowledge can be generated through methods of acquisition, renting consultants, hiring/assigning dedicated resources to particular projects/departments, fusion which “purposely introduces complexity and even conflict to create new synergy” (60), adaptation, and formation of informal, self-organizing networks to share common knowledge, and learn from others. Generating knowledge is hard to measure, yet it is the great asset an organization can have in generating new ideas, innovations, and products that meet consumer needs. Without continued knowledge growth, organizations become stale and can eventually close their doors as other innovative corporations pass them by. Success is often the enemy of innovation, otherwise known as the “winner’s curse” (63).

In Chapter 4, Working knowledge covers the need to codify and coordinate knowledge. Knowledge codification takes organizational knowledge and puts it into an accessible, applicable format for those who need it. Knowledge managers and users can then take this information and categorize it, “describe it, map and model it, simulate it, and embed it in rules and recipes” (68). Codifying knowledge relies on four principles to be successful (69):

• “Managers must decide what business goals the codified knowledge will serve.…
• “Managers must be able to identify knowledge existing in various forms appropriate to reaching those goals.
• “Knowledge managers must evaluate knowledge for usefulness and appropriateness for codification.
• “Codifiers must identify an appropriate medium for codification and distribution.”

Knowledge maps are a guide that involves locating organizational knowledge and then publishing that knowledge into a list or picture that shows who to go to or where to find the information. Davenport and Prusak say, “Knowledge maps typically point to people as well as to documents and databases” (72). These maps should cross departmental boundaries to be effective in identifying the key knowledge personnel who are willing and able to share their knowledge freely with others. Creating a knowledge map requires assembling the map by conducting surveys. A survey is one way of collecting common information from employees relating to “what knowledge they have and where they get the knowledge they need to do their jobs” (73). Always include an organization’s culture when building a knowledge map as it is a key success factor in identifying the right knowledge sources. When building a knowledge map ensure that you build it using the essentials of clarity of purpose, accuracy, availability, and ease of use.

Transferring knowledge is how an organization successfully relies on focusing partially on spontaneous, unstructured knowledge with the rest focusing on sound business practices. Knowledge comes in two forms: tacit and explicit. Tacit knowledge can be ambiguous as it is requires extensive personal contact for the information to be passed from the person who created it to others. Explicit knowledge, on the other hand, comes from procedures, documents, or databases within an organization.

Organizations must be willing to embed the transfer of knowledge into their culture by addressing key friction areas that may prevent the flow of information. Removing the friction from trust and common ground requires that everyone speak the same technical language or are physically brought together to talk with each other. Knowledge transfer is often judged by the person giving the knowledge and the one receiving it. If the knowledge giver is net someone who is held in high regard, the information they share may be considered suspect. This then puts the knowledge receiver into a less than happy situation.

Knowledge management can be a successful addition to any organization. Successful knowledge management factors include possessing:

• Knowledge-oriented culture
• Technical and organizational infrastructure
• Senior management support
• Link to economics or industry value
• Modicum of process orientation
• Vision and language clarity
• Nontrivial motivation aids
• Some level of knowledge structure
• Multiple channels for knowledge transfer

Working knowledge is a trait that technical communicators do possess. We must be willing to share our information with others and mentor them to be as successful as we are in our profession. Without this, our profession will suffer from the ills of those who think they can write technical documentation. We know the difference and see it every day when reading or researching our own areas of interest.