Ahren Lehnert, Senior Manager, Text Analytics Solutions, Synaptica, recently spoke at the KMI Showcase in Arlington, Virginia. A variety of topics were discussed. However, two seemingly opposing themes on knowledge management —centralization and decentralization—caught his attention.
Knowledge management (KM) is about capturing, storing, and retrieving information. Each of these phases in the knowledge lifecycle can be broken down into more granular components, such as content management, records retention, and search, just to name a few. However, all other activities come back to these three essential lifecycle phases.
The information paradigm has traditionally been about centralization. Employees create knowledge and that knowledge is captured and stored, and it is only retrievable within the enterprise. Centralization consolidates siloed, disparate, or conflicting information sources and sometimes forms the shared structure that brings these separate sources together. Taxonomies and naming conventions are just two of many centralized knowledge management practices, which enable the storing, and retrieval of important information.
In addition, centralized content and processes allow for tighter control over knowledge retention by establishing internal policies and procedures tied to corporate content platforms. On one hand, such structures may make access across multiple devices a challenge; on the other hand, it ensures streamlined processes for controlling and retaining organizational knowledge.
Decentralization, in contrast, is a different approach to content. In this approach, the real ownership of the platform and content is taken out of the hands of the enterprise. It eases the creation of documents, sharing them with colleagues, and managing the content by placing the responsibility with the content creators and owner. Decentralized content creation and management makes for an agile work environment but comes with significant problems. Significant among them is the lack of a centralized knowledge management program–including processes and procedures for structuring and managing content. This leaves knowledge inaccessible, varied in form and structure and subject to sharing outside acceptable practices.
Therefore, how does an enterprise begin addressing knowledge management policies such as knowledge transfer if the knowledge is inaccessible, or, more likely, completely unknown? The solution lies in embracing a hybrid model of knowledge management.
A hybrid model allows enterprises to take advantage of decentralization, including ease of knowledge creation, access, distribution and technology management. Similarly, the enterprise can retain the characteristics of centralization, including access by all employees. In addition, structures such as taxonomies, which reflect the principles of the business and a unified search across all content, can be retained.
Furthermore, with hybrid on-premise and cloud solutions, it is up to the enterprise to determine which content is tightly controlled and centralized versus content, which is decentralized. In addition, the enterprise can decide on how to establish processes and structures, which bridge internal and external content.
The move from centralization to decentralization has freed the office worker from the desk. It has helped to surface content from shared drive folders to mobile-accessible content available anywhere. Furthermore, the move from centralization to decentralization loosened cumbersome, slow processes. The same move has transformed knowledge management teams into leaders of content strategy as the boundary between internal and external corporate knowledge disappears.
Click here to read the article.
Please give your feedback on this article or share a similar story for publishing by clicking here.
