de Stricker

Knowledgement ... now why didn't I think of that?

When a colleague used the word "knowledgement" as a shorthand expression, it struck me as a very clever coinage, and with his permission I sing the praises of the usage - given the difficulty we have had for years with the phrase "knowledge management" in at least two ways: First, we all interpret it slightly differently based on the circumstances at hand, and a precise definition has eluded us.  Second, it has been said that since knowledge cannot be managed, the phrase is illogical.

The Urban Dictionary defines knowledgement as understanding or insight, and there is a body of writing featuring "manage knowledgement" (see as an example http://www.workliteracy.com/knowledge-management-and-manage-knowledgement or google the phrase).  I perceive a different potential definition:

"Knowledgement" avoids the conundrum of "can knowledge be managed?" by not pretending there is any management afoot.  Instead, the echo of "acknowledgement" suggests its meaning could simply be "a recognition of the need for dealing appropriately with knowledge".  To me, that plain definition reflects a pragmatic and realistic approach to the challenges associated with getting, storing, finding, and using knowledge - on the floor.  No rarefied theories - just a reference to a straightforward and shared mindset:  We are all responsible for treating knowledge correctly in the organizations we serve.  Leaders are responsible for making that activity a priority, and all team members are responsible for the undertakings to support it.

In the past, I have used the description "good information husbandry" … but "good knowledgement" is a tad sleeker, don't you think?

But for the want of accurate or updated information ...

Recently, I heard two fascinating (read scary) anecdotes how manufacturing companies had to invest vast quantities of man hours - and suffer the resulting customer perception damage - in reproducing or repackaging product ... not because of external calamity but merely because a key information item was left out of instructions or because an outdated manual was referred to in the absence of awareness a newer one was available.

Yes, documentation and procedure manuals are a challenge: Difficult to prepare, never mind keep up to date (e.g. because on-the-floor changes in procedure or customer input may not have a means of being communicated to the documentalists reliably), they are sometimes just as difficult for employees to consult conveniently.  The impact may be "limited" to needless expense in extra work, delayed shipments, and the like ... but consider that in some cases, public and personal safety could be involved as well.

In the anecdotes, significant losses ensued from something as simple as the lack of a business process documentalist and/or the necessary rigor in (1) keeping process manuals accurate and up to date and (2) making it easy and unavoidable for employees to consult them.  My experience tells me such a scenario is sadly common - in private and public sectors alike.  The question as always is: How can we promote the understanding and the organizational culture that investment in good information practice and culture pays off ... if not now, then at some point in the future?