How do we get the idea of the knowledge audit accepted in the company or the organization (or in an individual department, if there’s where the audit is needed)?

What if someone is really pushing back and doesn’t really want to be “bothered” with a knowledge audit?

It’s a valid concern.

And there’s a solution. As with any change in any process, we need to get serious about ”selling” the idea.

And let’s not get into that old argument about “I’m not here to be a salesman or get involved in company politics – I’ve got my work to do.”

Sorry. Pointing out the advantages of an important change – whether it has to do with KD/KS or anything else – is part of your job. You can’t do a good job if you aren’t willing to consider how you – and your colleagues – can work better. And smarter.

Enough preaching.

If there is a problem getting the concept of the knowledge audit accepted, my usual response (and this topic comes up often in the consulting business) is to speak with the client, to try to zero in on some of the organizational or departmental leaders (hopefully some of the more forward-thinking people working there) – or just one if it’s someone with enough influence.

Once I’ve identified the influential person, we have a conversation about some of the perceived gaps and weaknesses that show up on a regular basis, gaps having to do with KM, knowledge services, and KD/KS in the organization or the department.

You know what these are. They’re the things people grumble about, what they complain about as keeping them from doing their “real” work. “Why are we wasting time on this?” – that sort of thing.

For example, with one recent client, there were great inconsistencies in the forms used for various types of reporting, yet the reporting process usually involved the same groups of workers and were targeted for the same employee audience. That “gap” was clearly established in the knowledge audit (in this case, lots of folks mentioned it when asked to describe KD/KS-related “problems”).

So one of the first solutions – once the company got to the strategy implementation stage – was to tackle the “harmonization” (as the client called it) of corporate forms.

It was a problem that clearly required a solution, but the effort to move toward harmonization would not have even have been considered if the need for it had not come up in the findings of the knowledge audit.

Another useful consideration if you are having a little knowledge-audit pushback: be careful about the language you use. One of my pals, leading the KM/knowledge services team at a large law firm, says that one of the things knowledge strategists must do is put any KD/KS-related activity in terms of how the target audience – the people who will be affected – will benefit from the change. Another colleague also speaks a lot about this same concept, and his approach is think about what needs to be done in terms of communication in the workplace. How you are communicating the framework for the knowledge audit and the value of the results? What are you saying to people about this important KM/knowledge services tool?

Being careful about how you talk about the knowledge audit should go a long way in breaking down the resistance.

What it comes down to (if I can be a little simplistic here) is whether the people doing the pushback really want to work better. Do they? It’s a tough question, but it’s one you must ask before you embark on trying to implement the knowledge audit.

- September 27, 2011