I recently read an article in Mass High Tech magazine called, "From Know-How to Know-Who." It posed the question of whether knowledge management (KM) is really about the knowledge that resides in a document or file - or if it's more about the knowledge had by the people within an organization who are familiar with a specific matter or transaction.
The article then goes on to consider why so many organizations have not yet implemented knowledge management systems. It cites the opinion of Tom Shoemaker, a Vice President at Parametric Technology Corp., who contends that the main reason a company doesn't have a KM system in place is because it talked itself out of one. Shoemaker says, "I would suggest that sometimes companies have sized themselves out of the market. They may have said, 'We are a small business and the amount of files we are creating doesn't really lend itself to needing some sort of management system.'" But, he insists, "There is no reason not to have knowledge management in place, no matter your size."
The Mass High Tech piece also quotes Brian Hill, a senior analyst with Forrester Research, Inc., who agrees that size shouldn't matter when it comes to knowledge management: "Most organizations should have a system in place, not only to mitigate legal risk ... but most importantly, to capture real business benefit." Hill says that if more information can be made available at a moment's notice to an employee, the better the chance that a truly informed decision can be made, or even a serendipitous connection discovered.
A similar point is made by one of our Corporate Focus customers, Christopher Howard, head of the business practice group at Pierce Atwood, LLP, when he talks about the "art of practicing good corporate hygiene." He says, "I call it 'corporate hygiene' because it's like brushing your teeth or having an annual physical. The reason you keep corporate records to begin with is that every entity is going to need to access them at some point. At the end of the day, if you accept the responsibility of keeping client records, then why wouldn't you keep them in the best, most efficient manner possible? It's a function of good corporate hygiene and it's a function of risk management."
Howard explains that the compelling benefits are not just for the firm, but extend to the firm's clients as well: "It's worked out really well for a number of our clients who have direct, self-service access to the information on a read-only basis. The return to them is it increases their internal productivity and gives them a sense of confidence that they have record-keeping under control. For our clients, ultimately, their costs are lower and the efficiency with which they can close transactions is higher. A) They get it done, which is most important. B) They get it done less expensively. That's real value."
In the end, I've drawn my own conclusion: it doesn't really matter whether knowledge is based on documents and information or the people who understand the documents and information. The key is making this knowledge readily available to those who need it, when they need it. Regardless of its size, a business and its clients can draw significant benefits from a centralized, online knowledge management system - not the least of which are greater productivity, better decision-making, and improved risk management.
Imagine having a single source for fast, accurate answers to your entity management, ownership administration, and corporate compliance questions, 24/7. Then take a look at Corporate Focus to learn more about this and other benefits an entity life-cycle knowledge management system could bring to your organization.