Comments on: Navigating the seven Cs of knowledge http://blog.tarn.org/2009/06/02/navigating-the-seven-cs-of-knowledge/ Unpicking traditional assumptions about KM and the life of the law Thu, 22 Jul 2010 02:15:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: CCCCC complimenting blog.tarn.org for the CCCCCCC of knowledge « Fredzimny’s CCCCC Blog http://blog.tarn.org/2009/06/02/navigating-the-seven-cs-of-knowledge/#comment-440 CCCCC complimenting blog.tarn.org for the CCCCCCC of knowledge « Fredzimny’s CCCCC Blog Sat, 06 Jun 2009 13:51:58 +0000 http://blog.tarn.org/?p=424#comment-440 [...] http://blog.tarn.org/2009/06/02/navigating-the-seven-cs-of-knowledge [...] [...] http://blog.tarn.org/2009/06/02/navigating-the-seven-cs-of-knowledge [...]

]]> By: Mark Gould http://blog.tarn.org/2009/06/02/navigating-the-seven-cs-of-knowledge/#comment-430 Mark Gould Wed, 03 Jun 2009 20:46:49 +0000 http://blog.tarn.org/?p=424#comment-430 Thanks for the comment and ideas, Sam. You are right to balance my idealism with a bit of reality! Your reference to cross-selling is an interesting one. I think there is a risk of being too heavy-handed in selling colleagues' expertise to clients: "you pay tax -- I have a tax colleague who can help you." As you say, a better understanding of (a) actually what the client's needs are and (b) what the firm can provide (in more detail than just having a tax capability) can result in really interesting conversations. Those might actually conclude with an agreement that we cannot provide what is needed, but I think clients probably respect advice to go elsewhere more than an attempt to grab work. Thanks for the comment and ideas, Sam. You are right to balance my idealism with a bit of reality!

Your reference to cross-selling is an interesting one. I think there is a risk of being too heavy-handed in selling colleagues’ expertise to clients: “you pay tax — I have a tax colleague who can help you.” As you say, a better understanding of (a) actually what the client’s needs are and (b) what the firm can provide (in more detail than just having a tax capability) can result in really interesting conversations. Those might actually conclude with an agreement that we cannot provide what is needed, but I think clients probably respect advice to go elsewhere more than an attempt to grab work.

]]> By: Sam Dimond http://blog.tarn.org/2009/06/02/navigating-the-seven-cs-of-knowledge/#comment-429 Sam Dimond Wed, 03 Jun 2009 08:33:20 +0000 http://blog.tarn.org/?p=424#comment-429 I'd like to suggest some more although painfully conscious that more than seven is too many and that some of these are probably unpopular with KM practitioners! Cash / Competitive advantage - we all hopefully do what we do for our customers, internal or external, but I think it's crucial - more than ever in these hard times - for everyone engaged in KM at an organisation to be able to articulate why their efforts contribute to the bottom line, whether or not in an easy to quantify way. For example, is it about avoiding having to reinvent the wheel and write off wasted time that the client won't pay for, or avoiding costly mistakes, making business support processes as lean as possible or nurturing thought leadership and expertise that sets you apart from the competition? Clever - I'm cheating with this one but couldn't think of another "C" for "smart"! While I agree that relying on expensive DM systems for KM is in no way enough, I don't believe we should shut them down and rely only on conversations. Nice idea but how would that work in a huge organisation with high turnover where clients will understandably refuse to pay for people to learn on the job? How many of us would really get rid of our legal templates (for those of us working for law firms) and rely on people connections for every task that we've done many times before? Cross-selling: one of the benefits of collaboration across the traditional organisational boundaries of geography and HR departments. If you truly know what knowledge other practices can provide and are keen to share that power with your clients, you've got a value proposition that many other organisations just can't match. I’d like to suggest some more although painfully conscious that more than seven is too many and that some of these are probably unpopular with KM practitioners!

Cash / Competitive advantage – we all hopefully do what we do for our customers, internal or external, but I think it’s crucial – more than ever in these hard times – for everyone engaged in KM at an organisation to be able to articulate why their efforts contribute to the bottom line, whether or not in an easy to quantify way. For example, is it about avoiding having to reinvent the wheel and write off wasted time that the client won’t pay for, or avoiding costly mistakes, making business support processes as lean as possible or nurturing thought leadership and expertise that sets you apart from the competition?

Clever – I’m cheating with this one but couldn’t think of another “C” for “smart”! While I agree that relying on expensive DM systems for KM is in no way enough, I don’t believe we should shut them down and rely only on conversations. Nice idea but how would that work in a huge organisation with high turnover where clients will understandably refuse to pay for people to learn on the job? How many of us would really get rid of our legal templates (for those of us working for law firms) and rely on people connections for every task that we’ve done many times before?

Cross-selling: one of the benefits of collaboration across the traditional organisational boundaries of geography and HR departments. If you truly know what knowledge other practices can provide and are keen to share that power with your clients, you’ve got a value proposition that many other organisations just can’t match.

]]>