Okay, so welcome everybody to the last in a series of four webinars called No Touch Pre-Webinars. Today with Nick Milton from the UK. And the No Touch Pre-Webinars are a series of webinars before a conference here in Germany. This is why you see a little bit of German in the slide. It's a conference asking the question, 20 years of knowledge management and learning organizations. What have we learned and where does the travel go to? So what's the vision? And we just invited experts from Germany or the German-speaking countries, but also internationally to share their perspective on that issue. If you want to raise any questions and you're a Twitter user, you can see the hashtag. It's KNT16, like No Touch 2016. And there are a few other just organizational remarks I have until I hand over the word to Nick Milton. The first is the webinar will be recorded, so you will be able to see a replay afterwards. We will have 30 to 35 minutes of talk of Nick and 10 to 15 minutes of Q&A afterwards. You can also call in with your phone if your bandwidth is low. In the mail you got from the webinar provider, you should have a phone number for your country. You can dial in. You can on the right hand side in the section handout, you can download Nick's slides as PDF. I would ask you to do this during the webinar and not send me an email afterwards. You can ask questions. There's a question section as well. I will moderate that. But you can also join the conversation with audio. Raise your hand then and I would ask you to use a headset then that the audio quality might be as well as possible. If you can't use a notebook for any reasons, you can also use a smartphone or tablets. There are apps that you can use. I've put 2017, but that's really just to make a nice 20-year jump from when I started with the BPKM team 20 years ago. We're going to also look forward to 20 years' time. We're going to look at two visions of the future, heaven and hell. Let's aim for the heaven, shall we? So the first thing to do is to look at the current state. Now, I think all of us understand what knowledge management is and how to do it, but the problem is our understandings are all subtly different from each other. The picture I'm going to draw for you of the current state of KM is a picture of confusion. Confusion between knowledge management and information management. Confusion about the importance of technology. And partly as a result of this confusion, a set of common pitfalls that KM programs fall into. But I think at the same time, we are developing a picture of the core of KM, which I think we can test here on this call. But we'll also, I think, will be very useful as we go forwards. Now, building a picture of knowledge management is difficult. It's difficult broadly enough to really understand the width of the concept. But what I've tried to do is to get some data. And the first thing I'm going to look at is the confusion of definition of knowledge management. And the plot here, the matrix that we see here, is drawn from as many definitions of KM as I could find. And that's more than 200 definitions. And the intersections in the matrix and the numbers in the boxes represent the numbers of definitions which include those two words. So there are five definitions, for example, which include the word knowledge and experience. So what I'm trying to do is analyze those definitions and they fall into four clusters. We have a cluster of definitions like the one on the screen, which speak only of knowledge. Knowledge management is the practice process culture of creating, sharing, improving an organization's knowledge. Knowledge focused definitions. I like those. They're in green and about half of them speak only about knowledge. We've got a number of definitions that speak only about intellectual assets or property or primarily assets. As in this one, KM consists of leveraging intellectual assets. I don't mind those definitions. I think it begs the question, what is an intellectual asset? We've got a series of definitions which talk about knowledge and information or and information and data. Knowledge is organizing and organizations information and knowledge holistically. There, I think the definitions are beginning to blur because where does knowledge management stop and information management begin? We have a series of definitions of knowledge management which talk only of information and data. Such as this one here, the process used by organizations to get, show and put to work information. For me, that's a definition of information management. If that's not information management, I don't know what is. So I think all of those definitions down there in that corner are suspect. So we've got four camps, four groups of definitions of knowledge management. Is it about managing knowledge or knowledge and information or just information or intellectual assets? Confusion number one is a definition confusion. Confusion number two is about the role of technology in KM. And here I'm going to, for my database, I'm going to look at knowledge management world's publication. They do every year 100 companies that matter in KM. And you can see on the screen some of those companies from A through E. There's an awful lot of text there. And what I've done is I've fed that into a word cloud. And we can see what these companies that matter in KM are dealing with. Look at the big words there. Solution, manage, software, content, search, cloud, data, social. Can you see the word knowledge in that word cloud? I'll give you a hint, it's about two o'clock. It's about two o'clock on the dial on the outside. Yeah, right. And learning is just a bit bigger. Yeah. Learning, I can't see learning there at all. It's just right beside manage. Ah, there it is, yeah. Very good. So, you know, if we were to take this view of knowledge management, those 100 companies that matter in KM are software companies. And as far as KM world is concerned, knowledge management is a technology issue. And I think a lot of us would argue that that's not the case. But that's still, again, we're getting our picture of KM. And here's a data input. KM seems to be equal about technology. Okay, let's take another look at the current world of knowledge management. Let's look at implementing knowledge management. Let's look at the ways in which that implementation can go wrong. This is a list that Patrick Lamb and I put together when we were in KM world about a year ago now, launching our new book, the knowledge managers handbook. And these are what we see as the ways in which knowledge management implementation goes wrong. I'm not going to read them out to you, but we will revisit this list when we look at this similar list of pitfalls 20 years ago. The one I will pick out for you is the business focus element. It's what we see as the biggest pitfall. People implementing KM for its own sake and not with a real business focus. I think we'll find that's been a pitfall for decades. So common reasons for failure, a confusion over definitions, a confusion with technology. It's not a real surprise that still we have a high failure rate of KM initiatives. People quote a figure of 70% failure rate. I don't know if that's still the case, but it's still pretty high. However, now let's look at ways in which knowledge management is actually beginning to crystallise as a discipline. It is beginning to define itself. Another way of looking at what knowledge management is, is to look at the sort of people who do knowledge management and what their skills are. Here, LinkedIn is a very interesting source of data. And if you click on the skill knowledge management on LinkedIn, you get this screen. It tells you 400,000 people have this skill. It tells you where they work, which is mostly the big consultancies. It tells you where they went to university, but it also tells you what their other skills are. And we can see the sort of people who do knowledge management. So on the next slide, we can see the people who do KM are people who also do project management, change management, leadership, program management, strategic planning, strategy. Interesting. KM is falling into a group of quite high level management skills. There's nothing on there about technology. So the next thing I did was to look at similar skills to knowledge management, like knowledge sharing, knowledge transfer, lesson learning, and see what overlapping associated skills there is as a way of looking at similarities, if you like. So we've got another diagram here, another comparison. We've got, I think, 10 different skills down the diagonal. And the numbers in the boxes are how many associated skills they have in common. Knowledge management and communities of practice, for example, that top right box in green. The people who have those two skills have eight other skills in common on average. So I would say anything in green is associated. Knowledge management strongly associated with knowledge transfer, communities of practice, less strongly with knowledge sharing, lessons learned, a little bit of overlap with organizational learning and collaboration solutions. Nothing at all with content management. Very little overlap with social media and social networking. So this is another way of looking at the current landscape. It's looking at the types of people who do knowledge management jobs. And we're beginning to see that. That's a very interesting thing, I think, since at least here in Germany. I don't know if it's the same in the UK. Social media, the social media community and the knowledge management community are until now also two very separated groups of people. And the term of community, for example, which exists with communities of practice, according to Wenger, in the KM community since the 90s. And in the social media community, it comes through the tools like in Chive and so on. The places are called communities. So it's a totally different understanding of the term community. Is this the same in the UK? It is. It is. I think what we find - if you look at the people who have social media skills on LinkedIn, it's mostly about marketing. It's mostly about broadcast. And I think that does carry over into enterprise social media, where enterprise social media tools are seen as a way of broadcast rather than a way of asking questions and holding dialogue and having collaboration. And I think that's one of the things we need to fix, really, in knowledge management terms. The tools have huge potential, but only if they're used for knowledge sharing and not for notification and broadcast. Okay. So I'm still in this business of drawing a picture of knowledge management. And I think in this picture, we can see where it begins to cluster. And a second approach that I took is a big survey that we did a couple of years ago now. Nearly 400 knowledge managers around the world answered this survey. And one of the questions that we asked them, and which we're going to ask you in a moment, is which of these elements - we gave them a list of 11 elements - which of these elements form part of your knowledge management approach? And the diagram on your screen shows that level of popularity. Connecting people through networks is the most popular communities of practice, if you like. Learning from experience or lesson learning. Access to documents. Knowledge retention. Those are the four big ones. Best practices. Innovation are there. Everything else is relatively minor. So looking at people's working practice, we begin to draw a picture of what knowledge management covers. Now, Simon, I think you've got a similar questionnaire to ask people now. Yes. We would like to ask you as our audience to answer just the question: which of these elements - we only chose the top five that Nick presented - are part of your KM approach, so to say. So perhaps we give you a few seconds and you answer that question. I have a look on how many percent have voted. We will see if this fits with your experiences, Nick. So, 60 percent have voted. Just another 10 seconds. If you don't have yet, then this is the last chance. 80 percent, so I stop. I just show you the results. That's how it looks like with the audience. Can you see it, Nick? Oops. Ah, Nick, can you hear me? Oh, sorry. I had mute on. I needed to clear my phone. Ah, okay. Yeah. Yeah, that's very interesting. The top two are the same, although they've swapped position. Access to documents has gone down. Best practices come up. So that's really interesting. I don't know if that is typical of the whole of Germany, but I think we can certainly say that those top two are the two primary pillars of knowledge management, but then the relative positions of the others is shuffling a little. Yeah. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Okay, so... Thank you. Right, I will see your slides again. Okay, so let's move on. When we look at the benefits that come from those approaches, we can see, again, connecting people through communities and networks gives the greatest value according to our survey, followed by access to documents. I think although that was low in our poll here, it immediately adds value because it saves people time. Best practice, learning from experience, a little less so, really because those two are quite difficult to do. But let's take at least those four, maybe the knowledge retention as well as the core of KM. I think what we're defining here is not from an abstract top-down definition, but this is what people do when they say they're doing knowledge management. There's our picture of the current time. It's confused, the definition is confused, the technology piece is confusing, but we are beginning to build a core of what KM actually means. So, let's look back 20 years ago. 20 years ago, I was just about to join the BP corporate knowledge management team, having worked as a knowledge manager in BP Norway for five years. How can we take a picture of KM 20 years ago? I think the best thing to do is to go to some of the people who wrote the books and the papers at the time. And particularly my favourite author, Larry Prusak, I think Prusak's books are as relevant today as they were at the time. And one of the things that Larry Prusak put together is what he called the 11 deadliest sins of knowledge management. This is 20 years ago he wrote this. And the ones highlighted in red, I think, are the ones that we see right now, either in our pitfalls or in our confusion, the reluctance to distinguish between information and knowledge, emphasising collections of knowledge as opposed to the exchange, the flow of knowledge, seeing knowledge as living outside people's heads or predominantly outside people's heads, playing too little heed to the role and importance of tacit knowledge. All of these really talk about the knowledge information divide. That's the first five. The next six. Disentangling knowledge from its business use. That was my pitfall number one. Substituting technology for human interface. So at least half and probably more of these deadly sins from 20 years ago are still deadly sins today. And that's a bit scary. You know, have we learned nothing in 20 years? Well, 20 years is not so much time for the community to learn, isn't it? Perhaps it takes another 20. Maybe it takes another 20. I think what has changed, one of the things that's changed is the technology, but what hasn't changed is the technology is always introduced as the savior of knowledge management. So in 97, groupware, Lotus Notes, email. Email was quite a young technology in those days. Search came in. Autonomy search was touted as the answer to KM. Technology will save KM. And the message we get is still the same. It's just different technology. Now it's social. It's SharePoint instead of notes. It's microblogs. It's Yammer, Jive, Slack. Artificial intelligence. Interesting to see that back on the agenda like it was 20 years ago. And semantic search. And again, the technology companies tell us that technology will save KM. At KM World last year, there were people going around with ... It was the end of the last series of Game of Thrones. And they were going around with this picture of Jon Snow saying, "John Snow may not be dead, but knowledge management definitely is." And I asked why. And they said, "Oh, because of our search engine." We have ... No, I know that the technology has not killed KM. It's not saved KM. It's part of the solution, but not the whole answer. Technology will continue to change for 20 years. Now, I would like to talk about a journey that I've been on personally for the past 20 years. And that is my own personal understanding of KM. When I started back in '92, I saw it as a tool. And the tool that was my KM world at the time was lesson learning. And I thought, "That's it. If we can do this, we can manage knowledge." When I joined the KM team in BP in '97, I realised that one tool is not enough. And we began to develop the concept of a toolkit. And if we gave people a toolkit, they would be able to apply different tools in different contexts to manage their knowledge. And somehow that still didn't work. And about 10 years ago, I began to realise that it's not a toolkit. It's a framework. A framework is a management system within which tools are applied. But it's all joined up. So it's not an isolated tool. It is a whole framework. And the framework is a combination of technologies and processes, certainly. But also roles and accountabilities and governance. Practically any management system you can think of has these four elements. And knowledge management is the same. And it's not a toolkit. It's a framework. And I think people are still discovering this for themselves. So we can see, for example, bottom right, a little bit more data. If you do a Google search for knowledge management process, you get over 300,000 hits. And if you do a Google search for knowledge management technology, you get 250,000 hits. Knowledge management roles gets you 60,000. Knowledge management governance gets you 30,000. So less than 10% of the process hits. So seeing knowledge management as a set of processes or a set of technologies is still common. But I think we really need to see it more broadly as a management framework. So that's, yeah Simon. There's one question on Twitter by Shagui. She's asking, "Isn't the issue not that KM commercial products muddy the waters, that they dilute transfer of knowledge through different methods?" Yeah, indeed. They dilute transfer of knowledge by different methods. Yeah. I mean, there's a lot of knowledge you cannot transfer through technology. But I like the approach that Schlumberger has taken to technology, which is to say technology has certain functions within knowledge management. So let's just choose one technology for each function. Technology, as you can see on the screen, it is 25% of the framework. It needs to be there, but it needs to do the purpose it's required to do, and not, I think that's a very good term, muddy the waters. Because there is a risk every time a new technology comes along, we adopt it, even if we've got an existing technology which already does the job. Schlumberger's approach is one technology, one job. And no more than that. Yeah. Okay, so the future. Future hell, for me, is the news. Future hell would be in 20 years' time we're still having the same discussion. We still don't know the difference between knowledge management and information management. We're still being hit with technologies claiming to be the answer to KM. And as a result, the same pitfalls recur, the same sins are committed, and 70% of KM initiatives continue to fail. I think that would be hell. Such a waste of time, effort, and money, and no learning. Future heaven, for me, would be that we know what KM is. We understand it as a discrete discipline. It's focused on knowledge. It's different from information management, content management, and so on. Certainly there is an overlap. Codified knowledge needs to be managed as information and knowledge. But despite the overlap, we understand what the two different disciplines are. That would be great. That would be a great leap forward. Second great leap forward would be that we understand it as a management framework, a management system. It's not a technology. It's not a set of technologies or tools. It is a holistic system. How are we going to reach heaven? Well, I think there is a route through the minefield, and this is under development right now. And this is the ISO standard for knowledge management. I know knowledge has already appeared in ISO 9001, but this is going to be a knowledge management standard. And what I think this represents is the industry coming together to say, well, can we just eliminate all of those frequent mistakes? And can we give people guidance on how to be successful? This ISO standard doesn't have a number yet. It is under development. It started a year ago. There are, I think, 30 different countries, including the UK and Germany, represented. A committee draft has been completed, which is like the first draft. Each country's national standards body is reviewing that and replying with comments. The UK has compiled their comments. I think DIN in Berlin is compiling comments on behalf of Germany. And then next, after Christmas, we will collect those comments and we will redraft. And once we've done the redraft, it goes out for general release and general comment. It's quite a rigorous process. I think this standard is probably won't be out next year. It might be out in 2018. And what the standard will give us is, first of all, an introduction, looking at KM and what is different about KM compared to surrounding disciplines like information management, records management, data management, customer relationship management, business intelligence, learning and development, organizational learning, innovation. All of these are already covered by ISO. But KM fills the white space that remains. It will contain a scope and definitions. Then it will contain a set of principles. This is going to be a principles based standard. It's not going to tell people what to do, but it's going to give people principles for deciding what to do. It will talk about maintenance of the framework. And we're at the moment proposing an appendix that has got a series of examples of how knowledge management is expressed in different industries. And what I'm hoping is that this ISO management system standard, by presenting it as a principles led approach, not a practice led approach, is going to remove the confusion, provide a central definition, warn of the pitfalls and the deadly sins, and allow any organization, big or small, to private or public, whichever sector, to build a secure KM approach based on the lessons of the past. And I hope that by then we'll have a 70% success rate, not a 70% failure rate. And that for me is a vision of heaven. So, basically we know what we're talking about and we know how to do it. So, that's all I wanted to say and I'm very happy to take questions at this stage. Yes, if you have any questions from the audience, just type it into the question field or put it on Twitter. Perhaps one question to start from my side. The ISO standard, I also like it very, very much because it's very good to have a sort of a reference. The ISO standard is out there since, perhaps we turn on the webcams again. It's out there since 1987, I think. And when you read the first versions, we had things like the plan to check act circle, the process orientation and things like that, which are, from my opinion, from my standpoint, KM as well. Because if you implement plan to check act on any process you have, then of course you implemented organizational learning and lessons learned on any process. But since… I would add something. I think the plan to check act, I'd like to call it plan to measure learn, because what plan to check act, it completely omits the learning step. Yeah. And I have seen it very nicely implemented as plan, do, measure, learn. And the great thing is that learn is not necessarily because it's a cycle. Learn can be the starting point as well as the end point. But anyway… Okay, so… Yeah, yeah. So, you said the term is important here. But also, I think that the marketing side, at least in Germany, a lot of companies, they were certified according to ISO because they had to. Because their customers enforced them to. And I think what's also important is to convince people that it's good for them, that they have an advantage if they implement learning in a very systematic way. And if I look at the ISO standards, from my perspective, they are not very… How to say… How to say… They are not very good marketing documents for the great idea that's inside these documents. No, you're right. But they're not meant to be. I think the ISO-KM standard will have three benefits. One will be an educational piece, which is why we put the introduction, the appendix in. The second will be to give people an internal standard. So, when they set up a KM programme, they can say, "We will aim to be compliant with ISO." But the third one actually is a contractual thing. A lot of organisations outsource parts of their knowledge. I was talking with an organisation just recently who outsourced a lot of their software development to development centres. And the knowledge of development and coding is managed by that outsourced partner. And what you can say is, "Yeah, we're going to give you this work, but we require you to manage the knowledge associated with it, and we require you to be up to ISO standard." And that way, you know that you can outsource knowledge and know it's well managed. Mm-hmm. So, you enforce it over the value chain or the supply chain, so to say. Yeah. Yeah. You're already seeing that in some of the defence contracts, where they require the contractor to have a working knowledge management system, but with no definition of what a working knowledge management system is. Yeah. And that's something that the ISO standard is aiming to do. Okay. Then I have a question by Chucky on Twitter. She said, "Will the ISO standard indicate what good KM outcomes are that allow for good M and E?" I'm not sure what this means. M and E. I need to crack not off measuring KM. So, it's in the course, the question, "Will we get a measurement framework or will we have a set of indicators what is good KM and what isn't?" No. No. No. Again, the standard is a principle and the principle is that you will have a metric system. But the primary metric will be, does knowledge management deliver its business objective or its organizational objective? And if you, whatever that objective might be, and that objective might be to reduce costs, to increase sales, to increase customer satisfaction, or if it's a fire service, to save lives and property. So, every organization will have a different purpose for KM, but the standard will say, "Make that purpose clear, align KM with that purpose, and measure whether it's making a difference." But it won't tell you which metrics to use. This has always been at the core of the ISO standard that you have to define the goal and it's generic for any kind of organization, be it profit, nonprofit, school, university, whatever. I have another question by Peter. He is asking, "What will the relation of knowledge to the unknown area in the VUCA world be?" For those who don't know the VUCA term, VUCA stands for volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity. And it means that we live in a world that we don't know what will happen and perhaps don't know what we have to learn to prepare for. Okay. I think the management of knowledge can only, it kicks in once you have knowledge. The management of the unknown, I'm not quite sure what that is unless it's risk and uncertainty management. Yeah. There is innovation, which again is a different field, but knowledge kicks in really once you have experience. And I think dealing with a volatile world means that your knowledge management must be very agile so that as you gather experience, it is very quickly assimilated, understood, and taken into action. Yeah. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. There's a very good talk by David Weinberger in the Library of Congress. And he's talking about the development of knowledge in terms of going from Aristotle until today, saying that in the old philosophic dimensions it was always like ordering knowledge, like having a categorization and documenting things. And he says in the new world, so to say, his metaphor is knowledge starts as his footlocker, where his socks are in, which is very chaotic and to path or craft your way into this chaotic world, this may be KM as well. And it's not long-term planning, it's not documenting, but perhaps it's more knowledge flow and flows of ideas and picking up the chances you have. Indeed. And probably the place you'd go to understand that is the military, who are involved in massively chaotic, complicated activities against people that they don't know and don't understand, can't see. And it's very interesting to see the way that they've built knowledge gathering and analysis into the day-to-day routine. Yeah. And I think this VUCA concept is also coming from the military, it's coming from the '90s. Yeah. I have another question from Daniel, he's asking, "I don't seek knowledge managers or knowledge management in companies anymore. Would you still recommend to become a knowledge manager as a career path?" Again, it depends. There, I'll tell you where you find a lot of people with that job title, you find it in customer services and you find it in professional services firms, the big consultancies and the lawyers. If you go back to the slide that I showed you from LinkedIn, the organisations with the most knowledge professionals are the big consultancies. McKinsey, for example, 10% of their staff are knowledge professionals, 1,800 knowledge professionals. And in that organisation, it's a very good career path to be on. Other organisations probably don't value knowledge quite so much. How would you define a knowledge professional in this case? Like a knowledge worker or something different? No, somebody actually with knowledge as part of their role and accountability. A knowledge worker is somebody who applies knowledge. A knowledge professional is somebody who helps create, manage or distribute knowledge so that others can use it. So it's a lessons learned moderator or community coordinator or knowledge broker or things like that? Yeah, or business analyst or, yeah, that sort of thing. That sort of thing. Okay. I've got another talk where I talk about knowledge management as a supply chain, as a sort of knowledge supply chain to the knowledge worker to give them the knowledge they need to do their job. And the knowledge management professionals are the people who are along that supply chain, organizing, distilling, packaging, distributing or facilitating the discussion of knowledge. Yep. Okay. Then I have another question by Ann-Claire. She's asking: Hi, what does you, Nick, think about trying to stimulate KM or shared learning via job descriptions, yearly job performance reviews, etc.? Are there helpful or not? Two types of people. Well, no, three types of people. There are the knowledge workers, and I would never put knowledge in their job description. I would put it in the organizational procedures, but it's not part of their job. Their job is to deliver what their job is and to do what's expected of them. And if that means at the end of a project they have to capture lessons, then they should do that. But that doesn't need to be called out in their job description. Then you have people with KM roles, like the 1,800 KM professionals in McKinsey, and their knowledge needs to be part of their job description because it's part of the job they do. It's part of their accountability. And then you have the central KM team who are accountable for knowledge management as a whole, for maintaining the KM framework. Let's take an analogy. Let's take finance. Now, everybody works with money, but the only people with financial elements to their job description are people with financial accountabilities, like budget holders or project managers or finance clerks. And then you have the central finance team who make sure that the financial management works across the organization. We need to do the same with knowledge. It's those three levels of accountability and the bottom level, the knowledge worker doesn't need to be in their job description. And what would you say? How would this fit in the organization? Like, is it a department like HR would be or is it individual for any organization? Do you see any patterns there? It depends on the organization. In the legal world, pardon me, in the legal world, it's usually a separate department because they separate out the fee earning from the non-fee earning staff. So, people who are working with clients who are billing their time focus on law and then you have a support group who focuses on providing knowledge to the fee earners. It's like cost and profit centers or something like that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Whereas in engineering firms, it's more tied up actually within the teams and within the departments. So, different organizations take a different approach. Yeah. Then we have Andre asking about the field of monitoring and evaluation. I think this is a topic we had 20 years before as well. What do you see as the state of the art at the moment or any future projections? Monitoring and evaluation of – what are we talking about now? Are we talking about monitoring and evaluation as a discipline within aid and development? Like measuring KM activities or like what is the answer on the ROI question or things like that, I suppose. Well, yeah, I think this – What knowledge management Andre says, yes. Yeah. He added just another – I'll follow it back. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. A big question and the issue is always to separate outcomes from inputs and I think probably you end up with a balanced scorecard where you look at activity. Which is the number of questions, the number of lessons, the number of discussions that happen. You look at output, which is the impact that knowledge management has. And if you have defined in your organisation how KM will work, the third measure is compliance. There are plenty of organisations, NASA for example, who have a knowledge management policy that says this is how we will work as an organisation. And you can measure which parts of the organisation are compliant with that policy. So that's at least three measures. And there's a fourth one often. People measure maturity. But I'm not a huge fan of that one personally. So you keep it secret. It's another argument. It's a good five minute argument that one. Yeah. Then we have Franz asking or saying, "I have the impression that knowledge management isn't on the agenda of the top management because company internal social media does the job." air quotes. To share the necessary knowledge, what do you think? Like has internal social media taken over the stage? No, no, I don't think it has. Internal social media can help, but it's not the whole thing. It is largely a technology base. I mean, you talk about social media and a medium is a technology. You don't talk so much about social conversation. But where are the processes? Where are the accountabilities and where's the governance around that? We know that communities of practice are hugely valuable for knowledge management, but communities of practice are more than just social media. They are networks of people with a common purpose, with their own processes, their own governance. How do we? Yeah, I think it is part of the really disappointing thing that we've not really learned so much after 20 years, is that all of these failures of KM devalue the product. And you go to senior managers and they said, "Yeah, we tried that. We tried that five years ago and it failed." Mm-hmm. And somehow you've got to get across the message, "Well, you didn't actually try it. You half tried it or you tried parts of it." Knowledge management, yeah, okay, we'll treat it like a supply chain if you like. It has many bits joined together. And if there's a gap in the chain, then the value doesn't get from one end to the other. And if you put in place components but not join them up, the value doesn't flow. Which is why I think-- Like an old pipeline at BP. If it's 99% perfect but there's one hole in it, then there's no value delivered. Yeah. Or the other analogy I use is the heating system in your house. And the heating system in your house is there to move heat around the house, just like a knowledge management system moves knowledge around the organization. But what you need, you need the pipes, you need the boiler, you need the electricity, you need the thermostats, you need the radiators. It's quite a complicated system and every bit needs to be in place. Yeah. And the same with knowledge management, you need to look at it end to end. It's not as simple as a tool like social media. It's not as simple as a toolbox. It has to be a joined up system. And then perhaps what might help is the view of ISO in terms of process orientation. You always have this input process output chains where you also look end to end. It enforces to look end to end. Yes. Like I say, ISO, if it survives in its current form, will be principles based. And the principles will be, have you got the accountable roles? Do you have governance in place? Do you have--are you covering every element of knowledge, person to person, person to documents, documents, documents to documents, documents back to people? It's so almost--it's going to be almost, I think, like a tick list. And lots of organizations, supply and demand, that's the other one. You know, so many social media implementations are based on push. They're based on Yammer asking, what are you doing today? They're not based on pull. They're not based on demand. They're not based on asking, what do you need to know today? What are the big questions you want answered today? So again, you would look at that in the light of the standard and you'd say, hmm, we seem to have missed out the whole demand side. Yeah. I have another question by Javier, which reminds me on an initiative that ran in the States by--it was called Knowledge Management Education Forum. I don't know if you know of that. They tried to-- Yeah, I met you. Yeah, they tried to curate a curriculum for KM and Javier is asking, why do you think KM is not taught at university or business school programs as a career? I think it is taught at some. In the UK, the Warwick Business School, Henley, Henley College, they're both very strong in knowledge management. It's not taught so much as a career as it is taught as more of an abstract concept, not abstract, but you know what I mean. As a concept, I think as our earlier questioner asked, could it be a career? It's not a stable enough discipline, I think, to have careers yet, unless you're in customer support, the legal world or big consulting. Regarding your own journey, if you end up with KM being a framework or a management system, do you think that all managers in educations like MBAs or general management education should be confronted with the concept of knowledge management as well, besides finance and HR and things like that? Hmm. That's a good question. I don't know the answer to that. I think that would be nice, but I can't see it happening. There are so many management systems, you can't master all of them. But at least through the ISO standard, knowledge management will find its place on the shelf alongside quality management, risk management, information management, records management. There will be a knowledge management space. There will be a knowledge management brick in the wall, which would be great. Famous last words. If it remains a hole in the wall for the next 20 years, then we're still in hell. Okay. So, we will make an appointment from now on in 20 years, where we'll make a webinar again. Or we'll meet on the holodeck then, I hope. Not in the webinar tool anymore. Yes. I don't have any more questions over here. So, it's much up to say thank you that you took yourself the time to be in the webinar. I will also send the recordings to all the participants and I really appreciate it. Very, very many thanks to you. Well, it's been a pleasure and thank you everybody for attending. I hope it's been interesting and useful. Yeah. And just as a last remark, if you're in Germany or German speaking, next week we have the Notetouch here in Germany. You can go to notouch.de. There are also live stream tickets. We live stream the keynotes if you want to look at that and after that we will report on the results of the conference and the next 20 years as the participants saw it in our blog at cognon.de. Thank you very much and have a nice weekend. I will leave the webinar open for two or three minutes if you want to download the slides. Thanks, Nick and bye. Thank you very much. Goodbye. Auf Wiedersehen. Ah, very good. You're speaking. Next webinar will be in German. Okay. All right. Bye-bye then. Vielen Dank. Vielen Dank. Vielen Dank. Vielen Dank. Vielen Dank. Vielen Dank.