In a recent post Patrick Lambe laments the lack of sharing of case study material by knowledge managers and knowledge practitioners. His post drew considerable comment both on the actKM forum and his own website. I like to think I am not guilty of this accusation. I have published all my papers and presentations on this website, and HolisTech® Pty Ltd also has a good number of papers and presentations for download. I also respond to every genuine e-mail I receive, but I digress. I sympathise and agree with Patrick’s assertion. As an example as an organiser for the actKM 2007 conference (which I later withdrew from) I posted a call for papers to 157 lists as well as other mediums to get just 12 papers! This I believe highlights an assumption about knowledge management, which I think is partially flawed.

Knowledge management is premised on an assumption of altruism and the willingness to share. But this assumption is not necessarily true. I think a missing component in the corporate literature on knowledge management, and for that matter the management literature, is discipline. It seems that as a society we are afraid of discipline because it conjures up images of corporal punishment. Yet I would say to you that ‘discipline is not a dirty word’! Indeed in 1918 one of Australia’s most famous generals and citizens – Sir John Monash - captured the meaning of discipline very well. He said:

“Discipline is, after all, only a means to an end, and that end is the power to secure coordinated action among a large number of individuals for the achievement of a definite purpose”.

In a knowledge management context discipline is the means to do things at the right time, in the right place, to the right quality, using the right processes. Discipline is not about punishing people, but rather about engendering the right culture and skills, so that things are done at the right time, in the right place, to the right quality, and using the right processes, all with limited assistance. That said we should not be afraid of holding people to account, and to discipline them appropriately if necessary.

Following standard processes is a discipline, and requires discipline. It allows freedom of movement and decision knowing the base is solid. It requires individual discipline and commitment to follow a process that one may not completely agree with, or to use corporately-supplied tools that may not be intuitive to them. It is an individual discipline to think about the corporate need and share knowledge in the first place.

Discipline does not mean that people are not free to criticise or to do things as they see fit - the right to criticise is one of the foundations of improvement. However when deviation from the norm occurs then reasons and approval should be provided, always remembering the paradigm that it is easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. That said when acting outside the norm one must do so with skill and a complete understanding of why it is necessary to do things differently. To do otherwise is a mark of a lack of discipline.

Discipline does not require a hands-on approach by managers and leaders, but it does require that managers and leaders remain connected. Discipline starts at the top. It is a given that executives must maintain discipline in their own actions. Only then can they expect discipline from their staff. In this case it is a matter of ‘doing as we do’.

In short knowledge management requires both altruism and discipline. Discipline matters!

Regards, Graham.