If only we build KM solutions, users will come. Or would they?
(Thoughts regarding Organizational Change Management)
Dr. Moria Levy
Background
15 years ago, when Knowledge Management as a field emerged, we all regarded it as a process
of great importance. Since it is widely agreed that "knowledge is power", why would any
organization, wish to share its knowledge?
In 1988, an opinion survey conducted by The Harris Research Centre revealed that organizations
actually ARE interested in managing their knowledge. Unlike common belief (in 1988, that is),
People are not afraid of losing power by sharing. Knowledge, as the survey revealed, was not
shared mainly due to lack of time or because organizations simply didn't know how; they were
short on Knowledge Management methodologies.
As the years went by, we learned that in some cases workers indeed refuse to share their
knowledge due to fear of losing power or position. However, this is hardly a major obstacle.
Actually, the current technological state of most organizations seems optimal for knowledge
management. The advanced technologies utilized in most organizations ease the process of
knowledge management; KM methodologies are common knowledge in many organizations
(mostly those managing their knowledge by hiring a professional, either internal or external).
Nevertheless, even nowadays managing knowledge isn't an easy task. Even in cases in which
maximum effort was invested and talented, experienced personnel were appointed; even then,
success is rarely guaranteed.
Success
In Knowledge Management terms, success can be defined as improving performances as a result
of utilizing knowledge preserved, developed, shared and/or made accessible to workers.
Improved performance can be derived from enhanced efficiency and/or increased quality of
performance. Usually, accessible knowledge assists workers in making better decisions thus
improving overall performance.
1
When attempting to evaluate the success of a Knowledge Management system assimilated in an
organization, we might find evaluating improvement of business output quite the complicated
task. Obviously, there are cases in which output is more easily evaluated (e.g. customer service),
yet in most cases this evaluation is far from simple. This task is challenging since linking
improvement directly to Knowledge Management is not an obvious move, especially when a
variety of altering factors can be equally responsible for this change. The market is constantly
changing, be it our clients, our competitors, or our organization itself. More than one change
constantly occurs in all three aforementioned fields. Hence, differentiating the Knowledge
Management factor from is tricky. It becomes an even harder task when the work process is an
ongoing, complex one.
Some organizations wish to measure their success using usage as a parameter. This is an
obviously superficial mistake: workers accessing shared knowledge do not ensure success. If the
knowledge is not good enough, instructing our workers to use it will not yield improvement. It
might possibly lead to the contrary.
There are many prerequisites for success: Good content, well organized content, easy to use
technologies, etc. For the sake of this article, I will assume that the relevant knowledge does
exist, is saved in some knowledgebase, that the knowledge is organized, accessed easily and
intuitively. I will assume that we are dealing with a technological platform in which knowledge
is stored and updated according to predefined work procedures.
I will focus on the challenge in drawing users. Users should actively participate in order for the
knowledge to be used. Managing the change that may yield this participation is not as easy as it
might seem. Some believe that a high-quality knowledgebase is a sufficient reason for workers to
use it and actively participate in managing organizational knowledge. This is an industrial myth.
In order to draw workers, hard work is required. Change must be managed in order to shift the
workers' attitude and actions.
Classic Change Management Theories
Change management is a managerial approach dealing with changes required to make an
individual, group or organization change habits or routines in a specific way. Professional
Literature differentiates between change management theories concerning individuals and
2
Organizational Change Management theories. Some refine the definition, differentiating between
other levels of change management teams or groups.
There are four approaches to change management concerning individuals:
1. The behavioral approach:
An approach that focuses on changing behavior by identifying desired behavior that yields
desired performance. The elements of the current state of these performances are then
analyzed and altered accordingly.
Researchers/application models: Watzelweek, Weekland, Fish.
2. The cognitive approach:
An approach based on the perception that people act according to the beliefs and values they
hold. Succeeding in managing this change will stem in cognitive activity which in turn affects
behavior, and will be based defining goals for our desired results.
Researchers/application models: Beck.
3. The psychodynamic approach:
This approach believes people go through a psychological process when experiencing a
change. Different researchers offer different stages which are all essentially identical.
Elizabeth Kubler Ross, who was the first researcher to develop a model of the sort, defined
the following stages: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance.
Researchers/application models: Kubler-Ross, Satir.
4. The humanistic approach:
This approach combines different elements of the three approaches above, while regarding each
individual holistically. This approach is represented by Maslow and his well known hierarchy of
needs, starting with basic physiological needs through safety, love and acceptance, and finally:
self actualization.
Researchers/application models: Maslow, Rogers.
Besides the theories concerning individuals, there are theories concerning Organizational Change
Management. Morgan examined these theories while presenting his own theory, claiming the
different theories suit at lease one of the following metaphors:
1. Organizations as machines:
3
A process-related approach, strict organizational structure.
Change Management: alike the theories concerning individuals. There might be some
objection to change, but eventually through order and moderation, the change will be
implemented. The change will be managed, according to this metaphor, by authority
figures.
2. Organizations as political systems:
This metaphor represents a separation between the operational conduct and the political
system, seeing the latter as a higher, sperate level of management.
Change Management: change will only occur if supported by a powerful figure, or a
strong coalition.
3. Organizations as organisms: alike living organisms, organizations like, develop, change
and adapt.
Change management: changes should be conducted only as a reaction to some external
need. Individuals and groups should be aware of the need for change in order for them to
adapt to it. Companionship and psychological support are essential for successful change.
4. Organizations as ever changing flows:
Organizations are complex systems and are part of a wider environment.
Change management: change cannot be managed, it can only evolve. Managers are an
integral part of the organizational environment; conflicts are an important part of the
organizational development. Management is there to provide options, to allow.
There are various practical implications for these metaphors. In 1951, Lewin coined a simple, yet
critically important, Change Management model. It consists of three stages: UnfreezeMovement-Freeze. The first stage, known as the Unfreeze stage, consists of analyzing the current
state of the organization, as well as analyzing change promoting and change inhibiting factor and
presenting the desired status. The second stage, namely the Movement stage, deals with
implicating the change. The third stage, the Freeze stage, deals with stabilizing the organization,
setting a policy, rewarding succe and writing relevant standards. This model is an example of a
model which implements the theories presented above. It is based on a combination of the
"organizations as machines" metaphor (1) and the "organizations as organisms" metaphor (3).
4
Other theoreticians developed different models, included among others Bullok & Batten (with
their plan-act-integrate model), Carnall (who highlights the managers as change leaders
regarding processes, culture and organizational politics) and of course, Senge with the Piral
attitude: Start small, moderately growing.
New Change Management models
There are several new names in the world of Change Management, such as Michael Fullan who
focuses on leadership )" Leading in a Culture of Change"; "The Six Secrets of Change(".
Another new name is Gary Hamel whose expertise is innovative management ("What matters
now", "The future of Management"). These authors are promoting changes, more specifically
Change Management.These authors write about innovative managerial leadership (as leadership
and Change Management are closely related). There are other great thinkers in this field. Yet, if
to pick one name internationally associated with the promotion of Change Management, it is
undoubtedly John Kotter. The model offered by Kotter are recognized and implicated
internationally in many leading organizations.
According to Kotter, organizational change management consists of eight stages:
1. Creating a sense of urgency.
2. Forming a guiding Coalition.
3. Forming a vision and a change strategy.
4. Communicating the change and the need for it ; getting the workers' consent.
5. Empowering others to act.
6. Creating initial success, generating short term achievements.
7. Not giving up-Sustaining Acceleration.
8. Institutionalizing change: Creating a new culture of which the implicated change is an integral
part.
These Eight steps are not strictly serial, rather they are spiral: one begins with step 1 and
advances, yet sometimes reversing and skipping are required. That's fine.
Yet kotter didn't only create a model. Years after the model he developed was implicated in
nearly every 500 international fortune company, he was still not content. He tried to understand
5
why most organizations that attempt to initiate a change don't reach the finish line, never
completing the implication process.
Kotter bravely conducted research in approximately 250 organizations that implemented the
process yet didn't succeed in completing the process. He attempted to understand what
difficulties these organizations faced and in which specific stage.
Surprisingly, Kotter's research revealed that most organizations fail to complete the first of eight
stages (!!) either due to organizational complacency or, on the contrary, due to a sense of
urgency to complete this stage successfully.
Kotter decided to examine this model more thoroughly. In 2008, he published the aptly named
book “A Sense Of Urgency” in which he suggests how to methodically create a sense of urgency
in organizations in order to continuously promote change.
Another useful, innovative model was developed by Jeffrey M. Hiatt from The Change
Management Learning Center and was presented in his “Change management: the people side of
change” in 2003 (co-written with Timothy J. Creasy). This model is one component of an
inclusive Change Management theory developed by the two.
The model is titled ADKAR, an acronym of the 5 elements that can inhibit organizational change
management:

A-Awareness: Every worker must be aware of and comprehend the importance of said
change.

D-Desire: Every worker must want to support and participate in this change.

Knowledge: Every worker must know what he must do in order to change.

A-Ability: Every worker must possess the ability to exercise new skills and behavior as
required in order to perform this change.

R-Reinforcement: Tools to assess the internalization of the change.
6
When dealing with Change Management, one must present the group with the main
inhibiting factors in each given stage and setting. Change must focus on these factors.
The last innovative model I wish to review was recently presented by the Heath brothers.
These American-based brothers, one a Stanford professor (Chip) and the other a senior
lecturer from the CARE center in Duke University (Dan), have already published three
books on various management themes (all three highly recommended both for reading and
implementation). In the second installation in their trilogy (as of 2015), titled “SWITCH:
How to change things when change is hard”, they refer to three scales one should use when
managing substantial Change Management (whether individual or organizational):
1. The rational scale (in their words, directing the cyclist):

Creating a clear direction to the destination

Finding positive elements in the current situation

Defining specific tasks for critical stages
2. The emotional scale (in their words, Get the elephant moving in the right direction):

Connecting with emotions.

Shrinking the change.

Growing the people.
3. The environmental scale:

Make small amendments and adjustments in change-oriented environments

Create new habits in the new environment

Create peer pressure in order to implement the change.
They obviously have many tips and suggestions to offer, yet the most innovative ones are by far
those related to the environmental scale.
Implementing all theories and models when managing knowledge
Getting workers to manage knowledge (share knowledge with others and consume knowledge
shared by others) is not a simple task at all.
There is no single formula for success, and there is no guarantee that a formula proven successful
in one setting will be successful in another setting (sometimes in the same organization).
7
What I've learned from my experience is that is best to 'extract' the most unique yet practical
element of each model, and create a new, blended model.
The optimal blend, in my opinion, in the world of Knowledge Management (specifically, when
dealing with Israeli organizations):
1. Kotter: Making sure a sense of urgency is indeed felt in the organization and management
does indeed desire to incorporate this change, as well as understands why a change is due and
thus Knowledge Management is required. Making sure management commitment actually
exists. As cliché as it might sound, without this commitment- no change will ever be
successfully implemented.
2. Senge: performing changes as moderately as possible.
3. Hiatt: Analyzing where to focus the change (based on the ADKAR model). Dividing the
organizations into subgroups can reveal the needs of each group. There may be some who
require more knowledge; others might need a motivational boost. Review the whole process
every two months and adjust the messages you feed each group. I've reviewed and
experienced too many cases of organizations that invested much effort and resources in
advertisement without once analyzing what steps should be taken, and who the target
audience of this step is. An attractive deal or product is is not necessarily effective.
4.
Heath: Easing the Change Management process by adjusting the environment to support it.
Making people walk in our lane, in which change is easily implemented. For example,
inserting specific hyperlinks to the knowledgebase into existing patterns/forms. These links
make the knowledge more accessible to the workers, and thus assist him in filling this form
or use this form. In some cases, updating some specific section of this form can be used to
make the workers use this knowledge while seemingly an integral part of this form/pattern.
5. There is a debate in the world of Knowledge Management whether to include the final stage
(the Freeze stage) of Lewin's model in today's work culture. In modern society, and more so
in the world of Knowledge Management, promotion of utilization of knowledge is an infinite
process (or at least, one of an unfathomable length). The more we succeed, new needs
appear, new content emerges, and new tools are discovered or invented. All these are
accompanied by new Change Management. There might be a starting point, but there is no
8
finish line in sight. This might not be the optimal setting for an organization to operate in, yet
this is definitely the current reality to which we must learn to adapt.
9
Conclusion
This article elaborated on the importance of Change Management and presented different
theories and implementation models. Towards the end of this article, a hybrid model combining
several elements of the various models was discussed afressing the need for Knowledge
Management..
There is no scientific proof that this model is the single correct model to use when managing
knowledge. What can be presented is the experience of many organizations that successfully
implemented this model in Knowledge Management projects.
Nevertheless, we must further research and follow new approaches that are still being developed
in an ever changing world of Change Management, and examine how they contribute to the
model and continuously improve it.
Our work is yet to be done.
References
Cameron, E., & Green, M. (2004). Making Sense of Change Management. London, UK: Kogan
Page Limited.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a Culture of Change. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Fullan, M. (2008). The Six Secrets of Change. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons.
Hatch, M. J., & Cunliffe, A. L. (2006). Organization Theory. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2010). SWITCH: How to Change Things When Change is Hard. New
York: Broadway Books.
Hiatt, J. M., & Creasey, T. J. (2003). Change Management: the People Side of Change.
Loveland, Colorado: Prosci Research.
Kotter, J. P. (2008). A Sense of Urgency. Boston MA: Harvard Business Press.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Boston MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J. H., & Fisch, R. (1974). Change: Principles of Problem Formation
and Problem Resolution. Norton.
10
11