I like the concept of “knowledge transfer.” “Capture,” I suppose, is like creating a backup tape that is never used to recover the data. “Transfer” better captures the complete activity, delivering knowledge to another person. (Thanks, JohnD & Scott)

The distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge is very helpful. I think this clarifies the real problem; the difficulty lies with the tacit, not the explicit. (Thanks, Galen)

I do believe that apprenticeships, whatever the size or shape, are the key. This is an overlooked area these days, and I’ll be writing a bit more on that in a few days. (Thanks, Wally, Scott, Steven, & Long).

I’ve learned a lot from all of you. Thanks for contributing!

To converse more on this topic, please feel free to call me – I LOVE talking about this stuff. Or tweet me at galenmcp.

Our PhaseWare Files blog has a nice series of entries about knowledge management, what is takes to get knowledge shared and how KM initiatives fail.

http://www.phaseware.com/PhaseWare-Files-blog/bid/20690/8-Reasons-Knowledge-Management-Initiatives-Fail-4th-in-an-Occasional-Series-on-KM-and-Social-Media

http://www.phaseware.com/PhaseWare-Files-blog/bid/15903/Yours-Mine-and-Ours-Knowledge-Sharing-Insights-No-2-in-an-occasional-series-on-KM-and-Social-Media

http://blog.threestarleadership.com/2009/09/30/93009-midweek-look-at-the-independent-business-blogs.aspx

Wally Bock

Of course, formalizing “transfer” is like training, education, and mentoring. The latter is another way of saying “apprenticeship,” though I like “apprenticeship” more given “mentoring” programs I have seen that don’t go much further than showing you around the premises, giving you policy manuals, etc. But I think, for somewhat more “senior” people, “apprenticeship” sounds like reducing their status. It would not bother me, but I know the word suggests subordination of a junior person to a more capable one.

But “transfer,” however else we term it, is really better than “capture.”

Many industries, from medical internships to military training recognize this, and so do a form of “micro apprenticeship”. That is, they don’t just send someone to class and then let them loose on patients or the enemy. They follow a “Hear one, see one, do one” process, and the first “do one” is often under the close supervision of a more experienced peer or supervisor. The knowledge is not considered learned (ie transferred) until the sequence is complete.

When was the last time you came back from a class on a new IT technology or technique and got to observe or practice those new skills before being launched into a customer project?

What I am suggesting is that there is an inexpensive way to capture knowledge, similar to the way our brain capture information and transform it into knowledge (you can read more at the reference in comment #7 above).

I think Wally is much closer to my view when he said Culture is one proven yet un-plannable knowledge capture system. The difference, in my view, is that such culture must be conducive to learning, i.e. explicit in what information must be captured and preserved, and supportive of the knowledge acquisition process by all employees (based on their roles and responsibilities). That way, the problem of limited apprenticeship is eliminated and the corporate environment (reflective of the culture) is quite plannable.