92 Zyngier, Burstein, and McKay
Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written
Leading KM at the STDO
KM leadership focus must be based on the development of an organizational culture
respecting knowledge and sharing, on the KM infrastructure and support system, and
on encouragement for KM line supervisors (Bollinger & Smith, 2001). It is the leader who
manages the process of vision creation (Amidon & Macnamara, 2003). It is also the
responsibility of the leader to see the articulation of that vision both within and outside
the organization. At the STDO, there is no named position of CKO, and no single person
is in charge of the implementation of the KM strategy. Strength of leadership is evident
in the STDO. It is structured according to the same hierarchical control and command
model as its “Operations” parent. This leadership tradition adds complexity to the layers
of culture at the STDO where, as noted above, the organizational information transfer
structure operates on a federal model in its decision making in research matters.
Davenport and Prusak (1997) defined the federal model as being based on consensus and
negotiation in the organization’s management and reporting structures with a remote
central structure and a high level of local autonomy. In the case of the STDO “the culture
... once you get down to the working level, was to question because that’s what scientists
do. So if you were too ‘directive’ they simply won’t accept that” (Informant 6).
The role of chief knowledge strategist has been assigned to the person with the role
of FASSP who is the head of the Sciences Policy division as shown in Figure 1. The chief
knowledge strategist is not a knowledge leader or a knowledge champion in the accepted
sense (O’Dell, Hasanali, Hubert, Lopez, Odem, & Raybourn, 2000) but demonstrates the
qualities of leadership however these attributes are nominated in the position description
according to the requirements of the organizational strategic plan. Further, the chief
knowledge strategist does not devise or implement the strategy but has responsibility
to the organization that knowledge is leveraged to meet the aims and mission of the
organization.
Before the governance structure was established, KM operated as a number of
separate activities implemented through the independent initiatives of the Library and
Resource Centre simultaneously with the activity of the hubs. These activities were
dependent on the availability of ad hoc funding for discrete projects and did not attempt
to function as a single strategy throughout the organization. As such, there was limited
fiscal responsibility and no management of the risks and obstacles to the strategy. Figure
2 illustrates the ad hoc existence of the individual but unrelated KM initiatives that were
in place at that time.
How Did the KM Governance Structure Arise?
The strategy crew was developed in 2000 as an outcome of a strategic retreat that
was attended by the director of each laboratory together with the headquarters branch
heads. At the retreat, the directors identified key areas where the STDO was particularly
vulnerable. One of the 12 critical success factors identified was KM — expressed
specifically in those terms. Headquarters management understood that the issue was not
fundamentality a problem only about information but was an issue about both process and
information. “Hence we have the information governance board so that people were aware
of what was going on. It’s easy to lose track of all the bits and pieces” (Informant 2).
The STDO conducted its own research into the implementation of Information
Management and Knowledge Management strategy implementations. They found that