Kelly Ray of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP gives some insightsfrom a US perspective on establishing and maintaining a knowledgemanagement program.

Businesses launch knowledge management (KM) programs hopingthat they will succeed. But the market is littered with failedattempts to even get KM programs started. If yours is a firm orin-house department that has been successful in launching a KMprogram, is your program flourishing? Sometimes the initialsuccess of getting a program in place wanes because the programfails to develop and/or retain its importance.

This article considers three concepts that can be applied tohelp improve your new or existing KM program: vision, vitalityand visibility.

Successful KM programs begin with one or more individuals whoare visionaries. They conceive a means of providing better clientservice by using information that is present in or available tothe firm. It is then their responsibility to pass on that visionto a KM project manager.

It is important that a body or individual with knowledge ofthe firm's business goals and strategies review theseinitiatives. The results of this assessment should ensureintegration between individual initiatives and firm-wideobjectives, abandoning projects that are not aligned to thebusiness goals, and ranking other projects to meet the firm'simmediate, mid-range and long-term business priorities. Theassessment should also provide insights into both written andunwritten policies and practices to be enabled by the KMmethodology and supporting technology. Both the technology andmethodology should be attuned to the firm's culture, flexibleenough to accommodate differing work and communication styles,and sensitive to firm dynamics.

A common misperception limiting the potential impact of a KMprogram is that a single KM vision will satisfy the businessobjectives of an entire firm. While a firm may have anoverarching objective to support a KM culture, not all legalpractice areas have the same revenue drivers, client servicedelivery processes or work environments. A KM program can onlyhave an impact if it takes into account the different approachesand applies the appropriate projects, processes and technologiesto each practice area. Some practice areas make money by focusingon individual expertise in complex issues, in which case your KMinitiative may take the form of an expert locator system (thatis, the system would capture the various skills and areas ofexpertise of each individual and provide a search capability tofind the best person for the issue). Some practice areas makemoney by reducing the cost of service delivery. For these areas,your KM approach would focus more on automating service deliveryprocesses through precedents, checklists, workflow applications,and research banks, perhaps making these available toclients.

The significance of the KM program correlates with theimportance of each practice area to the overall business vision.For example, three or four practice areas might have a view onhow to reduce costs and improve margins, but if those practiceareas are not core to the firm's overall profitability andlong-term plans, then the level of the KM program's significanceis capped.

A KM program with vitality is one that has the "power tosurvive" beyond a successful launch. To be vital, each KMinitiative needs to have a means of instilling confidence in thequality of the content. Quality is judged by factors like:currency, accuracy, breadth, depth of detail, and authoritativesupport. For the program to thrive, the method for choosing newcontent must be easy and efficient. Ideally, the structure andrepresentation of information will influence how the system'scapabilities might encompass additional topics orservice-delivery processes.

Critical to both quality content and capability areappropriate and sufficient staffing. US law firms viewinternational firms as significantly ahead in developing KMinitiatives. The results of a recent survey of largest US firmsindicate that an absence of sufficient resources may be thedifferentiator. Out of 21 firms responding, the median reflectedonly 1.75 people were devoted to the firm's KM initiatives(2001 PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP Technology TrendsSurvey). Almost half of the firms reported having nodedicated KM personnel. US firms mainly rely on non-legal staffto allocate time between KM and other functions and on average,just .48 partners and .62 non-partner attorneys spend 20% or moreof their time on KM.

If not enough people contribute to the content, the systemdoesn't generate value and therefore doesn't get used. Bycontrast, if a lot of content is contributed (or your system isset up to capture every document or e-mail) but no resource isput in place to screen the quality of the content, then a searchyields so many responses as not to be useful. In addition, beingable to trust the content in the system depends on ensuring thatthe information has not grown stale or been overturned. Staffresources are needed to routinely review the accuracy of thecontent, a factor often overlooked in personnel planning.

The task of contributing to, monitoring and updating contentmust be taken on by people who understand the law and the processused by those relying on the particular system. In someenvironments, legal assistants and research librarians have beenseen as having the right expertise to develop and manage content.However, in most US firms, credibility means a qualifiedlawyer.

Regardless of the particular person, there is a tendency tostaff the function with a practising lawyer who splits timebetween providing client services and KM responsibilities.Lawyers see this "practising" element as vital to credibility andquality. But staffing the function on a part-time basissubstantially limits the ability of your KM program to becomeself-sustaining and valuable. When comparing the pull of clientservice and its resulting benefits of income and meeting targetchargeable hours against contributing to a system whose benefitsare less tangible, client service wins every time, as it probablyshould given the current global economy.

The difficultly that arises from having dedicated lawyersdeveloping KM content and systems is the risk that the lawyer'sskills and knowledge become stale. Continuing education for KMlawyers is only a partial answer to this dilemma. Maintainingfamiliarity with client service processes and expectations isalso important. Depending on your firm's culture, the solutionmay be to have the KM lawyer shadow practising lawyersperiodically so that he keeps on top of client servicerequirements. If your firm views KM as an alternative careerpath, then your firm may prefer rotating lawyers out of the KMrole to practice for periods of time. If the contribution oflawyers to KM initiatives is seen as an indicator of partnershippotential, then enticing practising lawyers into the KM programmight mean setting up a KM "traineeship" as a one stop along thepartnership track.

Visibility is also important to both developing individual KMprojects and sustaining your KM program. Routinely, our surveysshow that while KM is seen as instrumental to being competitive,there are few incentives to contribute to a KM initiative.Increased revenues or decreased costs to the firm from KMinitiatives do not translate into the personal incentive neededto prompt individuals to commit time.

We also know from employment surveys that the predominantincentive that drives retention is recognition. In what ways canthe people in a KM program gain visibility and recognition? Thereare many opportunities for visibility, for example, the firmcould factor contribution to the KM program into the decisionmaking for bonuses or adopt a communication plan that includesregular appearances of the KM personnel at internal meetings toreport on and receive recognition for the work done.

A new year is always a good time for reassessment. A review ofyour KM program to ensure that it is as efficient and effectiveas it should be could be one of your objectives for 2002.