Why is the KM Experience Different in Europe?

Neste artigo o Prof Larry Prusak faz uma crítica sobre o mind set americano a respeito de KM.
Em seguida, há uma réplica muito interessante de Philippe Ruttens e o comentário Dale Arseneault . Vale a pena ler o debate e refletir a respeito.

By Larry Prusak on June 29, 2008

I recently spent ten days talking to practitioners and some academics about knowledge and learning in four different European locations--two in Italy, two in Denmark. Now I won't bore you with who said what, but some things stand out for me as very distinct from when I do the same sort of thing in the U.S. Here they are--fire at will!

No 1. European managers have a far greater interest in the theory and philosophy of knowledge and learning. Here's why: Very few of them major in business or engineering at university, and few study computer science or even hard sciences. For better or worse, this leads them to believe that discussing concepts that may seem obscure or philosophical can be valuable. It must be since they did it at school! They also are comfortable with ambiguity--something one would have to be if studying anything in the humanities or social sciences (economics possibly excluded). In my experience, saying to an audience of business majors, "We just don't know enough about that" or "There is no certainty that this will happen" is a guaranteed turnoff. As is the all-time killer: "It can't be measured."

No 2. Far fewer business books are published and read in Continental Europe. All that junk about how leaders make the world go round, or how to win, or how to move cheese ... is far less consumed. The U.K. is more like the U.S. in this regard, sad to say.

No 3. Knowledge-type stuff is taught in many European business schools. This gives the subject, in general, cognitive authority and provides a type of cover to those managers willing to experiment with the subject. By contrast, it is barely taught in the U.S., whose schools seem to think that technology and finance are all that is important (along with the ever-present leadership mantras and a dose of HR pablum). Barely a word on capabilities, capacities, knowledge-based theories of the firm, and so on.

There are some other reasons I could give--for example, people there are far more interested in conversations and reflection. If I had a dollar for every time I heard in the U.S., "that's just theory" or "just do it" or "you can't boil the ocean" or or or or or...

Now I love the U.S., and there are wonderful things that happen here that do NOT happen so much in Europe, to be sure. But the U.S. is certainly a hard place to get a hearing for what seems to me (and many others) to be the most important thing an organization has: its knowledge.


Philippe Ruttens on July 2, 2008 2:51 AM

With all due respect, Larry, your personal interpretation can certainly be argued. As a European who has lived in the UK, Belgium and Australia and a KM practitioner (on and off) since 1999, I find your views simplistic (US-biased) and quite wrong... apart from point 2 (about Books).
- Talking to a few academics in two countries is far from representative of Europe's business culture. There is none, first of all, each country is so different
- "European managers have a far greater interest in the theory and philosophy of knowledge and learning. Here's why: Very few of them major in business or engineering at university, and few study computer science or even hard sciences." That remains to be proven, how many KM courses and conferences exist in Europe compared to te US?!
- "comfortable with ambiguity": again this is totally dependent on which country/culture you visit. In my native Belgium, we have two distinct cultures and languages for a start.
- "Knowledge-type stuff is taught in many European business schools" Really? I'd like to see evidence of that, compared to the US. It might not be the right level or quality of KM suff even if so, a far too academic, not business view of it maybe
- " people there are far more interested in conversations and reflection" Again, a very simplistic and erroneous interpretation of the different business and personal cultures in Europe. One cannot generalise as such. It depends on each country, region, organisation and person. I'd tend to say that Americans are more extrovert and talkative generally-speaking!
For me, KM is still a US/UK centric discipline even if "Europe" has caught on in the last 5-10 years. I recently attended the KM KC conference in London and was surprised to see many continental Europeans there, mostly from France, Belgium and the Netherlands. I'd say that KM is still a more foreign concept in Southern Europe, probably less in Scandinavia.
All in all, the problem is that it remains too much of an academic-driven debate, we need to see more the real business/operational side emerging, such as measurement, communications, links to sales, marketing etc
Philippe Ruttens
Knowledge Manager


Dale Arseneault on July 2, 2008 11:37 AM
Actually, Larry's comments are similar to others I've heard from people who do work on "both sides of the pond," including Dave Snowden. He has been highly critical of the mechanistic way we in North America approach knowledge management (and management in general) and describes European approaches as more .. humanistic.. is I think the right word.
Since we're all shaped by our(comparatively limited) personal experiences and information consumed, I would like to hear more from others about foundation theory, principles and approaches for KM in Europe and in South East Asia - I think we could all benefit from experiences and lessons learned in those (and other) regions.
I agree with Philippe in that turning KM theory into action (and linking it to business outcomes) is a challenge - just as in many other management disciplines. I also think that as organizations are complex systems, it's the responsibility of the practitioners/ managers in each business to move to practical implementation in the appropriate context. (Philippe's comment seems to imply a different responsibility) KM formulas, recipes etc. developed by an "arms length" entity in a different context will not be universally applicable, and need to be considered, assessed for generaly usefulness, and adapted according to the situation at hand.