Tham, David. (2004, Nov) "A would-be nanopreneur’s Thinkerings on Knowledge". In David Gurteen (ed.), Global Knowledge Review. London: BizMedia; pp. 6-7. The Global Knowledge Review offered subscribers "unrivalled access to thought leaders in the fields of knowledge, learning, creativity, innovation and personal development". Each issue was designed to bring "leading edge thinking from top knowledge professionals around the world together with the latest news from the knowledge industry".Subscription to Global Knowledge Review cost £135/€140/US $170 for 10 issues per year. The Global Knowledge Review is no longer being published and this item is an archived version.

1. I was once asked at a conference to define a knowledge
worker.Istartedbydrawingthedistinctionbetweenmanual
work,informationworkandknowledgework.Manualwork
was done mainly with the hands. It could be highly skilled
but it was often repetitious and gave little scope for the
manual worker to take the initiative and work differently.
I argued something similar for the information worker –
the manual element had gone but many information
orientedjobs,althoughskilledwereprocessdriven.People
tended to be limited in their creativity by the demands of
the process. And then knowledge workers, it seemed to
me, had the most freedom – they got to decide to some
extent what they actually did and to a larger degree how
they did it.
At KM Asia last year, Tom Stewart gave his definition of
a knowledge worker that was pretty close to my own of
a few years before – “Someone who gets to chose what
he or she does in his or her job each morning”
But for me, today, this is still not sufficient. Another
person who has influenced my views on knowledge work
is Michael Schrage – a few years go he said this in an
interview with CIO Magazine:
“I think “knowledge management” is a bullshit issue. Let
me tell you why. I can give you perfect information, I can
give you perfect knowledge and it won’t change your
behaviour one iota. People choose not to change their
behaviour because the culture and the imperatives of the
organizationmakeittoodifficulttoactupontheknowledge.
Knowledge is not the power. Power is power. The ability
to act on knowledge is power. Most people in most
organizationsdonothavetheabilitytoactontheknowledge
they possess. End of story.”
The point here is that ‘the ability to act on knowledge
is power’ which leads to my own definition of a
knowledge worker:
“Knowledge workers are those people who have taken
responsibility for their work lives. They continually strive
to understand the world about them and modify their
work practices and behaviors to better meet their
personal and organizational objectives. No one tells them
what to do. They do not take “No” for an answer. They are
self motivated.”
Thekeyisabouttakingresponsibility.Tomymindknowledge
workerscannotbecoerced,bribed,manipulatedorrewarded
andnoamountofmoneyorfancytechnologywill‘incentivize’
themtodoabetterjob.Knowledgeworkersseethebenefits
of working differently for themselves. They are not ‘wage
slaves’ – they take responsibility for their work including
the whole and drive improvement.
What I like about this definition is that it is independent
of your type of work – you can do predominately manual,
information or knowledge work in my original sense and
still be a ‘knowledge worker’.
So a question for you – to what extent do you think
you are a knowledge worker by this definition?
David Gurteen
REVIEWKGLOBALKNOWLEDGE
G
Taking responsibility for your work
IN THIS ISSUE
GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE REVIEW November 2004
Appreciating the invisible 2
A puzzling question 3
Stop selling the
100% solution to experts 4
Transparency rules, OK? 5
A would-be nanopreneur’s
Thinkerings on Knowledge 6
Why creative thinking
shouldn’t be left to chance 8
Making learning as
effective as possible 10
Who is hiring KM
professionals in Asia? 11
Tapping into the wisdom
of crowds 12
Briefing 14
The MORE WITH MORE
imperative 15
TFPL page 14
Businesses fail to
share information 17
Dealing with an
unhelpful culture
This issue sees the return of some contributors
and the introduction of some others, who we
hope and trust will soon become familiar.
We are sure that you will enjoy all the
articles and doubtless some will resonate with
you more than others. Perhaps if I had one
article which really struck a chord with me it
was Victor Newman’s not invented here (NIH).
Victor is an old friend and one of the most
innovativethinkersonknowledgemanagement
over the last decade.
I am sure we have all been victims of a NIH
culture–sometimesfromanindividual,maybe
even from a whole department or culture. You
suggest something and you know you can
forget any chance of the notion being taken
on board.
So do do you overcome NIH? According to
Newman timing is everything. Anyone who
wants to break down a NIH culture should not
demolish the delicate relationship capital
built up by making a frontal assault. You have
to bide your time, introduce ideas slowly and
give people space to get use to new ideas.
Peter Williams
KG

2. 6 • Global Knowledge Review November 2004 www.globalknowledgereview.com
As a young seeker of knowledge, I began my career more
than a decade ago as a radio producer’s assistant who
quickly learnt that the most malleable thing on earth was
the human imagination.
Combiningwords,musicandothersoundbites,radiohas
an endearing quality that has enabled it to withstand
competition for audiences from other mass media greats
such as television and the internet, and co-exist in
symbiosiswiththem.Thisendearingqualityisradio’sability
tocreatelimitlessvisualisationsinthemindsofitsaudience
throughnarrativesanddescriptions–toimaginepossibilities
of what might have been; what is taking place right now;
and what could happen in the future. Often, one word is
all that is needed to signify an idea or vision.
NanoKnowledge is just such a word. NanoKnowledge is
notaboutnanotechnologyalone.Nanotechnologymaybe
asprawlingideathatcutsacrosssomanydisciplines,including
engineering,physics,chemistry,biology,andmaterialsscience.
The concept is that by manipulating matter at the
molecularlevel,literallyre-arrangingatomsandmolecules,
youcancreatenewmaterialsandproductswithextraordinary
properties e.g. fibres stronger than steel yet at a fraction of
itsweight,chemicaldetectorsthatcansenseatracemolecule
of a toxic gas, precision-guided “smart” drugs, and
computer memory chips 1,000 times more powerful than
any in existence today.
Ontheotherhand,nanoKnowledgeisaboutthebuilding
blocks of knowledge that help us visualise and make sense
of ‘the bigger picture’. It’s about learning – where we are
able to take bits of knowledge, form them together and
create amazing things from what began as a single idea.
NanoKnowledge looks beyond the technology, to the
source of the dynamic know-how – people – which gave
birth to new notions, like nanotechnology.
The concept of nanoKnowledge is actually quite simple:
bystimulatingcontinuouslearninganddevelopmentamong
individualsinanorganisation’sworkforcethroughnewand
innovative ways, people create new ideas, products and
services–wecallthis“innovation”–thatbecomethebuilding
blocks for that organisation’s success and future.
ProponentsofR&Dtechnologysaythatnanotechnology
may give rise to the next industrial revolution, but before
that happens, nanoKnowledge will bring about a learning
revolution.
Sounds like a plug? Think again.
DrMihailRoco,SeniorAdvisorforNanotechnologyatthe
National Science Foundation in the US, estimated that by
2015, the global market for nanotech-based products will
reach US$1 trillion and employ some 800,000 workers in
the US and two million worldwide.
Harvard Business Review’s senior editor Gardiner Morse
wrotethatnanotechnologieswilleventually“disrupt,transform,
and create whole industries”. The question isn’t “whether
your industry will be affected”, but “when and how”.
Sowhycan’tnanoKnowledgehaveasimilarimpactbeyond
the technology arena?
Deciding to set up nanoKnowledge as my very own firm
was a big leap forward for me, having worked for the most
part of my career for multi-national corporations, start-up
entrepreneurs and even the Singapore government. In
Singapore, entrepreneurs are a rare breed indeed, not to
mention the ones who make it without any financial help
fromtheSingaporegovernmentorotherrelatedassociation.
I recall my first adventure in knowledge management as
a knowledge manager for a Singapore-based international
hotel and resorts company which at the time managed
some 38 properties in 17 locations around the world.
The company had set up a Knowledge Centre facility,
which was unique given the nature of the company, and
hadhiredmetoimplementaglobalintranet-basedknowledge
management system. Here is an excerpt from my personal
journal one week after I first joined the company. No real
names are used here and I have changed the company’s
name to “Company X” (see Figure on next page):
Three years on (and one CEO later), I decided it was time
toleavemycushyjobatcompanyXtoventureonmyown.
Thus nanoKnowledge – my very own consultancy firm –
was born. But not before I had been tasked with putting in
A would-be nanopreneur’s
Thinkerings on Knowledge
David C Tham
FOUNDER
NANOKNOWLEDGE
David specializes in corporate
communications, human capital
development and knowledge
management consultancy. His diverse
experience in HR and communication
has made him one of Asia's preferred
strategists for implementing human
capital and knowledge management
initiatives using practical, cost-
effective means.
Soft assets matter most today. Ideas. People. Teamwork.
Communities. Passion. Values and knowledge. That is what
Alan Webber, editor, Fast Company reckons. David agrees.
Singapore

3. place a million dollar new intranet system and spent many
longhoursandheadaches(arrgh!)tryingtoconvince(read:
“change manage”) the management of company X that
knowledgemanagementwasthewayforwardandthatKM
is not just about technology but about people and what
impassions them to come together, share and innovate the
ideas they have in their minds.
Peter Drucker in Managing in a Time of Great Change
wrotethat“Knowledgehasbecomethekeyeconomicresource
and dominant – and perhaps even the only – source of
competitive advantage”. Yet, competitive advantage is not
only the sum of the intellectual parts of an enterprise; it is
the speed of summation, which is referred to as “return on
time”. Through nanoKnowledge, I envisage a revolution in
the way we look to knowledge for competitive advantage
that goes beyond technology and products.
In a knowledge-based economy, nanoKnowledge
signifies the critical element of business strategy that will
allow organisations to accelerate the rate at which they
handle new market challenges and opportunities. It does
so by leveraging its most precious resources – collective
know-how, talent and experience.
NanoKnowledge is, however, not altogether a simple
issue. Nanotechnologists will, of course, claim it as their
own.Butitisnotatechnology,althoughtechnologyshould
be positioned to facilitate it. It is not a directive, although
strategic leadership is imperative. It is not a business
strategy,althoughonealignedwiththefundamentalprinciples
of knowledge management must exist. NanoKnowledge is
based on the premise that an organisation is able to take
stock in its greatest, most valuable yet individualistic
organisation asset, namely, its People.
It is within this framework that organisations must first
be able to challenge age-old adages by no longer relying
on core products but on core competencies. That is where
the competition really begins. The organisation that can
harness its nanoKnowledge is the organisation that truly
understands Success in a Time of Great Change.
And then can we appreciate Rudyard Kipling who wrote:
“They copied all that could follow but they couldn’t copy
my mind, and I left ’em sweating and stealing a year and a
half behind.” At the very least, if you haven’t been
thinkering with nanoKnowledge, it may be time for you to
find out how now.
www.globalknowledgereview.com Global Knowledge Review November 2004 • 7
KG
Singapore
Personal Notes on Company X’s organisational knowledge culture (c. Aug 2001)
Day 1:
Wow! It’s my first day. But none of the managerial staff think that orientating new staff, even a fellow manager and
colleague, is important. A junior executive (management support staff) apologises and takes the initiative to show me
around. I don’t even have an idea of what my CEO looks like other than that he isn’t Asian and that he has a pot belly
like Santa. There are so many people to meet in the corporate office alone. All of a sudden I’m so not looking forward to
having to know all the names of the general managers of the properties that are based overseas.
Day 2:
It seems there is a lack of corporate vision among some managerial staff. There is a tendency towards self-importance
among senior (i.e. veteran) staff and this hinders the learning ability of newer staff who would be more effective to the
company if they were able to attain or surpass the knowledge level of the former in a shorter time. There is a lack of an
effective communication network and knowledge resource pool among managers due to the size of the organisation,
and this can create unnecessary delays in inter-departmental information exchanges.
Day 3:
Staff do not appear to be well-trained in effective time management habits and each person appears to have his/her own
compass direction, i.e. pre-occupied with the burden of accomplishing his/her own work rather than working together
asateamtoaccomplishthecompany’sobjectives.Thus,thereisoftenalackofco-ordinationwhenmeetingsarearranged:
e.g.certainstaffmembersmayarrivelateforadepartmentmeetingbecausetheyareattendingtoseeminglymoreurgent
and important matters, even though sufficient notice was given in advance for the meeting. Staff who do turn up early
or on time for meetings end up waiting and valuable work time is lost in small but incremental quantity. This in turn may
adversely affect the morale and enthusiasm of these staff who do make an effort to come early or are punctual. If left
unchecked, such a cycle may leave an undesirable impact on organisational culture. Worse still, if staff come early or on
time only because of the rank or seniority of the meeting’s proposer – this results in attendance to “please and appease”
the boss rather than attendance to obtain/share the information necessary to improving overall work performance. The
lack of co-ordination may be due to the lack of communication of meeting agenda. Hence staff are not able to prioritise
the meeting activity above their other activities.
Day 4:
There is a high level of adherence to administrative “paperwork”. As a result, valuable time can be spent searching for
required information from filing cabinets. Despite the general adherence to documentation, there are signs that certain
departmentsmaylacksystematicdocumentation,e.g.theuseofcompanyX’sintranetsystemispresentlycrippledbecause
not enough staff usernames and passwords have been released to create an online community among the staff and
generate web traffic. There is also no uniform system of indexing between departments and throughout the company.
Furthermore, there is no obvious tagging system for existing and new information incorporated into the intranet.
Day 5:
Presently, most, if not all, of company X’s computer workstations use the Microsoft Windows 95 version 4 Operating
System. Windows 95 is documented to have a high tendency to crash thereby causing the loss of data and incurring
additional cost for data recovery and/or troubleshooting. The impetus to harness information technology has obviously
not been very strong within the company and it is currently vastly under-utilised. I do not have sufficient information at
the current time to identify the reason for the lack of Operating System upgrades since 1995.
KG

4. Businesses fail to share information
Survey highlights the need for more efficient document
management in the workplace.
Subscribe to Global Knowledge Review for £135/€140/US$170 for 10 issues per year
Global Knowledge Review offers you unrivalled access to thought leaders in the fields of knowledge, learning, creativity, innovation
and personal development. Each issue will bring you leading edge thinking from top knowledge professionals around the world
together with the latest news from the knowledge industry.
To receive your personal pdf copy of GKR, simply print out the form below, and then send it together with your payment to:
Your Personal Details
Method of Payment
II enclose a cheque made payable to Bizmedia Ltd.
IPlease invoice my company. Please advise if the address to which the invoice should be sent
is different from that shown.
I Please charge the following credit card (Visa/Amex/Mastercard)
Card No: IIII IIII IIII IIII
Expiry Date: II / II
Bizmedia Ltd, Royal Station Court,
Station Road,
Twyford, Reading,
Berks,
RG10 9NF UK
Tel +44 (0) 118 960280 Fax +44 (0)118 960281
Or subscribe online: www.globalknowledgereview.com
Purchase Order No:
Name of Cardholder:
Signature:
Title: Prof/Dr/Mr/Mrs/Ms First name:
Surname:
Job Title: Department:
Organization:
Tel:
Address:
City/Town:
Post/Zip Code: Country:
Fax:
Email:
URL:
REVIEW
K
GLOBALKNOWLEDGE
G
Businesses are failing to share
information because they are not
effectively implementing company-
wide document management
systems, a survey by Ricoh has
revealed.
Endpiece
Of the 503 participants involved in the survey, 59% had
accesstodocumentationonacompany-widelevel,whilst
34% only had access on a branch or departmental level
and 6% had no access at all to information, indicating
that many businesses are not realising the full benefits of
an integrated document management infrastructure.
Ricoh says that by failing to standardise on a single
document management system throughout the business,
companies are effectively limiting information sharing. It
claims that interoperability is essential for organisations
to communicate effectively both within and between
departments, branches and divisions.
Without the means to control information across the
whole business, the sharing and retrieval of documents is
made complicated, and that could ultimately reduce
employee productivity and weaken the company's
competitive advantage.
A quarter of respondents indicated that their primary
source of documentation was electronic. The remaining
three quarters still relied on paper or a combination of
both methods, suggesting that many organisations are
stilldependentoninefficientandtime-consumingmethods
of storing, managing and viewing documents.
The survey analysis concludes: "Changes to working
practices have increased the demand for real-time access
toinformation.Withoutputtinginplacesystemsthatcan
adequately respond to these demands, companies will
find themselves left behind by their more forward
thinking competitors."