The material is divided into 9 chapters, and the writing style is very focused and precise. Useful flowcharts and checklists make the material a must-read for KM professionals and management strategists.

Dixon begins by deconstructing some common myths � such as �build it and they will come.� Knowledge transfer which is merely based on accumulating electronic databases will bring about neither appropriate contributions nor adequate retrievals; incentives, discipline, actionable results, alignment with objectives, and face-to-face communication are key requisites.

Going beyond broad generalizations of organizational knowledge management, the book focuses specifically on the issue of knowledge transfer, and identifies five key categories of lesson sharing in large companies: serial transfer, near transfer, far transfer, strategic transfer and expert transfer.

They differ in terms of who the intended knowledge receiver is (same or different from the source), the nature of the task involved (frequency and routine), and the type of knowledge being transferred (tacit/explicit).

One chapter each is devoted to the five kinds of transfer mechanisms, and two chapters tie all the material together in terms of guidelines for building knowledge transfer systems.

In serial transfer, the collective knowledge a team has gained from doing its task in one setting is transferred to the next time that the same team does the task in a different setting. The tasks are frequent, so meetings are held regularly and assessment questions are standardized.

In near transfer of explicit knowledge, the source and recipient teams are different � but the tasks are quite similar. The tasks are routine; selected goal-oriented information is disseminated electronically, along with supplemental personal interaction; information usage is monitored and assessed.

In far transfer, the tacit knowledge a team gained from doing a non-routine task is made available to other teams doing similar work in another part of the organization. There is a reciprocal exchange of knowledge, and face-to-face meetings as well as movement of experts are involved.

Examples include BP�s Peer Assist (initiated in 1994, to share experience in challenging areas like deciding whether to invest in a new rig; the transfer includes a visit to rig sites by peers), Chevron�s Capital Project Management (with online forums as well as physical movement of project managers to spread learned lessons across the company), and Lockheed Martin�s LM21 Best Practices (to identify and eliminate redundant facilities, capabilities and structures across its 30 subsidiaries; assessments were made of performance and financial performance).

Other examples include Japan�s Dai-Ichi Pharmaceuticals, where researchers are expected to spend 20 minutes a day in �talk rooms� where anyone can dialogue with them. �Tacit knowledge can be transferred by moving the people who have the knowledge around. Calling on tacit knowledge is not just a memory task, it is as often an act of creation or invention,� says Dixon.

Top-level commitment to the process is called for. Some companies like Ernst&Young designate certain knowledgeable people as �shared resources,� who spend a chunk of their time sharing their knowledge companywide.

Strategic transfer is called for when the collective knowledge of the organization is needed to accomplish a strategic task that occurs infrequently � but is critical to the whole organization. The knowledge gathering is conducted during the actual operation; it can be expensive and resource-intensive, and also involves knowledge specialists who collect information, conduct interviews, videotape discussions, interpret the examples, and synthesise knowledge.

A useful methodology here is MIT�s �learning history� process, which results in a narrative document describing an event and incorporating quotes from multiple sources and even contradictory perspectives. The process should include subsequent reflective research and validation. These events need not have to be the �best,� but will always have useful learnings.

The resulting documentation from strategic transfer can be disseminated on Intranets, and should have guidelines, checklists, people profiles, contact information, colourful overall narratives, records, and artifacts. Once created by KM specialists, the product is handed over to a community of practice that has the responsibility of keeping it current.

Expert transfer involves the transfer of explicit knowledge from an expert to someone who faces a problem beyond their current scope. Knowledge is pulled from the expert on demand, via threaded electronic forums to which support is dedicated for monitoring, escalation and support.

Examples include Buckman Lab�s TechForums (started in 1992, monitored by librarians and sysops, and supported by editorial help in producing weekly summaries of discussions), Tandem Computer�s Second Class Mail (for tech support), Chevron�s Best Practices Resource Map (a yellow pages of employee resources), the World Bank�s internal help line, and Ernst&Young�s Knowledge Stewards. Online infrastructure is critical here for multinationals, and there can be infrastructure problems in developing countries.

In terms of RoI, Ford reportedly claims that US$34 million were saved in just one year by transferring ideas between Vehicle Operations plants; Texas Instruments saved enough from transferring knowledge between wafer fabrication plants to pay for building a whole new facility.

The books shows how each organization can have multiple ways of transferring knowledge, involving databases, response systems, monitoring, meetings, and dedicated KM staff. Appropriate audits of knowledge assets, knowledge gaps, existing knowledge flows, and critical processes need to be conducted, sometimes with external assistance.

As for branding knowledge transfer initiatives, Dixon observes that they often don�t even mention the word �knowledge� � the emphasis is on words like peering, assistance, team building, and networking.

In sum, this book provides an excellent view of knowledge practices right from the trenches of companies at the cutting edge of KM. The inductive analysis and roadmaps for implementing knowledge transfer are essential reading for knowledge professionals in all manner of large organizations.

>>>>>>>

Madanmohan Rao is the author of "The Asia-Pacific Internet Handbook" and can be reached at madan@inomy.com

This book, though incredibly well-written in clarity and focus, is not so practical for the working manager faced with creating a "KM Solution" that will stick, as it is for those task forces and executives thinking about KM solutions and wanting to avoid mistakes - oh so common in today's organizations!

So, if you are looking for high-level descriptions of the various systems of knowledge sharing, their strenghts and weakenesses, the cases in the book are lively, thought-provoking, and interesting to follow along.

The author defines common knowledge as the knowledge that employees can learn from doing organizational tasks. It is the know `how' of a company verses the know `what'. It applies to information that is unique to a company or corporate culture. (Page 13)

The author's goals are to 1) broaden the reader's thinking about how a company might share knowledge, not only the `how', but the `why', as well, and 2) to allow readers to determine which system(s) would be most effective in their own settings. Her focus is on teams, not individuals.

The book begins by dispelling three myths about knowledge sharing:
1. "Build the technology and they will come" mentality. A common mistake made is that a knowledge transfer system is put into place and lays largely dormant or improperly used.
2. Technology can replace face to face encounters. She uses experiences from the Ford motor company as her model example here. Several years ago they began sending key staff to overseas Ford plants to exchange ideas, which ended up saving tens of millions of dollars to the corporation. They have a built in mandate that each year a given plant will increase efficiency by 5%, no small task year in and year out!
3. That you must first develop a learning culture. It is believed by many that successful corporations greedily hang on to information to maintain a competitive edge. The author found quite the contrary to be true in the successful corporations she examined, at least from within a complex organization.

Personally, the `knowledge is power' mentality has prevailed at times in our own public health professional environment. When I began in public health the motto of many of my superiors was `keep your cards close to your chest', get as much information as you can without divulging much; however, that thinking has largely changed as public health systems have changed from direct service orientation to linkage to service and collaboration. Also, an anecdotal observation is that a sharing mentality is healthy and that withholding information breeches the trust of the public health and creates divisions within an organizational structure.

The author distinguishes between two important types of knowledge, explicit verses tacit. Explicit knowledge is knowledge that could be directly transferred to the learner in the form of a recipe or manual. If you follow the directions, then you will achieve the same product. Tacit knowledge is the knowledge that a highly trained, or technically complicated, situation occurs. There is a tacit knowledge base in the expert, but at each decision node, there is a complicated array of possibilities, not easily conveyed in a simple manual. Examples of tacit knowledge would be: a cardiologist examining a heart patient. In this scenario there are numerous factors to consider, such as patient history, blood chemistry, vascular and stress tests, genetics, age, race/ethnicity, gender, smoking history, etc. To make the correct decision, the physician must look at many facets of the patient, using his/her accumulated wealth of knowledge about the subject. The idea of tacit knowledge is important in public health in that, where national and state agencies are involved, best practices and experiences, if properly conveyed to a receiving organization, can benefit that organization or jurisdiction. Often, it is tacit knowledge that is needed to best determine what the best fit for an agency is, and what formula or recommendations might work best.

"Tacit knowledge is not only the facts but the relationships among the facts - that is, how people might combine certain facts to deal with a specific situation" (Page 94). Some organizations have begun to designate certain knowledgeable people as "shared resources", with the expectation that a portion of their work time be spent sharing their knowledge company-wide, leaving the other 90 percent for the project.

In chapter 2, the author argues that, in order to create and leverage common knowledge an organization must:
1. Determine effective ways to translate ongoing experiences into knowledge, and
2. Transfer knowledge across time and space.

Many organizations fail to allow for time to debrief a project team or review a recently completed event. If some analysis of the process does not occur, an organization may achieve extraordinary success along the way on a given project and not be able to replicate that knowledge in future projects.

In the author's view, one size does not fit all, (Page 21-22). To determine how a knowledge transfer method will work, one must consider:
1) Who the intended receiver is, in terms of task and context? What is the receiving team's aborptive capacity? In other words, the team receiving the knowledge transfer must have a level of understanding already to `absorb' new knowledge (i.e., you can't learn division until you understand multiplication!). Being able to function as a team increases the absorptive capacity to implement knowledge transfer.
2) The nature of the task, i.e. whether it is routine/non-routine and how frequent the task is.
3) The type of knowledge being transferred - tacit or explicit.

Types of knowledge transfer:

1. Serial Transfer: A team performs a task and then repeats the task in a new context. Examples given were the U.S. Army's After Action Review (or, AAR), that examines what was supposed to happen, what happened, and what accounts for the change. Some private corporations have adopted a similar model.

The receiving team (which is also the source team in this case) does a similar task in a new context. The nature of the task is both frequent and non-routine. It may involve tacit or explicit knowledge.

An example of serial transfer in a public health context might be: A syphilis elimination team engages in a syphilis blitz in Birmingham, then, later in Miami - similar tasks, but different contexts.

Meetings are held regularly and are brief. Everyone is involved in action participation. There are no recriminations. Reports are not forwarded to other levels, though notes are retained for local use. Meetings are facilitated locally.

Some of the barriers to this strategy are that team members won't take the time to meet and discuss. Team members may lack the proper skills to have knowledge producing conversations. Also, staff may disperse prior to the end of the project period. This can be especially true at the local public health level, where staff may be young, underpaid, and trying to advance their careers.

To successfully implement serial transfer, the following should be in place:
q A standardized format of questions
q A team facilitator
q Basic norms of truth telling
q A no recriminations policy

2. Near transfer: Transferring explicit knowledge from a source team to another team doing a similar repeated task in a similar context but in a different location or context. In this context users specify the content and format of the knowledge being transferred.

Knowledge is `pushed', meaning that the information appears automatically, rather than users searching for the knowledge. In the modern context this could be through emails or electronic bulletins. The information is actively disseminated, with brief, not lengthy, explanations. The context of the messages being pushed is very specific. The author points out (page 72) that comprehensive systems usually fail, there's just too much information, so nothing ends up being important. Targeted databases work better.

The goal of Near Transfer is not to share knowledge, but to meet a specific business goal established by management.

Barriers to near transfer are based in people's fears of little-used data-bases, or a frustrated attempt to get teams to use a new or innovative practice or process. Some organizations have cultures that are resistant to outside successes. "If it wasn't invented here we won't use it." Finally, some people are `too busy to share' successful approaches.

Public health example: During the Global Smallpox elimination effort, prior to the electronic age, initial efforts involved attempts to vaccinate all people; however, there wasn't enough vaccine to do this worldwi