Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Knowledge ...

Chris Blodgett
IKM Level 1: Information Management Planning
IKM Level 2: Internal Integration Planning
IKM Level 3: External Adaptability Planning
IKM Level 4: Continuous Improvement Planning
6.1 IKM Level 1: Information Management (IM) Planning
The Information Age has clearly taken over from <strong>the</strong> Industrial Age where information has now
become <strong>the</strong> primary resource <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> new age for all organizations. Efficient and effective IM is now a
critical success factor for achieving organizational goals and objectives. The purpose <strong>of</strong> IM planning
is to produce and communicate effective workable plans necessary to effectively and efficiently
manage information. ‘Information needs’ must be determined as part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> planning and architecture
processes in order to support <strong>the</strong> organizations intended activities. CCIRs are essential to this
endeavour because no matter what level <strong>of</strong> maturity a particular organization may possess, it must
ensure <strong>the</strong> provision <strong>of</strong> a safe work environment and <strong>the</strong> efficient and effective conduct <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> mission.
Successful IM implementation will require <strong>the</strong> coordination <strong>of</strong> multiple parallel work streams, many <strong>of</strong>
which will cross traditional functional and administrative boundaries. Here are a few areas that an IM
Plan should address:
IM policy framework,
IM structures and responsibilities architecture,
Information needs assessment, and
Retention, disposition and disposal <strong>of</strong> records and documents.
6.2 IKM Level 2: Internal Integration
IKM Internal Integration planning provides a systematic and disciplined approach to managing <strong>the</strong>
organizational architecture and is where <strong>the</strong> leaders and managers have real control to affect change.
It is <strong>the</strong> organizational ‘space’ where <strong>the</strong> leaders must come toge<strong>the</strong>r to balance organizational
objectives with operational requirements through sound hands-on leadership. This is difficult to do
because we all live and work in an attention economy where <strong>the</strong>re is a plentiful supply <strong>of</strong> information
but a shortage <strong>of</strong> human attention. “Understanding and managing attention is now <strong>the</strong> single most
important determinant <strong>of</strong> business success” (Davenport/Beck 2001). Choosing a particular maturity
model will help frame <strong>the</strong> internal integration approach taken. While <strong>the</strong>re are many to choose from,
<strong>the</strong> one relevant to <strong>the</strong> military command/control culture is <strong>the</strong> NATO Network Centric Enabled
Capability (NNEC) Command and Control Maturity Model (N2C2M2). The four main levels in order <strong>of</strong>
increasing levels <strong>of</strong> organizational maturity are: de-confliction, coordination, collaboration and selfsynchronization
(Alberts/Huber/M<strong>of</strong>fat 2010).
Internal Integration truly requires hands-on leadership because today’s generation <strong>of</strong> leaders will be
tempted to fall back to <strong>the</strong> traditional Industrial Age hierarchical command & control management
styles. The NNEC tenets foresee a NATO robustly networked force with improved information sharing
and collaboration, enhanced quality <strong>of</strong> information and shared situational awareness which enable
collaboration and self-synchronization and <strong>the</strong>reby increased mission effectiveness. “In a robust
network, <strong>the</strong> burden <strong>of</strong> ensuring proper distribution is shifted toward <strong>the</strong> users <strong>of</strong> information, who
must be empowered through training and tools to know what information is relevant to <strong>the</strong>ir situation,
where <strong>the</strong>y can find it, and how value added services can be used to support <strong>the</strong>m…groups that have
worked toge<strong>the</strong>r over time and across situations prove to be much faster without having to sacrifice
decision quality” (Alberts/Hayes 2004). Having a robust governance architecture in place should
actually make <strong>the</strong> managing <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> whitespaces on <strong>the</strong> org chart much simpler for leaders and
managers at all levels. Here are a few issues that an Internal Integration Plan should address:
internal governance framework and business battle rhythm,
policy framework and standards,
maintenance <strong>of</strong> good organizational situational awareness, and
maintenance <strong>of</strong> a common operating picture with regards to <strong>the</strong> changing task priorities.
1100