Basic tools of knowledge management in mergers and acquisitions

Knowledge management has a lot of potential goldmines to open up.
One of these goldmines, in the world of continuous mergers, fusions and take-overs is handling knowledge during the above processes.

Let’s take a simple case, but the same principles are applicable in more complex cases.

One company – on one side of the world – acquired by another company on the other side of the world. Companies, in the same industrial business, but with different knowledge, knowledge handling, knowledge maturity and structure. And this for all functions in the companies: technical, support, HR, financial: it’s all duplicated in one way or the other.

And the major hick-ups are not in solving the knowledge management using a technical solution.

People knowing me know it’s one of my crusades that knowledge management is not solved by selecting one tool and putting the knowledge in there. It’s proven enough that this simply does not work because of the dynamics of the knowledge itself, the people, the company, and the volatile environments.

Let me give a few hand-holds that can help to successful merge, fuse or acquire.

As – also for other knowledge management projects – the most important assets are the knowledge itself and the people handling this knowledge.

One tool that helps in all cases is assessing the knowledge maturity. Although (and despite we’ve developed such tools but not really commercialized them)  it is still under discussion how a culture can be measured and how precise such an assessment is, it certainly has value.

When two different cultures meet, it is important to not only understand each other’s culture, but also to know each other maturity on change management and knowledge handling.

Certainly when acquiring a company in a totally different culture, where you certainly do not know the associates of the other company, this is a quick and easy way to assess this associates up-to personal level if you would like.

Of course there are the strategies of optimizing processes, but deciding whose process will take over whose process is mostly depending on political decisions in the company – it is not always the best process.
But also here, it would be foolish not to learn from one another, doing quick assessments of each other processes. Taking a business case approach here will guide you to increase efficiency and effectivity in all cases. And in the worst case, the only added value is shared knowledge and increased awareness.

...and lot's more!

--- in case you want to know more – contact me !

It's out !! The 2019 version is out !! Order it today via info@whiteravensconsulting.com

About Opponents and Allies

It's been a while since I wrote an article. That's because there were so many interesting project going on, it's only know I got time to reflect from outside these projects.

When giving training, I always get comments on the change management model I'm using:

It's a model I learned in the early days of my career when getting change management training as 'high potential' - and I'm talking about training in the previous century. I'm all about handling people individually, and strive for the common goal, and I'm so against labeling associates and putting them in categories.
But this model resonated at that time, and it still does.

Last month I got two situations, in different companies. This blog describes the first one.

My opponent
In the first company I defended an implementation of integrated quality management systems, where the certificate would be only a side effect of a good way of working. On the other side, there were associates not knowing this type of integrated quality management systems, and really in favor of putting paper signed documents on a shared infrastructure. This opinion also had to do with the regulated industry we were working in.

(there will be yet another blog article on quality management system maturity and how to handle that on a latter date)

Since I, and also one of the persons having a difference of opinion are passionate, we kept being professional, but we stated our opinions straightforward as we saw them. Other people kept quiet

For outside people, this was a strange experience.
A vice president of the company wondered how our relationship was, and that it reminded her as if that other person and I were acting as brother and sister.

It is the first time I got the observation named as this, but in the end, this is a big compliment: because it confirms what it is. Me and that other person are opponents on this matter. But below that difference in opinion there is trust and mutual respect - what I also pronounced explicit.
The VP nodded and added 'and you're working for the same common goal'.

So you can even deepen this chart of saboteurs, enemies, opponents and allies. And the best way to thrive your company is to have your associates allied in a common goal, but have a healthy mix in opponents on approaches. Don't force all your associates to be allies in that matter as well, because opponents enrich the discussions, make sure situations are observed from different angles, making sure the best solution at a certain time is implemented !

There is one risk though: being opponents can be frustrating if the context such as this change management project is not given. So if you observe a situation like this, share this with your opponents...