Search the Archive

The Australian Government Information Management Office Archive

APS KM Case Studies

Centrelink - KM Principles and Lessons Learned

February 2004

Introduction to the Organisation

Centrelink delivers a wide range of services on behalf of many Government agencies, including the Departments of Family and Community Services (FaCS); Education, Science and Training; Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business; Health and Aged Care; and Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Australia.

Centrelink delivers payments and services to about 6.4 million customers via 430 Customer Service Centres and 27 Call Centres across Australia. Local, area and national offices employ a total of 27,000 people. Centrelink staff are also located in many other countries as part of international agreements or in response to specific needs.

The IT environment, administration and business intelligence needed to support this activity is substantial and complex, including data-matching functions with more than 20 external agencies and departments. Centrelink must meet a wide range of legislative, privacy and security requirements, and report on its performance to all stakeholders and clients, the Australian government and the community.

Knowledge is fundamental to Centrelink's operations: job-specific, policy, administrative, corporate memory and performance reporting. It is also crucial to our service delivery, which includes information, advice and referrals in a vast range of circumstances - all knowledge-based activities. The challenge in such a large and diverse organisation is finding the right information at the right time and conveying it correctly so that it can enable a correct, knowledge-based decision.

Knowledge Management within Centrelink

The "Knowledge Theme Team" was created in September 1997. The team was re-shaped as Knowledge and Enabling Services (KaES) in 2001, with Linda Argall as National Manager. KaES started work on the Centrelink Knowledge Framework, to address knowledge about:

• our clients, customers and the community; and
• delivery of the products and services that meet their needs.

By 2003 the KaES team had developed some excellent principles and products to capture, extend, share and display levels of corporate knowledge. Three of these products gained the gold, silver and bronze ACT-KM Awards for technology change in the field of knowledge management in 2003.

In September 2003 the Centrelink CEO announced the re-structuring of KaES as the Data Shop. The new Data Shop is the corporate "owner" of Centrelink data, its analysis and presentation. Change remains the only constant, and 2004 poses new challenges for our approach to the use and corporate distillation of our knowledge base.

This Case Study outlines our philosophical and strategic development of KM principles as a result of our experience. An associated case study looks at a range of the KM products developed by the Centrelink Data Shop.

KM Strategy Approach

"Knowledge," the state of knowing, is not an abstract entity but a quality of human experience and intelligence interacting with current and useful information. It accumulates over time, and is lost through constant change. It can be shared but it cannot be transferred.

Knowledge workers see context, dimension and connection as well as fact and detail. They can record their knowledge in specific circumstances by spoken or written word, (so-called "explicit knowledge"), but this turns it into information or rules, which another person may, or may not, use well. In other words, knowledge cannot all be written down or embodied in graphs and charts.

For example, someone who knows how to cook well can write down the recipes. A cook without knowledge can follow the recipes but produce poor results; if they practice, or know a good cook, they will quickly improve their knowledge ...

Or to use a bicycle analogy:

• The parts, attachments and types of bicycles are data.
• A book or web-site or a friend's advice about bicycles is information.
• Riding a bicycle is the beginning of knowledge about bicycle riding.

If you see someone riding a bicycle towards a cliff you might know an accident impends. You can shout to the cyclist, you can try to stop them; but you cannot transfer knowledge or cause the cyclist to act on a correct assessment of the situation.

Defining Examples

The attacks against iconic US buildings on 11 September 2001 have become a defining example for knowledge management across the developed world. People did not gather and share the right information - they did not "join the dots." Knowledge management therefore means the ability to join the dots: to collect more information and share it with more people, and to act on that information.

In the years ahead there will be whole industries devoted to "dot" mentality: identifying the dots, plotting the dots, joining them and then joining them again in different ways, creating three dimensional interactions. KM strategies will be developed to list knowledge assets and know-how resources and structures to facilitate knowledge capture and dissemination across the organisation.

Less prominent but more pertinent is the instance of the US Columbia space shuttle disaster. In this case some people had the right information, but appropriate action was not taken. The dots were joined, a picture was formed, but effective action by decision makers failed to occur. Another example closer to home is the bushfires that struck the city of Canberra in January 2003. Current inquiries into the disaster are investigating why so many lives and homes were lost but once again, it is apparent that there was insufficient knowledge sharing and that coordination problems led to poor decision-making.

In many cases then, information was available and practical, personal and professional knowledge was freely shared. Wise and experienced people clearly stated the situation and likely consequences. Yet some managers and executives often ignored that advice. In these circumstances, providing more information may not help. People are deluged by information - but often there is a refusal to see the picture it represents, or to act as they should.

Challenges and Hurdles

"Management" implies a degree of control, the ability to effect a desired outcome. Outside our direct domain of responsibility we cannot "manage" knowledge, i.e. ensure it is used effectively and appropriately. We can provide and support all of the elements for knowledge: corporate, personal and explicit. We can provide relevant information with description and context, advice and guidance based on our experience and knowledge of the business. But we cannot turn it into knowledge - that requires the intellectual and imaginative engagement of another person who sees, understands and then acts upon the information.

Information and rules can be documented and managed. The buzzword for this is "explicit knowledge" but we think of it as information and corporate memory. It is the correct use of information that creates knowledge. Explicit knowledge generally means a rapidly-dating memory bank of unwieldy information.

Lessons Learned

Business knowledge is useful only in so far as it helps people to do their job. It is a base for action, but cannot make people act or decide or change. It cannot displace prejudice or false assumptions or overcome inertia; i.e. you can give people all of the information and share your knowledge, but this does not guarantee the transmission of knowledge.

Knowledge cannot be managed, certainly not across a community or organisation. It is not an object or process, but:

1. an amalgamation of information, rules and experience;
2. developed by people through an active interest; and
3. available to make sense of a current situation.

Business knowledge relies on networks of people with a wide range of experiences who have proven their particular abilities and who willingly co-operate. Sometimes they work in the same business unit, sometimes they are in different places or cities. These are informal networks built on trust and experience.

• Trust is essential. Knowledge can be used for corporate, "political" or personal ends. If we share knowledge and it is misused, we are less likely to share in future.
• When a formal structure overrides informal networks, some part of knowledge management may cease to function within the organization.

A basic lesson arises from the Juran-Pareto principle: 80% of new ideas, technologies and strategies fail. Pessimists say that they will fail - but no one wants to hear the pessimistic view. Optimism is needed. Optimists are bright, vigorous, enthusiastic. Optimism is strongest when least constrained by reality or practical experience. Optimists get it wrong 80% of the time, but are rewarded, promoted, cherished. Pessmists get it right 80% of the time, but are marginalised.

The lesson is that optimism succeeds, even if the ideas and technology don't. If your organisation can balance optimism and pessimism (i.e. reality test the "glorious future" against practical experience and results) then you have the best of both worlds. If your organisation only wants to hear from the optimists, it will run into trouble.

What we mean by KM

We therefore define knowledge as the capability and willingness to:

• correctly assess and understand a situation (data available from training);
• clearly see the need or shortcoming (information available from training, experience or sound advice);
• know the solution, or seek the appropriate information or assistance (knowledge, network or library), and;
• act accordingly (knowledge management).

This capability depends upon a clear understanding of organisational business, customers and procedures, provided or supported by:

• The training function (how to do it).
• The network function (where to get help).
• The library function (finding relevant information).

The willingness to act, and the ability to act correctly, is a requirement for the individual. The individual can be shown the fountain of knowledge - but will they drink, or just throw stones into it?

"The aim is not the acquisition of knowledge but the right action from knowledge; 
not to know what good men are like, but so that we may act as good men act." 
[Aristotle: Ethics].

Conclusion

The KaES Team attempted for more than four years to enable and establish a knowledge-based organization. We have found that we can share our knowledge but cannot ensure that this knowledge is used effectively across the organisation. Ongoing debate about data/information/knowledge, knowledge capture, explicit knowledge, knowledge tools, etc. creates an illusion of progress but in fact takes us further from the ideal of knowledge.

Effective knowledge management requires a competent balance of people, skills and corporate understanding, underpinned by relevant, useful, current and accessible information.

For the Data Shop, Knowledge Management means:

• Training by ensuring that people have the knowledge and skill to perform their specific work;
• Networks through linking people via networks and supporting these or other (informal) networks to share and extend knowledge. This relies on HR management and workplace culture;
• Library by maintaining and providing business information so people can find what they need when they need it;
• Using our knowledge as the basis for our actions and decisions, and;
• Making our knowledge available to our clients and customers to help them with their decisions.

We cannot control or much influence the ability of other people to understand the information and intelligence we can provide. We must therefore find better ways to communicate information, context and detail so that it can help to form knowledge. The salient point appears to be the quality of the organisation and its management. When people are trained, good at their job and valued, they create an environment where knowledge is developed and freely shared. The focus is on people, networks and support rather than technology, methodology or KM teams.

Reference

When Technology Fails: Significant Technological Disasters, Accidents and Failures of the Twentieth Century by Neil Schlager (Gale, 1994) was written and published long before the KM revolution, but remains a salutary and thought-provoking assessment of hyperbole about new developments, and how people ignore knowledge.

Further Information

If you would like any further information about this case study, please contact Stephan Williams.