Knowledge Roles in the Workplace: an Example from HVAC

by Thomas LaTourette

At first glance knowledge management may seem like an abstract idea, a concept that is good to know but is of no real importance in the business world. Businesses and managers have mainly concerned themselves with management of people and finances. They motivate and direct their people as well as budget and account for assets. In the modern business world, however, there much concern with information and knowledge. Knowledge is possessed by people and is a great asset to any company. Therefore, managers should be very much aware of knowledge management principles.
The following paper discusses my experiences with knowledge management at a large pharmaceutical company. I will begin with a brief description of the operation of my department. Then I will go into some detail about the knowledge market at my job. I will continue with a discussion on knowledge mapping and finally the importance of a common language. Throughout the paper I will draw on personal experiences.

Description of my Department

The HVAC (heating ventilation and air conditioning) department at my company operates with three different groups: the operations group, the mechanical group and the automation and information technology group. The operations group is responsible for managing the day-to-day operation of HVAC equipment on the site. Operations personnel work 24 hours a day in three shifts. Operators monitor alarms and ensure all equipment is up and running, mainly from the control room. The mechanical group is responsible for making all repairs to equipment. They mainly work day shift but can be called in at night for emergencies. The automation group, of which I am a part, maintains the building automation system which controls all HVAC on the site and reports alarms to the control room.

The Knowledge Market

As Thomas H. Davenport and Laurence Prusak discuss in Working Knowledge, there are three possible roles that someone can play in a knowledge market buyer, seller and broker (28-89). In my particular position I am mainly a seller of knowledge but often play the other two roles as well.

When acting as a knowledge buyer, I may encounter a problem I cannot solve with my own knowledge. Perhaps I think the system is working properly and it is the mechanical equipment that is causing problems but I cannot be certain. I will contact a member of the mechanical group for assistance. As I explain to them what I have seen he/she will be able to either give me the knowledge I need to solve the problem and be a knowledge seller. If not, he/she will often direct me to someone who can help me and be a knowledge broker.

When I am a seller of knowledge the reverse of the above situation may occur. A mechanic may encounter a problem he/she feels is related to the automation system, not to the equipment. I will share my experience and knowledge with him/her and whether the system is causing the problem or the equipment is faulty. If it turns out not to be a system problem, I will act as a knowledge broker and point the mechanic to a person that may be able to help them.
As I have continued in my position, I have become more and more of a knowledge seller than a knowledge buyer for obvious reasons: the more knowledge I gain or buy the more I can sell. In other words, a problem I may have had in the past where I sought to buy or broker knowledge, I may be able to sell today. This is an example of how one person can increase their knowledge base for the good of themselves and the company.

An example of the processes of buying, selling and brokering knowledge occurred very often when troubleshooting valve controls. The way the system works, a valve can be used to control a temperature (i.e. a heating valve for a room). Something that can occur is valve “hunting.” This is a process by which a valve will move too fast and overshoot its set point. Hunting can normally be fixed by “tuning” the control of the valve. When I first got my position, a mechanic would come to me with this problem and I would immediately attempt to tune the valve. However, I would often end up unable to fix the problem. I asked for assistance from someone with some more experience with the mechanical side of valve control. He explained to me that the range of the valve (closed to open) could be programmed wrong in the system, causing hunting even when the valve was tuned properly. I then directed the mechanic to this person and had him explain the situation. We discovered that this was more often the problem rather than tuning. Now I always share this information with a mechanic before begin tuning the valve.

From the above example, it is easy to see the roles of buyer, seller and broker. At first I tried to fix the problem on my own. When I wasn’t able to, I bought knowledge from my coworker. I then brokered knowledge between the mechanic and my coworker and, finally, I gained enough insight to sell this knowledge myself.

Davenport and Prusak discusses the currency of the knowledge market as reciprocity, repute and altruism. Reciprocity is the idea that those who sell knowledge expect something in return, whether it is knowledge or the concept that someone else’s success can be your own or your company’s (32). When I sell knowledge I often expect that the buyer will somehow repay me, either with his/her own knowledge or with repute. In other words I either want some knowledge in return or a good reputation in the company which will get me good reviews, more money, promotions etc.
I often expect knowledge in return for the knowledge I sell. I am much more willing to sell knowledge to those that can provide me knowledge in return. For example, my background is computer science and many of the people I work with are engineers or mechanics. I find myself much more willing to sell knowledge to those who are very good engineers and mechanics, as they will provide me with knowledge to better do my job.

I have encountered those that willingly reciprocate knowledge and those that do not. Sometimes the resistance to reciprocity is simply because a person may not have much knowledge to sell. However, I often find that people are unwilling to share knowledge if they feel it may be used against them. For example, a person may feel that if they share everything they know, they are no longer valuable and can be laid off.

I also think that simple altruism is important. Being altruistic, or unselfish, with knowledge is especially important in internship and mentoring programs. Sharing knowledge for the benefit of a person because you want that person to succeed is critical to a business. For example, I ended up in my current position by first being an intern for someone else. He provided me with important skills and, because of good timing (he took a different position when I was graduating from college), I was actually able to replace him.

Knowledge Mapping

From the experience I have, I see knowledge mapping as extremely important in the business world. When I was first hired I often didn’t know where to find the knowledge I needed. I frequently had to “reinvent the wheel” and figure out my own solutions. After completing a certain task, I would often run into someone who explained a different, and often easier, way to do it. If there was an effective knowledge map in place, I would have solved the problem quicker and more effectively.

I have also witnessed several attempts management has made to try to get different departments and groups to work together more effectively and share knowledge. This is usually done by shuffling an organizational chart, moving someone from one department to another, designating certain people as liaisons or putting two groups under the same manager. I think the concept of a knowledge map would be much more efficient. Different managers would be able to work together and compile lists of their employees’ skills to share with other departments.

Common Language

It is obvious that a common spoken or written language is necessary for the transfer of knowledge. Less obvious is the languages of a particular field. Davenport and Prusak discuss the necessity for heart surgeons and doctors share the same language and vocabulary (98). I encounter similar problems in my job. I may speak in the language of computer and information technology to someone who is better equipped at speaking the language of engineering. One of the real challenges is to find common ground and be patient so that both of us may understand each other.

In one instance a mechanic was have a problem with a field device. A particular controller was not communicating properly on the network and he couldn’t figure out why. The reason was that he did not hook up the controller in the correct sequence so it had a duplicate network address. He didn’t understand why that would cause this problem. I began explaining the idea of a network address and this is how devices “talk” to each other. The controller he installed had a network address from a previous network and, because the device was powered on before the network was connected, the old address remained and was a duplicate of another. I explained to him that if you hook up the network first and then power on the device, the duplicate address will be found and reset by the network controller.

My mistake in this situation was to begin speaking in the language of networking and not a simpler language that he could understand. By simply saying the problem was most likely a duplicate network address, I hadn’t been able to get through. When I took a step back and explained the whole process of network addresses and how they work, he was able to better understand his mistake and, therefore, less likely to make the same mistake in the future, which will save his and my time.

The discussions of knowledge markets, knowledge maps and common language in my department show a real need for knowledge management to be a part of any manager’s skill set. Knowledge management can save time, money and simply create a more open, team sense in a business. As time goes on, awareness of knowledge management ideas will be a requirement for those who aspire to be managers.

Works Cited

Davenport, H.Thomas, Prusak, Laurence. Working Knowledge - How Organizations Manage What They Know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1998, 2000.