KM Certification – one KM professional’s opinion

Version vom 30. Juli 2015, 06:23 Uhr

by Art Schlussel

I am one of few who have had the opportunity to take the KM certification courses offered by KMPro and KM Institute (KMI). I took the courses while I was creating the curriculum for a Masters level KM Elective Course at the Army War College, AY2009. I wanted to see how others were teaching KM.

The Review

In my opinion both the KMI and KMPro courses are similar. That’s because they developed from the same basic course when KMI and KMPro were the same company. In my opinion both the KMI and KMPro courses are similar. That's because they developed from the same basic course when KMI and KMPro were the same company. The difference is mainly stylistic and emphasis. KMI is more practical in approach with quite a few exercises. KMPro is more theory and discussion based in approach with lots of stories and anecdotes. Both courses are 5 days, but could be condensed down to three or four. Both provide the student a decent introduction to KM, theory, history, application, how to "sell" it, and and some methodologies. I do think that KMI is better for someone with little to no background in KM because there are more exercises and practical examples discussed, however both courses would provide a novice a good overview of KM.

Now my thoughts on KM certification in general. I've had and continue to have ongoing converstations on this subject with Dr. Robert Neilson, the KM Advisor the the Army CIO/ G6, Joe Oebbecke, TRADOC CKO, and a host of others who are looking at ways to provide KM education and training to the DOD. There is a general consensus (I will provide what I think the consensus is and then provide my opinion) that the existing commercially available "certification" programs though useful to provide a basic level of KM training and education do not meet the rigorous standards to be considered true "certification" programs. Therefore the Army (and the other services) do not recognize the "certifications" beyond just realizing that the student has attended a KM training course. What is missing from these programs is the academic rigor (and associated competencies) that must be part of any certification development and sustainment process. Basically, KMI and KMPro are the "certification" boards, and that may be an issue with some organizations. The Army and DOD is looking at developing a true DOD KM CERTIFICATE Program that would run much like the CIO Certificate program at the at National Defense University. This program would have academic rigor and could lead to a masters degree. Notice I am calling it a "certificate program" not a "certification" as a true certification is much more difficult to create and sustain. This program, if it even happens, is still 2-3 years away. I went through a similar process when I was on the AIIM BOD and we were creating the AIIM training programs. It is much easier to create a real certificate program rather then a certification program as the latter requires a certification body, a body of knowledge, etc. that is then recognized and allowed to grant CEU's.

Overall, in my opinion save your money and don't get certified. Use available "free training" that is floating around Internet. Read books such as the Idiot's Guide to KM that we used as the base text book for the KM elective at the Army War College, join KM related groups and forums, take some college level KM courses, and ask experienced KMers for coaching and mentorship. If you are inclined to attending these "certification" classes (and they have "certified" hundreds of folks) just make sure you keep it all in context. Taking one of these courses and becoming certified does not make you a KM expert, does not replace KM experience, and is not the end of KM learning. Rather it is the beginning of your learning process.

Feel free to contact me with any question or comments.

Replies

Alice M.

Hello Art. It's interesting how some KM questions--including certification--keep cycling around year after year.

Statements such as "rigorous standards to be considered true 'certification' programs" frequently come up. We might make some progress by digging into these statements more.

We all know that KM work is highly contextual and wrapped up in the complexities of human and social systems. Yet we either cling to the hope of a 2+2=4 kind of approach in education, or we elevate ourselves to the bleeding edges of new sciences where we hope for some version of a scalable Theory of Everything. Neither works for a typical practitioner.

In 2000, when we were planning the graduate degree in KM at Royal Roads, the advisory board members wanted (rightfully in my view) to emphasize human and social elements of the field. There were technically focused elements, but they were positioned as flexible, responsive and driven by context. Fortunately at that time, the university had a list of institutional abilities, which ideally permeated all programs and courses to guide instructors and the evaluation process. These included themes such as critical thinking, the ability to work in diverse groups and communication skills. All courses bridged theory and practice; several assignments were learner-designed to fit with their professional contexts.

We did not hit the $/# goals (which were better suited to more mainstream programs such as leadership) and the program was dropped (one more person will probably graduate). However, there was some amazing learning, growth and exciting progress with projects in the real world.

Initially, the approval body that oversaw university degrees gave permission for an "MKM" professional degree, but we asked this be changed to an MA in KM because several learners wanted to move into related doctoral work.

This may sound like the kind of thing you are working towards or encouraging. But at the same time, I saw it as very different than certification. We spent much more time on "why" and a range of "how"s than on checklists of processes with reasonable predictable results. When I hear the word "rigor" I always wonder if the speaker or author is thinking of rigor in a quantitative, positivist kind of way (objectivity, scientific method, transferability to other contexts...), or whether qualitative measures of rigor (such as trustworthiness, reflexivity and prolonged work with clients/participants) are being considered instead or as well.

Perhaps we avoid these conversations because they can create a sort of hierarchy of practitioners (reflexive better than efficient; technical better than social; organic better than mechanical...or vice versa)?

Marilyn L.

There are standards for the accreditation of Masters programmes in the UK which address the issues of rigour discussed by previous contributors. Rigour is demonstrated through Masters level course plans - which are subject to external scrutiny of academics running similar programmes elsewhere, through the external scrutiny of the course in action, and through the moderation of the student outputs which are to a common standard.

In my experience Masters level work leads to an understanding of international and national trends as well as deep conceptual understanding of the area of knowledge. Short courses tend to support skill acquisition.

Patrick L.

Hi Art - you have framed in a much more tactful way some of the arguments I have made over several years, and you have done it from the stronger position of having tasted the commercial offerings. This, and the topic you launched over at the CKO group are important steps in an important area - continue to keep the questions and contributions flowing! http://www.greenchameleon.com/gc/article_detail/competencies_certification/ http://www.greenchameleon.com/gc/blog_detail/money_testosterone_and_knowledge_management/

Paolina M.

"Taking one of these courses and becoming certified does not make you a KM expert, does not replace KM experience, and is not the end of KM learning. Rather it is the beginning of your learning process."

Art, I could not agree more. Having been both a KM Manager and a KM consultant, I think the real learning happens when you are deeply immersed in a KM project in an organization, having to deal with the complexities around uncertain futures, human motivations and limited resources.

Not that KM is equivalent to Six Sigma, but at least certification for the latter requires demonstrated experience and success in a real organizational environment. It takes a few years before you can be called an expert (Black Belt). I see some merit in their certification process.

Reference

Art Schlussel et al.: KM Certification – one KM professional’s opinion. LinkedIn group ‘Knowledge Management Education (KMedu) Hub’, 12/2009

Note

To view the article and the comments in the LinkedIn groups you need to be a group member and logged in to LinkedIn