Upon joining Mediq as a Knowledge Manager a year and a half ago, Hein Terwindt immediately noticed a knowledge management issue. Employees were sending emails to product managers for specific inquiries, and product managers, wanting to share information with customer service, were emailing team leaders. However, using Outlook as a makeshift knowledge repository was neither efficient nor effective. This approach led to overflowing inboxes for product managers and critical information being informally shared in an ad-hoc manner during the workday or jotted down on lists and sticky notes. Even though a wealth of information was available, it was fragmented and lacked easy accessibility.

To address this, Mediq began by identifying the most frequently asked questions and then embarked on the task of rewriting and validating the available knowledge. Due to the absence of comprehensive management information, employees were actively involved in providing input, and call reasons were meticulously documented. Information was collected for each query, not only about products but also about process details. During this process, Terwindt and Van Gestel frequently encountered outdated information and discrepancies in descriptions of identical processes, highlighting the issue of knowledge decay.

The next step was to choose a system to systematically store this information. Drawing from their experiences at previous employers, Terwindt and Van Gestel had clear criteria for evaluating a suitable knowledge management system. They required a system with robust editorial capabilities, an intuitive and swift search function, and minimal complexity. Furthermore, the selected system needed to support every aspect of knowledge management, including automated reminders for periodic reviews, a straightforward review process, and version control.

Before shortlisting potential systems, Van Gestel and Terwindt visited several organizations to exchange knowledge and experiences. Various departments, including procurement and IT, compiled an exhaustive list of requirements. They also thoroughly considered how to evaluate and weigh the features of available solutions. During this process, they engaged in discussions about the offerings and requested two suppliers to provide a trial version for a proof of concept. Basic questions were integrated into the applications, and employees tested the systems using real-world scenarios. This phase was pivotal in assessing the level of commitment exhibited by the suppliers.

Terwindt and Van Gestel emphasized that the suitability of a knowledge management system for an organization is influenced by various factors. A rapid response time to search queries is of paramount importance, as delayed responses can compel employees to seek assistance from their colleagues. They sought a solution that was streamlined and avoided unnecessary complexity. They shared an instance where one of the solutions had a print button in the user interface, which raised concerns about the potential loss of control over printed information. Furthermore, they sought a supplier willing to continually enhance the knowledge management system based on feedback, underscoring the significance of fostering a productive working relationship with the chosen partner. Other factors included assessing solvency, pricing, and long-term viability.

However, the success of knowledge management hinges not only on selecting a suitable solution but also on the organization’s acknowledgment of the value of knowledge sharing and its translation into relevant behaviors. Organizations that have historically been product-focused need to recognize that service is an integral component of their products. Initially, product managers were reluctant to contribute to the knowledge base, as their traditional role as a source of information primarily involved sharing information via email.

As a Knowledge Manager, Terwindt’s role involved persuading and motivating individuals to embrace the new system. He also established agreements with teams, such as team leaders incorporating knowledge management into their daily meetings. He offered support whenever required and introduced a bi-weekly newsletter to keep employees informed about new information they would miss out on if they didn’t use the system. As the system is still being populated with knowledge, they haven’t entirely phased out other information sources at workstations yet. However, a clean desk policy is on the horizon, and they plan to introduce this transition in an engaging manner.

While Mediq does not possess specific ROI figures for the knowledge digitization process, they have already observed several benefits. Specialists who previously provided information via email have more available time. Customer contact employees can commence work more rapidly after training, and the initial results indicate an enhancement in conversation quality. The shift to on-the-fly information retrieval has positively impacted call duration. Both customers and employees have expressed satisfaction, with average scores of 8.3 out of 10. Employees no longer need to wait for a subject matter expert to be available on-site, and they perceive the system as a valuable tool that contributes to their job satisfaction.