CONTENTS

CMS Francis Lefebvre is one of the leading international business law firms, as well as one of the oldest French firms, renowned for its expertise, quality publications, and doctrinal analyses. It has internal departments specializing in tax law, business law, and labor law. These teams consist of around fifteen legal professionals (including five partners) and high-level experts from academia and public authorities. In collaboration with these departments, specialized lawyers and librarians have always provided expert monitoring and solid support for research and the management of one of the most extensive paper document collections in the field.

A perfect environment for knowledge management? Undoubtedly, but not without its challenges. While knowledge has always circulated effectively within each practice, ensuring the necessary cross-functionality to maximize performance has not always been straightforward.

In 2008, the President of the Executive Board, Pierre-Sébastien Thill, initiated an extensive project on knowledge management (KM) and its necessary strategic alignment with business development (BD) and human resources management (HR). A study conducted with our clients had revealed their increasing expectation for a more comprehensive approach to the issues at hand.

Implementation of the knowledge management strategy: resources and methodology 

Three project leaders were appointed for each mission (KM, BD, and HR), and consultants were recruited to assist them. Ourouk, a consulting firm, accompanied us in the realization of the KM project. The three projects were carried out simultaneously, and cross-functional meetings were organized to ensure overall coherence.

As a project manager at the firm for several years (implementing an ERP, ECM, etc.), I was entrusted with this project, which allowed me to grasp (or address) significant challenges; especially:  

• How to align the knowledge management strategy with concrete business development actions?

• Which levers to activate to overcome organizational obstacles and resistance to knowledge sharing?

• How to assist existing expert teams accustomed to operating within knowledge silos in better disseminating knowledge?

A client-oriented knowledge management project 

Through well-known techniques such as SWOT analysis, interviews and working groups, and benchmarking of practices, we conducted an assessment, identified target processes to implement, and studied tools that could facilitate better information dissemination and increased cross-functionality.

This led to a portfolio of projects to be implemented over several years, including recruiting certain missing profiles (such as lawyer knowledge managers), improving dissemination with a cross-functional search engine, establishing connections with the ECM system, fostering closer collaboration between KM and BD teams, and consolidating knowledge managers in a shared workspace for enhanced collaboration. The coordination of this team by a Director, in consultation with operational teams, complemented the structure, providing an overall view of all resources, processes, and evolving needs.

Knowledge management in constant evolution 

A platform dedicated to monitoring 

Monitoring has become increasingly complex and specialized, with multiple sources and limited time. To meet the demands of responsiveness and handling large volumes, we established a monitoring platform several years ago using the KBCrawl tool. On this platform, all members of the KM team share their legal and economic sources, program them according to their needs, and distribute them as thematic newsletters that any lawyer can subscribe to, regardless of their specialization. All lawyers and interns have automatic access (single sign-on) to the platform and can customize their monitoring. A mobile application is available for accessing content at any time and receiving notifications.

Today, each knowledge manager provides lawyers and the firm with relevant informational and methodological resources as early as possible, facilitating action and decision-making. This enabled us to practically implement up-to-date dedicated monitoring on topics such as Brexit, the consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic and the situation in Ukraine.

An organization by departments and exchange meetings: 

The members of the KM team are now better equipped to understand topics beyond their scope because they have a 360-degree view of the various issues discussed during team meetings. 

Meetings with business developers specialized in different areas are frequent.

Continuous training: 

To master a large number of legal and economic databases, ongoing training and staying informed are essential to ensure the expected quality of service.

Key success factors for project implementation: 

For the success of the project, sponsorship from the organization's management is essential, and support from specialists is a significant advantage. However, to break down silos of expertise, participative and open management is of great help. It is necessary to understand that KM is a profession of experts, and not all legal disciplines have the same dynamics. It is important to listen, work on common projects, exchange ideas, and share within the KM team and then with the lawyers and other support teams, especially BD (Business Development).

Lessons learned:

A KM project is not just a technological project: Tools can assist, but the real focus should be on people and their needs.

KM cannot be imposed or mandated. Before initiating a KM initiative, three essential factors should be considered to identify the best approach: the size of the organization, its industry sector, and the company culture.

The KM project should be sponsored by management and allocated dedicated resources, such as a project manager and support from experts.

One of the key lessons from such projects is not to make assumptions about what may seem obvious. Simple situations can create barriers. For example, a challenge identified was knowing "who does what": while lawyers were familiar with the main areas of expertise of their colleagues, some niche subjects were not clearly identified as falling within the competence of one lawyer or another. This could lead to missed opportunities to recommend a colleague to a client in a specific specialized field where that colleague excelled.

A general principle applicable to all projects is that the simplest solution to a problem is often the best. For certain practices, sharing an Excel file with the most relevant (content-wise) cases and the lawyers who worked on them can be the most effective way to find a contact person for a previously mentioned question. Deploying more sophisticated tools can become time-consuming and unnecessary.

It is interesting to note that, after a few years, lawyers perceive KM as a unique multidisciplinary structure with highly specialized contacts. They know that the service will be provided regardless of the absence or unavailability of the usual knowledge managers or librarians. This translates into more varied, cross-cutting, continuous, and challenging requests. Undoubtedly, there has been an increase in visibility and service quality.

Perspectives

Two approaches are interesting for further development:

• Conducting benchmarks: CMS provides the opportunity to exchange with our international counterparts. Dynamics are different among our colleagues in English, Dutch, or German-speaking countries, for example. This diversity is a great asset, even though what works for some may not necessarily be suitable for others.

• Being a member of a professional association for legal information professionals such as  Juriconnexion in France , BIALL -British and Irish Association of Legal Librarians or  AALL American Association of Law Libraries to name but a few, allows for high-quality exchanges and remarkable collaboration. It provides early access to new services and tools on the market, and the ability to question our practices.

Trusting field employees to create, maintain, and disseminate business knowledge that is useful for all operations (customer service and management tasks) was a successful initiative undertaken by MGEN in 2012. More than ten years later, the approach still works and has evolved. Integrated into chatbot projects and training, Knowledge Management is no longer a standalone subject but an integral part of MGEN's operational excellence strategy at the mutual insurance company.

An initiative led by the Quality department 

At MGEN (a major player in social protection and the leading mutual insurance company for civil servants), Knowledge Management became part of employees' daily routine as early as 2012. 

The project originated from the Quality department within the Operations Directorate, aiming to ensure consistent, accurate, and reliable responses to policyholders and members amidst a context of organizational reorganization and activity transfers. 

The challenge however, was to uphold the company’s standards in terms the reliability and centralization of abundant, technical, sometimes complex, and ever-changing information, used by 5,000 employees.  

The KM project emerged in 2011 with the belief that its purpose was not just to create a knowledge base but to establish a dedicated system: a team of experts, a networked organization, methods, and tools. The ultimate goal was to implement a sustainable approach, at least within the Operations Directorate. 

With the creation of a Knowledge Manager position and the support of a KM expert, various initiatives in organizational aspects (actors, workload distribution, workflows), methodology (KM training), and tool development (design and training) were launched.

Priority given to employees 

Who better than a customer service representative, who is responsible for client relationships, knows what another representative needs? 

This unwavering belief, combined with a consistently collaborative approach and methodology, enables the provision of knowledge cards that closely align with the operational needs of all users. 

Initiated as a project with workshops to design the tool and card templates, the collaborative approach has since permeated all processes involved in knowledge creation and updates, tool enhancements, information sharing, and communication. 

Today, a network of 200 employees updates 4,000 knowledge cards, responds to 2,000 annual comments, and exchanges business information and best practices through over 30 thematic collaborative spaces, all within a single platform named Genius. This coordinated system, based at the Mutual Insurance headquarters, ensures continuous listening to employees and their needs.

KM, a multi-purpose system 

Over the past ten years, Genius has evolved with the times, changing its appearance several times, transitioning to different tools, and enabling the development of a chatbot project for both customers and employees starting in 2016. While the uses and technologies may differ, without the knowledge base, our chatbot based on deterministic artificial intelligence would not have been possible, at least not as quickly and effectively. Behind these two complementary uses, the same organization operates with the same network of contributors and update processes.

In 2021, when re-evaluating the organization of training for customer service representatives and managers, it was only natural that this responsibility was entrusted to the Knowledge Management department, as the links between knowledge and competence are inseparable. KM, driven by collective dynamics, now allows us to ensure the individual development of skills. At MGEN, we have placed our knowledge base at the heart of our professional development system, favoring shorter training materials, dynamic presentations, and illustrations made possible by the existence of Genius, the reference base that can be accessed before, during, and after training sessions. The HR department remains responsible for pedagogical and training engineering and continues to work in other areas such as soft skills, sales, tools, etc. 

Two years after this new development for KM, we are considering other uses to go even further and anchor employees' knowledge, acquired through training and accessible via the chatbot and Genius, over time. This would take us another step closer to managing knowledge as a true lever for performance and operational excellence for an organization that keeps changing.

ASEAN countries have progressed considerably in startup ecosystem, leading by Singapore which is ranked 5th in Asia and 17th globally by the 2021 Global Startup Ecosystem Report.  Its vibrant ecosystem partly drove Singapore to the 8th most innovative nation ranked by the 2021 Global Innovation Index.  Singapore typically received the highest average investment of venture capitals in the ASEAN region, but from 2017 to 2019 Vietnam saw the highest average growth rate of 103. 5% compared with 53.6% of Indonesia and 40.5% of Singapore [1].  With the numbers of startups of 4,680 in Singapore, about 3,472 in Vietnam and more than 2,300 in Indonesia in 2022 reported by SG Startup and Statisa, the three ecosystems have remarkably outperformed their ASEAN colleagues.  Indonesia was home to seven unicorns, the highest in Southeast Asia [2].  It is then of interest analysing what situates behind their solid upsurges.

Among major components supporting a startup ecosystem, talents who embody knowledge and skills from old firms, universities, and research institutions to be utilised in new ventures are accentuated in conventional literature.  They generally create useful knowledge spill-overs and externalities within the ecosystem [3,4].  In this respect, Singapore is ranked 2nd globally for talent competitiveness by the 2021 INSEAD’s Global Talent Index.  The success of the country is partly due to its high-quality education system at all levels.  Each year its universities produce over 15,000 graduates, many of whom specialise in areas relevant to startups: engineering, natural and physical sciences, mathematical sciences, and business administration.  Moreover, the government maintains open policies for and successfully draws foreign talents [5].

In Indonesia, most tech startup talents have strong coverages at universities, especially under the two main government startup programs.  Some startup founders already have experiences before launching their startups [6].  Over 90% of Indonesian start-ups and unicorns have co-founders having been studied or worked overseas for a period of time [2]. 

In Vietnam, talents are also tightly from universities and research institutes.  Vietnam’s universities have the greatest potential for creating startups, as they have research projects for students and offer STEM courses.  Additionally, they develop talents through incubators and accelerators [7]. 

Although the three countries have been well supported by knowledge-based talents, the future progresses of their startup ecosystems could be clogged by talent scarcity.  This has already begun in Singapore.  A survey by ACE/PwC [8] finds that Singapore encounters a deficiency of talented professionals as the number of new startups skyrocketed.  New ventures have to compete with multinational corporations for talents in the areas of business developers, data scientists, software engineers, IP and intangible asset management, etc.  Some of them require talents in more advanced fields that have not sufficiently provided at local universities.  Besides, various upskilling programmes have not yet been adequately supported by the government and higher educational institution networks.  In Indonesia, a low tertiary education rate and a brain drain of qualified talents lead to present talent shortages.  Salaries of software engineers, digital marketers and other crucial startup works have been already driven up by the shortages. Complaints were reported about quick turnarounds, employee job-hopping, and moonlighting [2]. In Vietnam, the lack of medical expertise among founders are vital.  Staff with health technology skills are scarce and drawn away mainly by large companies and foreign investors offering higher salaries [7].  It is hence a matter of planning, upskilling and creating (new) talents to match with requirements in the rising and prospected startup areas.

In addition to the above experiences, we could also learn about how to tackle the talent problems.  ACE/PwC [8]’s study puts forward key recommendations for Singapore: providing incentives and supports to attract the new generation to study and pursue a career in technological areas, providing incentives for placement programmes between large corporations and startups, funding a dedicated university programme co-designed with startup founders, executing a mentorship programme between successful entrepreneurs and young aspirant entrepreneurs, etc.  In Indonesia, steps have been undertaken by both private and public stakeholders. Bottom-up initiatives have been done by large 25 players by investing in talent pipelines development, including building internal capabilities through their own upskilling academies.  Other startups are offering bootcamps, courses and programs to upskill Indonesians at a fraction of the time and cost of traditional degrees.  The top-down initiatives include the government’s reverse brain drain projects, covering increasing scholarship opportunities for locals and foreigners with bonds to return or work in Indonesia and increasing benefits and incentives for returning Indonesians in public roles or universities. The government has also carried out relocation supports for entrepreneurs [2]. 

Thus, all these enabling factors across the region are making these nations embrace and retain talent and further enhance the startup ecosystem.

References:

[1] Kitpanich, P. 2021. “The CLMVT Start-up and Technology Ecosystems: Where Are We and Where Do We Go from Here?” Focused and Quick (FAQ) 186: 1-11.

[2] Shenoy, S. 2021.  Indonesia State of Startup Ecosystem. Jakarta, Indonesia: Quest Ventures.

[3] Acs, Z.J., P. Braunerhjelm, D.B. Audretsch et al. 2009. “The Knowledge Spillover Theory of Entrepreneurship.” Small Business Economics 32: 15-30.

[4] Acs, Z. J., E. Stam, D.B. Audretsch, and A. O’Connor. 2017. “The Lineages of the Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Approach.” Small Business Economics 49(1), 1–10. 

[5] Pangarkar, N. and P. Vandenberg. 2022. Singapore’s Ecosystem for Technology Startups and Lessons for Its Neigbors.  Manila, Philippines: Asian Development Bank.

[6] Bachtiar, P.P., P.V Hening, and W. Sawiji. 2021. “City-Level Tech Startup Ecosystems and Talent Development in Indonesia.” ADB Briefs, No. 228, 1-12.

[7] Pham, T.T. and A. Hampel-Milagrosa. 2022. Vietnam’s Ecosystem for Technology Startups. Manila. Philippines: Asian Development Bank.

[8] ACE/PwC. 2022. Creating a Future-Ready Startup Ecosystem. Singapore: Action Community for Entrepreneurship/PwC.

When engaging into a KM initiative, people in charge are often told that success relies on five parameters: People, Process, Technology, Content and Governance. But what this actually means from a practical standpoint needs some clarification, because many KMers tend to overemphasize one of these parameters, downplaying the others. If they come from IT, they will build KM projects over IT platforms and use cases. If they come from HR, they will emphasize sociology and what it takes to “break down silos”. But all of them are important, and they need to be addressed simultaneously. 

“People” is about fostering engagement

An effective KM system relies on engagement. It is therefore necessary to communicate, to support, to co-construct. Organizations with advanced KM practices tend to organize a variety of knowledge sharing events such as the engineers’ day, the yearly competition of good practices, “meet the expert” meetings, etc., as well as a diversity of internal publications to encourage knowledge sharing, to show that knowledge actually flows, and to highlight the heroes of this transmission of knowledge.

“Process” is about embedding KM activities into business processes

The development of KM requires that the associated knowledge sharing / capitalization activities are integrated as much as possible into normal work processes. These can be existing processes such as project management, or new processes centered on knowledge such as an innovation contest. The idea of ​​company standards and norms for KM thus become central.

“Technology” is about introducing new web technologies, especially semantic technologies

In the past, innovations in KM technology were initially born in large companies, then gradually passed into the general public. Since web 2.0 and the development of social networks on the web, it is the other way around: major innovations in KM are tested on the web on a broad constituency of users, then are adapted to the business world. KM successes in business are largely inspired by those of the web. Yesterday, it was Google, Wikipedia, YouTube, LinkedIn; today, it is ChatGPT; tomorrow it will be the blockchain, tokens and smart contracts. It is therefore mandatory that the team in charge of KM uses and understands all the new web technologies that are relevant for KM to be able to introduce them in their organization in due time.

“Content” is about giving structure to explicit knowledge

Structuring content is essential if it is to be made usable not only by humans but also by machines. The better the structure of data, content and metadata, the better employees and machines can find their way around, even in the likely event of diversification of platforms, each adapted to a particular type of content.

Traditionally, the role of IT teams was about introducing new digital technologies into the company and to devise their use cases. That of the KM teams was to try to make the most of those technologies, by embedding them in the business processes and the corporate culture through common governance (“urban planning”) and common support services. A central aspect of this governance is to take responsibility for the data model common to all the platforms and tools for capitalizing on and sharing knowledge, the objective being to integrate those into a single KM system.

What is important is to realize that successful KM initiatives give careful consideration to each one of these five points. 

Let’s give a couple of examples: 

Technicatome, a French engineering company specializing in nuclear propulsion, consolidates its engineering knowledge in an online library of technical instructions. In the project management process, it is specified that upon project closure, instructions to be updated are listed. These instructions are then given to a team of relatively young engineers together with a list of people to be interviewed. This team is given the mission to propose an updated document based on the result of the interviews. The proposed update is then submitted to a jury composed of managers and experts. A meeting takes place, and the proposed updates are discussed. The outcome of the meeting is twofold:

1. An updated document incorporating all the modifications that every member of the group agrees on, and which becomes the new reference.

2. Recorded minutes of the meeting so that all the discussions that took place during the meeting can be revisited at any time to understand why some modifications were accepted and others were not.

In this example, the five levers are apparent:

• People: The responsibility of drafting a proposed update is given to young engineers, and it becomes part of their hands-on learning path.

• Process: The updating process is documented and ritualized as a normal outcome of the experience feedback of projects.

• Technology: Not only are updated instructions stored in an official library with metadata and strict access control, but minutes of the meeting are recorded, initially in written text, and now in automated transcription.

• Content: The internal structure of these instructions as well as the metadata used classification are standardized.

• Governance: The entire process is handled by the knowledge owner of the library of instructions, who happens to be one of the top experts of the company.

Another example:

At Schneider Electric, one of the areas of critical knowledge is the technology behind variable speed drives (VSD), and specialists in this domain are in high demand. To make sure to have enough specialists and to keep them in the company, an attractive six months learning path for junior technicians was set up, combining lectures and on-the-field training. In case of success, the newly trained technicians were accepted as full members of the global VSD community of practice, which met locally or online every two months, and had a yearly global convention face-to-face. During these community meetings, experience feedback and best practices are shared between all members and some of them included by the trainers in the VSD training program. But sometimes it went the other way around: the trainers would seize the opportunity of the meeting to refresh the minds of all community members, giving lectures on theoretical physics related to VSD.

In this example, the five levers are apparent as well:

• People: The training program is made attractive because access to a valuable community is at stake. People in charge of training are key community members as well, which helps them do a better job as trainers.

• Process: The ritual of the yearly VSD convention and regular peer reviews of projects is acknowledged as a company standard and supported by the marketing department and by HR.

• Technology: The community of practice has its online collaborative site based where all relevant content is stored.

• Content: The courseware used for training is a key part of the community’s knowledge base along with other content related to peer reviewed customer projects.

• Governance: Training as well as knowledge sharing and capture are integrated into a single consistent KM initiative.

From these examples as well as many others, we can see that KM initiatives need to be thoroughly explored from several viewpoints before actually being kicked off. There might be some changes from the initial plan as the initiative develops, but careful consideration of these five different viewpoints gives a higher probability of success.

Introduction

Higher education institutions (HEIs) or universities are the moving force behind a knowledge-based society and are among the institutions entrusted “to create, communicate, distribute, and utilize knowledge.” This has posed a challenge to Philippine universities whose primary function in research is to be at the forefront of “technology-directed and innovative/creative research that is locally responsive and globally competitive.” Research emanating from the universities is regarded as one of modern civilization’s significant and sophisticated accomplishments where the technical knowledge and skills that industry requires are honed. 

The research results of higher education institutions are not just about disseminating information, sharing or publishing, or creating one-way information flows and storing information, but rather about engagement, participation and care to impact, which refers to the influence on the community who are willingly committed to practice whatever changes are brought about by the research results through the lens of knowledge mobilization (KMb).  Knowledge Mobilization (KMb) goes far beyond the dissemination of knowledge; rather it brings “knowledge, people, and action together to create value”, i.e. to contribute to the economic growth of a country.

From the Research Directors

HEIs have varied ways of knowledge mobilization to their internal stakeholders. Mostly, their researchers, composed of their faculty and graduate and undergraduate students from all their campuses (if the university has multiple campuses), conduct presentation of research outputs or extension outputs for the benefit of their internal stakeholders in the form of a Research Colloquium or a Research Congress. Universities with Research Journal and Compendium of Abstracts publish the researches while those with a working website upload the research outputs and other activities related to their researches in their Research Portal, through the Facebook page of the university, or through Online Commons for their students. Hard copies are provided only to specific offices and officials, while others receive soft copies through email. In the case of an HEI that specializes in teacher education and technical-vocational education, knowledge created is disseminated to their people in the field through seminars and pre- and post-service training and through the instructional materials they develop.

Further, a university had organized “Pathways to Refereed Journal Publication,” a strategy of the Research Management Office under the Office of the university Vice President (OVP) to disseminate all research results to all the members of the faculty with the possibility that they might be able to use it or it might help them develop their own research. Faculty papers submitted under Pathways are assessed by evaluators; the university providing assistance in improving their papers and getting them published. Research results are disseminated in the form of a paper presentation under Resounding. A Colloquium is held annually where all researches produced for the year and presented in different international conferences are discussed. Its Pathways to Citations assists its faculty increase the citations of their papers. 

From the Project Research Leaders

The project research leaders of one university acknowledge that all of their research outputs are submitted to the university’s unit that manages researches to review the alignment of the research topics into the university research agenda before uploading them in the Research Portal. At present, digital copies of undergraduate theses are uploaded in the system although it is accessible only to students of the university.  A research practice that aims to compensate for its limited number of researchers is to form a small group discussion (SGD) to look for possible adopters or collaborators with technopreneurship skill after disseminating the Research Agenda to all colleges of the HEI. 

Still another practice is utilizing the research outputs inside the campus first. The HEIs use technology to meet the needs of its internal stakeholders by augmenting their income through urban agriculture project, by developing machines that provide students better exposure and hands-on application on the use of equipment that are lighter and more practical to use, and by creating a ready-to-eat product that has given them sustenance in times of calamities like typhoons when they end up in evacuation centers. In this way, internal stakeholders are more aware of the technology or research outputs developed by their own HEIs. 

The project research leaders acknowledge that to increase knowledge mobilization to internal stakeholders, dissemination of research outputs should be harmonized with the university research agenda. 

• Journal publication. Researchers can have their works published in academic journals widely read by other researchers, academics, and professionals in their field. This can be accomplished by submitting articles to peer-reviewed journals, which are reviewed by experts in the field before they are accepted for publication.

• Conference presentations. Researchers can share their findings with other researchers and receive feedback on their works by presenting them at conferences, seminars, meetings with colleagues, small group discussion, and focus group discussion. 

• Online dissemination. Researchers can disseminate their work online by using social media platforms, research gateways, email, Online Commons, academic blogs, and websites. This can help to increase the visibility of their works and provide wider access to the results of their research.

• Policy brief. Researchers can create policy briefs that summarize their research findings and are intended for policymakers and other stakeholders who may be interested in the study.  These policies and guidelines provide sustainability, priorities, and direction in disseminating research output to the potential players and fortify the implementation of research output to ensure that the knowledge generated will be implemented and made meaningful to the beneficiaries. 

• Research compendium. Researchers can publish research outputs in magazine format that can be easily understood and appreciated by non-researchers.

Effective dissemination of research output is essential to ensure that research findings are broadly distributed, understood, and utilized, and can help the flow of knowledge to a specific sector.

The amount of information and data available in business today is enormous – and still growing. With global data, news, trends, and rumours at their fingertips, it might seem like businesses would be able to rapidly identify and respond to coming changes. Many companies use some variety of strategic scanning, foresight, or other methods to identify and respond to changes, but may still miss vital clues in their strategic environment, which can make them slow to respond or even unable to adapt entirely. How can this problem be addressed? One possibility is through the formal detection and analysis of weak signals as part of the strategic process. 

1. What are weak signals, and how can they enhance business strategy?

The notion of weak signals was introduced by Igor Ansoff in the 1970s. As he explained then, a weak signal was a datum, or piece of information, that could presage a coming change in the environment. A weak signal can be described as an intuition or hunch that something is important, even if this hunch is not immediately supported by evidence. 

It may not seem obvious at first that weak signals are valuable for business. Weak signals are not like trends, fads, or news – they often may seem ambiguous, occluded, or even irrelevant to the strategic environment when they first become apparent. Furthermore, the weak signal may seem to be distant from the current situation (hence their “weakness”). The ambiguity and uncertainty surrounding weak signals can often lead firms to ignore or even reject them in favour of strong signals, which have already become relevant.

However, if properly detected and interpreted, weak signals can serve as an early warning sign of coming changes, allowing businesses to plan adjustments in their strategies for expected changes before they are needed. For example, a McKinsey report on weak signals recounted the case of a large company whose executive was able to identify an opportunity to raise prices through social listening, triggered by weak signals that such a raise may be appropriate. Weak signals could also help businesses avoid trouble – or at least mitigate its effects – by identifying upcoming problems. Thus, weak signals can have significant long-term and short-term benefits.

2. How can your firm use weak signals?  

The good news is your firm is probably already using weak signals! One of the most common and informal ways that firms use weak signals is in managerial decision-making, which is often driven by both rational evidence and intuition or hunches about the business environment. As long as these intuitions are not ignored, the firm can achieve many of the benefits of weak signals.

It is also possible to use more formal approaches to weak signals detection and interpretation as part of the firm’s foresight or other strategic scanning activities. The collection of weak signals can involve tools like social listening, which scans social media for potentially relevant information. It can also involve much more complex tools, depending on the firm’s strategic and operating environments and available resources. 

Whether your firm’s use of weak signals is simple and informal or complex and formalized, it has the potential to enable the firm to adapt rapidly to changes in the operating environment. Thus, it is worth considering whether more extensive use of weak signals is right for the firm.