2. DEFINING KM AND KM TOOLS IN LEGAL PRACTICE

Knowledge management refers to the coordinated practice of identifying, capturing, curating, sharing and applying an organisation’s collective knowledge assets. While definitions vary, a widely accepted view describes KM as the systematic process of creating, managing and using knowledge to achieve organisational objectives.Footnote ⁴ These assets extend beyond traditional external library resources to encompass internal information. This includes precedents, know-how, templates, practice notes, policies and tacit expertise, etc.

KM tools are the technological enablers of the knowledge process. These might be (and are certainly not limited to) portals, intranets, search platforms, databases, knowledge management systems, content management systems, document management systems, collaboration spaces and, increasingly, AI-driven assistants. Within legal practice, these systems operate in an environment characterised by high-value intellectual capital, regulatory complexity and the need for accuracy under time pressure.

In this context, the effective adoption of KM tools depends on more than end-user technical capability. Success requires cultural alignment, integration with existing workflows, and the creation of a wider cultural environment in which knowledge-sharing is valued and rewarded.

3. FIVE BARRIERS TO ENGAGEMENT

Interviews with legal information professionals reveal five recurring barriers that impede sustained engagement with KM tools: time, usability, culture, trust and perceived value. While each presents a distinct challenge, they often interact in ways that reinforce resistance to adoption.

Time remains the most frequently cited obstacle. In environments where performance is closely tied to billable hours, KM activity is often perceived as ancillary to ‘real’ work. Even when practitioners recognise the long-term benefits of knowledge-sharing, immediate client demands frequently take precedence, making it difficult to allocate time for content creation, curation or even use of KM platforms.

Usability issues compound this reluctance. Tools that are overly complex, employ unfamiliar jargon, or require multiple logins disrupt workflows and increase end-user frustration. Poorly integrated systems force users to work outside their usual processes, creating friction that discourages repeat use.

Culture plays a pivotal role. In competitive professional environments, knowledge may be seen as a personal asset rather than a shared resource. This can result in a reluctance to contribute to central repositories or to collaborate across practice areas. Cultural norms that reward individual achievement over collective success can inadvertently perpetuate this behaviour.

Trust is another critical factor. Professionals may withhold contributions if they are uncertain how their knowledge will be used, whether it will be attributed appropriately, or whether sharing will diminish their perceived value within the organisation. Conversely, leadership may underinvest in KM initiatives if the return on that investment is not immediately visible, perpetuating a cycle of low adoption.

Finally, Perceived Value determines whether users see KM as integral to their work. Without clear, demonstrable links between the use of KM tools and improvements in efficiency, accuracy or client service, such systems risk being dismissed as irrelevant or peripheral.

These barriers align closely with the ‘silo’ typology described in Harvard Business Review, which identifies three forms of organisational siloing: systemic, elitist, and protectionist.Footnote ⁵

• • Systemic silos emerge from structural separation, such as rigid departmental boundaries or practice-group specialisation, which limit opportunities for cross-functional collaboration.

• • Elitist silos occur when certain groups – often those with specialised expertise – view their knowledge as exclusive, restricting access and discouraging broad participation.

• • Protectionist silos are characterised by deliberate information-hoarding to maintain power, control or competitive advantage.

For KM professionals, this typology offers a useful context. Time pressures, for example, may be intensified by systemic silos, where duplicated effort across departments goes unrecognised. Usability challenges may be exacerbated by elitist silos, in which tool design reflects the preferences of a small expert group rather than the needs of the wider user base. Cultural and trust issues often arise from protectionist silos, where knowledge-sharing is viewed with suspicion.

Addressing these barriers, therefore, is not simply a matter of tool enhancement or user training. It requires an explicit recognition of the structural and cultural contexts in which KM operates. Targeted interventions, for example, aligning goals across departments, modelling inclusive communication, and establishing secure, transparent mechanisms for sharing, are essential for dismantling silos and creating an environment in which engagement with KM tools can flourish.

4. IDENTIFYING THE GAPS: LISTENING AS A CORE PROFESSIONAL SKILL

Before implementing or revising KM tools, legal information professionals must establish a clear understanding of user needs. The reference interview, a core skill in librarianship, is particularly applicable here: structured, open-ended questioning that surfaces implicit requirements and challenges.Footnote ⁶ In the context of KM, this approach can uncover needs that users themselves may not have articulated, helping to ensure that solutions are fit for purpose.

Targeted conversations with a cross-section of relevant people, for example, practice support lawyers, fee-earners, business development, risk and compliance, and administrative teams, can reveal barriers invisible to system administrators. This listening process not only generates valuable intelligence but also fosters trust, signalling that KM initiatives are collaborative rather than imposed.

One example from the BIALL KM Special Interest Group session ‘Connecting KM Across Professions’ (26 February 2025) illustrates the point. A new joiner asked: “Where do I put my stuff?”. Far from indicating disengagement, this question reflected a willingness to contribute, provided the process was clear and supported. In this case, attentive listening uncovered not only a specific user query but also a more general issue: uncertainty about ownership and process.

This demonstrates that the barriers to effective KM are often rooted in a lack of listening. Without mechanisms to capture and act upon user perspectives, valuable insights remain scattered across departments. By actively listening and addressing these barriers – whether through clearer governance, streamlined submission processes, or visible acknowledgement of contributions – KM professionals can foster a sense of ownership among users.

When individuals see that their input is valued and acted upon, KM systems shift from being perceived as imposed tools to becoming collaborative assets that strengthen organisational performance.

5. STRATEGIES FOR ENGAGEMENT: THE LEXICON FRAMEWORK

To provide a practical model, the engagement strategies discussed here are structured around the mnemonic LEXICON:

Link KM to daily workflows – Ensure KM processes fit seamlessly into existing tasks. Automate data capture where possible and avoid separate, burdensome submission processes.

Empower champions – Identify respected individuals in different practice areas who can model engagement, provide informal support, and advocate for KM adoption.

eXplain the value – Clearly connect KM use to real-world benefits: reduced duplication, faster turnaround, higher-quality outputs and better client service.

Integrate with existing systems – Embed KM tools within familiar platforms, minimising the need for multiple logins or disruptive context-switching.

Cultivate a knowledge-sharing culture – Recognise contributions, from formal content creation to informal expertise-sharing, in visible and meaningful ways.

Optimise for ease of use – Apply user-centred design principles: intuitive navigation, powerful search and minimal friction.

Nurture feedback loops – Implement and act on feedback mechanisms – such as “Was this helpful?” buttons – to signal responsiveness and continual improvement.

6. SUSTAINING ENGAGEMENT: KM AS A CONTINUOUS CYCLE

Achieving initial buy-in for a KM initiative is only the first step; sustaining engagement requires continuous attention and adaptation. KM should be understood not as a one-off project but as an ongoing, cyclical process in which each stage reinforces and informs the others.

The cycle begins with the active capture of knowledge from real-world work, ensuring that valuable insights, precedents, and innovations are not lost in the flow of daily activity. Once captured, the material must be structured, that is to say, organised in a way that supports discoverability, standardisation and ease of use. This is followed by delivery, which involves ensuring that knowledge is accessible at the point of need, integrated with existing workflows and systems so that it can be retrieved without undue effort.

However, the cycle does not end with delivery. Sustained engagement depends on regular review, whereby user feedback and usage data are analysed to determine whether resources are meeting their intended purpose. This leads to optimisation, in which systems and content are refined to reflect new business priorities, changes in legal practice, or evolving user requirements.

For example, if a firm develops expertise in a new sector or area of law, the KM system should be ready to support that expansion through updated taxonomies, new expert profiles and relevant precedents.

In this cyclical model, each phase builds the conditions for the next: effective capture facilitates better structuring; well-structured content enables seamless delivery; informed delivery encourages meaningful feedback; and feedback, in turn, drives optimisation. Engagement is maintained not by one-off campaigns, but by embedding this iterative process into the operational fabric of the organisation, supported by clear ownership, dedicated resources, and a commitment to continual improvement.

7. TRANSFORM QUICK WINS INTO LASTING CHANGE: PRACTICAL MEASURES FOR KM ENGAGEMENT

Effective engagement with knowledge management (KM) requires both rapid, visible wins and deliberate, long-term strategies. Short-term interventions demonstrate immediate value, while sustained measures embed KM into organisational culture. The following framework presents seven complementary approaches drawn from professional practice and real-world examples.

8. THE KEYS TO SPARKING END-USER ENGAGEMENT?

End-user engagement with KM tools is both a strategic necessity and a practical challenge for legal information professionals. The solutions lie not solely in technology, but in the integration of human-centred design, cultural change and active advocacy.

The LEXICON framework presented in this article offers legal information managers a practical, memorable tool for addressing these challenges in a systematic way. By linking KM to daily workflows, empowering champions, explaining and highlighting value, integrating systems, cultivating a sharing culture, optimising usability, and nurturing feedback, professionals can create the conditions for sustained engagement.

In applying this framework, legal information managers not only improve the adoption and impact of KM tools but also position themselves as key drivers of organisational knowledge strategy. In doing so, they affirm the significant role of the profession in shaping not only the systems, but the culture, of knowledge within their organisations – fulfilling the promise set out in this practical LEXICON to spark end-user engagement.