Sharing knowledge about how things are to be done is a crucial capability for corporations, as they try to ensure quality and consistency in the face of constant pressure from competitors. Startups may get by relying on team members observing and learning from one another, but in any medium-sized or large corporation, structural and geographical separation, a wide array of tasks and functions, and constant employee turnover and movement make this knowledge transfer a perpetual challenge.

There are significant trade-offs inherent in traditional tools and mechanisms, such as operating manuals or trainings, for codifying knowledge:

• The more comprehensive the instructions, the less likely that they can be absorbed, understood, and remembered by those responsible for execution. Moreover, comprehensive instructions also risk diluting the sense of responsibility felt by the person executing.
• The more precise the instructions, the less they allow for customization or the exercise of employee initiative.
• The more rigid the instructions, the less they will be able to evolve as circumstances change.

Processes involving human judgement, customization for specific needs, or adaptations for changing circumstances are even harder to codify. This is driven by the difficulties of identifying and capturing tacit knowledge, of regularly updating information, and of retrieving the right piece of knowledge when it is needed. These challenges are magnified by the rapid pace of change and high degree of unpredictability in the current business environment, due to technology evolution and geopolitical uncertainties.