Curiouser and Curiouser!

Curiouser and Curiouser! on knowledge http://matt.blogs.it/ RSS feed for topic knowledge Copyright 2006 Matt Mower Squib/0.1 self@mattmower.com self@mattmower.com en-gb A new perspective on knowledge Thu, 24 Oct 2002 19:27:52 +0100 Met <A href="http://www.jbassociates.uk.com">John Blackwell</A> today, very nice guy.  We had a long conversation about knowledge and strategy.  John displays a mastery of these subjects that was a joy to listen to.  Chatting to him suggests that his <A href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0749436492/qid=1035486136/sr=1-11/ref=sr_1_0_11/202-4728609-7319007">book</A> will be well worth reading. My recent exposure to Nonaka has lead me to view knowledge in a very dualistic fashion: either explicit or tacit and never the twain shall meet.  John bent my mind around the concept that knowledge is more like spectrum ranging from <A href="http://www.phenomenologyonline.com/inquiry.cfm?Short_Name=embodied%20knowledge">embodied knowledge</A> to representational knowledge (although John didn't call it that, but I can't remember the term he used). A particular thing I found hard to grasp was that knowledge transfer can be tacit to tacit without it being transferred to explicit in between.  Where did I get that notion from?  John gave me the example of riding a bicycle.  "Can you write a one page document that will teach a child to ride a bicycle.  Teach them the joy of riding, the tenacity to get back on the bike after scraping your knees for the sixth time?"  From his own experience John brought up horse riding and pointed out that the horse is a teacher but there isn't pen or paper to be seen. I'm looking forward to thinking about this a lot more... http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000772.html Knowledge for success Fri, 15 Nov 2002 16:59:39 +0000 I hold the view that for an organisation to be successful (i.e. to achieve it's goals) then it's people must be aligned to it's goals.  Real achievement comes from real alignment.  So how do you get alignment? <UL> <LI>Goodwill - people who actually want to get aligned <LI>Visibility - clear understanding of goals <LI>Knowledge - what's required to achieve the right outcomes</LI></UL> But what are you giving your people?  Putting aside the subject of goodwill for a second do people have a clear idea of the goals of the organisation and how they relate to their day-to-day existence?  Do they have the knowledge that is needed to act to produce the right outcomes? Just musing... http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000830.html Contributing to an intranet Fri, 29 Nov 2002 10:59:59 +0000 I'm trying to come up with more models for thinking about communication.  I came up with a question: What affects my contributions?  And some attributes of an answer: <UL> <LI>inertia - how hard is it for me to make a contribution</LI> <LI>reward - what do I get in return for contributing</LI> <LI>value - how much use can be made of my contribution</LI></UL> A powerful intranet system makes it easy for people to contribute, gives them a direct return on investment and allows what they have added to be re-used in as many ways as possible. Typically an employee can contribute via: <UL> <LI>e-mail</LI> <LI>bulletin board / discussion list / group mailbox</LI> <LI>document management system</LI> <LI>database</LI></UL> A cursory examination of these options follows: e-mail <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> It is very easy to write e-mails but often harder to know who to send them to for maximum value.  They often go unacknowledged, its very hard to tell if they've had the desired impact and it's increasingly hard to know if and how to re-use the content of an e-mail.  Also with the quantity of e-mail people receive these days I think the law of diminishing returns is at work.  More e-mail (even better e-mail) isn't going to make things any better.</BLOCKQUOTE> bulletin board <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> On the face of it bulletin boards and other discussion groups work very well.  However as long time users will attest they have many significant drawbacks.  The first is that it is very hard to keep on track as an initial discussion widens out in collaboration.  Inevitably people look to take the traffic "elsewhere".  Popular discussion groups can get croweded very quickly which is a curse and a curse.  A crowded group can intimidate new comers and makes it harder for members to find what they are interested in.  A corrolary of this is that it soon becomes impossible to find anything for re-use.</BLOCKQUOTE> document management system <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> These days web-based document management systems (which all call themselves knowledge management systems in the hope you won't know the difference) tend to be pretty easy to use.  As ways of storing and indexing large collections of documents they work very well, but they often fail to solve the underlying problems of managing an organisations knowledge.   This is because, often, the knowledge isn't in the formal documentation. Example:  I'm an engineer working for a company who make handheld wireless workstations.  I acquire through on-site testing some valuable knowledge about a problem with making our equipment work in their situation.  I could write this up in a document and post it in the DMS but more likely I will put it in a notebook or on a post-It or just tell my colleagues about it. This kind of micro-knowledge (micro-content) is often where the useful knowledge lies and it can be very hard to get at if your systems all work at the macro level.</BLOCKQUOTE> database <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> What company doesn't have at least a CRM system today?  Supposedly the channel for storing all information.  But if you take my previous example where does that knowledge go?  It's not information about the customer (at least not really).  And that assumes that your CRM system is flexible enough to handle unexpected data.  Most either aren't or are never properly implemented. Databases are often cumbersome, unfriendly and inflexible.  Also where information goes in, it is often much harder to get it out again in any sensible form (another Access report anybody?).</BLOCKQUOTE>   As I have written before I do believe that all of these systems have a valuable role to play in building a successful intranet, however they address only the macro level and much of the knowledge an organisation needs to gain an understanding of itself and a competitve advantage over it's peers is micro-content. What is required is a communication medium that has low inertia, rewards the constributor and builds shared value.  Answer: weblogs, or more accurately knowledge-logs. More later. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000913.html Does size matter? Thu, 12 Dec 2002 20:28:33 +0000 <A href="http://www.terryfrazier.com/weblog/2002/12/12.html#a1041">Size Matters</A>. <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0107808/">Matt Mower</A> asks good questions on why company size should matter in intranet development, but I believe there are several other factors to consider. [<A href="http://www.terryfrazier.com/weblog/">b.cognosco</A>] Okay Terry raises some good points.  Lets take 'em one-by-one. <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> Many small companies don't provide their workers with computers, so intranet access is moot. </BLOCKQUOTE> Agreed.  Although I would want to be certain that the reason for not providing computers was legit.  Example:  Is there a need, but no expertise?  This isn't an argument not to have some kind of intranet. <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> Intranets are designed to supplement human communication and learning, not replace it. If everyone is sitting within talking distance it makes little sense to put another layer of machines between them. </BLOCKQUOTE> Well now I don't think that's always true, even in the situation of 5 guys in an office (and I'll let you assume that they are always all there, 5 days a week.  weekends?)  So: <UL dir=ltr> <LI> <DIV>Terry what did we do on the firefly account last august? (Hope you've got a good memory).</DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV>How many support calls did we get last week?  What was the hottest issue? (Want a debate?  Or do we have that data?)</DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV>We need to order & configure a new server same as the last one.  What do we do?</DIV></LI></UL> Now I grant you that you don't need an intranet for any of this stuff.  I just think you are more effective if have one.  And what if things aren't so simple?  What happens when times aren't so good and you have to let Larry & Curly go.  Oops, all the knowledge about the Firefly account and how to build your servers just walked out the door.  Or when Moe's brother joins the 'ol firm.  How does he figure out how things happen around here?  Sure, he can hang around and watch you guys but why not let him see it. <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> Peter Drucker says "all work is knowledge work," but if workers aren't already spending the majority of their work day in front of a computer (the case in many small service companies) intranets make little sense.</BLOCKQUOTE> I'm with Peter on this one.  Give 'em hand-held's, give 'em tablets, give 'em something.  And for service folks that goes double.  For small companies life is often about quality of service.  Serve the customer better than the big NoNameCo and you stay in business (and the old guy whose been at this 40 years... he should be writing lots of content - he won't be around forever). I guess for me the central point is "what is the intranet for?" If it's part of the solution then why wouldn't you want your people to have it? http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000997.html p-logs Fri, 14 Feb 2003 17:43:09 +0000 <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <A href="http://weblog.halmacomber.com/#90323308">P-Logs for Project Teams</A>. Here's my <A title="Hal Macomber, Reforming Project Management, 2003" href="http://halmacomber.com/p-log_draft_spec.html">Proposal for a P-Log (Project Weblog) Specification</A>. Why the Interest in Weblogs? I've been curious about the role blogging could play on projects. In October I did a posting <A href="http://halmacomber.com/jammin/2002_10_06_archive.html#85538713">Project Klogs: Changing Paradigms</A> on John Udell's view of weblogs for projects. Udell claimed our tools and practices don't attend to the story of the project. Projects fail. This is the usual case. We all know this. Attempts by the <A href="http://www.pmi.org/">PMI</A> to address this have not succeeded. It's time for something completely different. Why A Specification? We've been designing and redesigning the same collaboration tools for years. Ten years ago I used an early Lotus Notes database for project management. Back then and today the collaboration environments do the same things: provide status, track issues, and discussion. We can do those things with a p-log. But there are three critical issues that need attention that haven't got attention: <OL> <LI>Uncertainty - the future unfolds influenced by actions of the team and the world that is unfolding around the team. Planning is the conversation for participating in the infolding. <LI>Learning - the vast majority of knowledge is tacit. Projects are one-of-a-kind opportunities to share, deepen, innovate, ... <LI>Mood of the team - enthusiasm beats complacency, cooperation beats (internal) competition, determination beats resignation, and wonder beats arrogance. Yet, when mood is left unaddressed we get what we get. </LI></OL>P-logs are about the story of the project and the team. P-logs are for the team to take charge of the conversation of the project. What's Next? Perhaps this is too ambitious. Perhaps nothing short of audacious ambition will get at the underlying sources of project failure. I propose we do this together. How about a project conducted with a weblog for developing the p-log? (Thanks <A title="Learning about Lean" href="http://joeelylean.blogspot.com/">Joe</A> for the proposal.) In the next few days I'll write about aspects of the <A title="Hal Macomber, Reforming Project Management, 2003" href="http://halmacomber.com/p-log_draft_spec.html">p-log specification</A>. Please join in with your comments and questions, suggestions and criticisms, and offers to build and use a prototype p-log. [<A href="http://weblog.halmacomber.com/">Reforming Project Management</A>]</BLOCKQUOTE>   http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00001162.html Medscape RSS Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:28:01 +0000 <BLOCKQUOTE> <A href="http://www.theshiftedlibrarian.com/2003/02/19.html#a3683">Medscape Makes RSS Feeds Available!</A>. <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0112683/2003/02/18.html#a118">Medscape Jumps into RSS</A> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> "I am really happy to announce that <A href="http://www.medscape.com/">Medscape</A>, the leading news, information, research and CME site for Physicians on the Internet has joined the RSS revolution. We are now publishing <A href="http://www.medscape.com/rss">RSS feeds of our headlines</A> in each specialty for which we have a home page. And if you really want the full picture of what's going on in medicine, you can subscribe to a full site feed that syndicates just about every article, news story and CME program that is published. This is a direct result of my experiments here in weblogs, as well as interactions I've had with the 'Doc Bloggers' in the column to the right. Admittedly, we are one of the few sites that rely on getting people to look at our content on our site launching this feature (and outside of technology-oriented sites, you can probably count the major media participants on one hand), and are certainly the first serious medical resource to do so. So why aren't we afraid that publishing an RSS feed will actually lead to less traffic on our site? It comes down to this...we believe in the quality of our content. We know there is nowhere else on the Internet where you can get the same timeliness, focus and professional quality of medical information. If you are a doctor (or you are interested in medical information), our RSS feed is the best way to stay up to date on what we are publishing, and you will invariably want to visit our site to see the whole story." [<A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0112683/">Tales of Hoffman</A>]</BLOCKQUOTE> Add Mescape to the "ClueTrained-In" column! Remember - RSS doesn't have to be a supplement for site visitors; it can easily be a complementary channel. Congratulations to Steve and Medscape for taking the long view! I truly believe this will benefit them in the long run, and I hope Steve will be able to provide us with periodic updates. [<A href="http://www.theshiftedlibrarian.com/">The Shifted Librarian</A>]</BLOCKQUOTE> This is important for a number of reasons not least of which, from my perspective, is that in the medical professional we have a group of people for whom the classification of knowledge feeds isn't going to be a nice-to-have but a must-have. These people are going to have so much information pushed at them that it is going to be essential that they can intelligently organise the streams into useful knowledge bases. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00001181.html A context for k-logging success Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:43:22 +0000 I've been spending some time thinking about how to employ k-logs in a business and, in particular, in a business which does not primarily see itself as a "knowledge business" but as a production business.  I'm thinking about the challenges of getting people who don't routinely use computers as part of their work to not only become part of a KM project but to thrive in it. It's probably no surprise that I think k-logs are a good idea but, in the 6 months or so since I took up this sword I haven't really seen the practical evidence of this.  Where are the big deployments?  Where are the articles and papers? I think k-logs struggle when it comes to practical implementation because, good idea or not, they do not stand on their own.  They struggle without a wider context in which they can make sense.  This leads me back to a question I have mulled before which is about the boundary between k-logs and the legacy intranet. k-logs, to me, should be the living, beating heart of an organisation.  The posts racing from aggregator to aggregator are like the blood pumping around the organism, connecting parts together and ensuring they are healthy.  But if these posts are not to be ephemera then they have to go somewhere, they have to gain a context within the wider organisation and it's memory systems. I predict that successful k-logging will require an interface between k-logs themselves and more established systems & groups.  At the moment I think the 3 most likely candidates are: <UL> <LI>Communities of Practice</LI> <LI>Best Practice Programs</LI> <LI>After-Action-Reviews</LI></UL> Each of these has a review element and a sense of producing something in aggregate from what they review.  I think it will be these groups who will mine an organisations k-logs and make best use of them.  And it will be participation in such groups that will create loops back into the heart of the organisation, keep it connected, keep it alive. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00001202.html Contexts for Business Journalling Fri, 28 Feb 2003 12:32:54 +0000 <A href="http://www.thoughthorizon.com/">David Buchan</A> has prompted me to think a bit harder about the contextual problems faced by business journalling. I think that there are at least two problems which we must solve for business journalling to be a widespread success.  I'd be interested in hearing about other problems people have specifically identified. The first problem is what I would describe as: knowledge as a separate activity and the second as lacking a voice.  I think that the solution to both of these problems lies in finding contexts that enable people to journal more easily. Knowledge as a separate activity Some of my underlying assumptions about people at work are: <OL> <LI>most people do not love their job in the way that I (and other seeming KM enthusiasts) do <LI>most people do not see themselves as knowledge workers (especially those who are not desk bound and do not deal primarily with electronic info and, or, paper) <LI>most people have a view that learning is a discrete activity (we learn in a class-room during specified period, then go out and get on with the rest of our lives)</LI></OL> I think there is an "awakening" process that must happen before you begin to see how knowledge & learning are intertwined into everything you do.  Until then, I think that they are considered to be separate activities practiced in specific contexts (e.g. I am going on a training course). For the unawakened I think that a business journal is a big blank page that is quite scary and you need to be pretty bold to venture off without a map.  In these times of "Axes in the corridor" boldness isn't the first thing on everyone's mind. I think the answer lies in finding contexts which are less threatening and lead people to consider knowledge more often in their day and think about how knowledge affects everything they do.  I hope to tie business journalling to these contexts in the hope that I will have more success with my clients that way. Lacking a voice I think most people are conditioned to not say anything they don't have to. In school we are taught to be silent and only speak when questioned directly by an authority figure.  This process of conditioning is continued right the way through education and into work.  Hierarchies support this type of behaviour. Business journalling turns this don't speak until your spoken to ideology on it's head.  Now you're given a blank page and told to say whatever you think you should say (within limits).  I think that the evidence so far supports the conclusion that people are not comfortable with that. Drawing on my own experience I found beginning to blog was a challenge, i found myself afraid - not knowing what to say next.  I persevered, I think, because I have always wanted a voice: I dislike authority and am opinionated.  I don't necessarily think everyone else has the same drivers.  I'm also cognizant that, when I started, there was no axe that could fall.  I wasn't worried about saying the wrong thing, or having my words used against me.  I think these are common worries for anyone speaking up (regardless of the medium). Once again I think the answer is to look for contexts where people already think it's alright to voice their opinions and to leverage these contexts for business journalling success. Contexts As I mentioned in a recent post I think that two likely candidates are After Action Reviews and Communities of Practice. The After Action Review (AAR) is a technique that compares actual results of a task or project with the expected results.  The aim being to identify strengths and weaknesses and help teams to bond together and improve performance. Don Clark gives an <A href="http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadaar.html">excellent summary</A> of the process and some of it's benefits.  From that I have highlighted some of the questions & talking points a good AAR should raise: <UL> <LI>Ask why certain actions were taken <LI>Ask how they reacted to certain situations <LI>Ask when actions were initiated <LI>Ask leading and thought provoking questions <LI>Exchange "war stories" (lessons learned) <LI>Ask employees what happened in their own point of view <LI>Relate events to subsequent results <LI>Explore alternative courses of actions that might have been more effective <LI>Complaints are handled positively <LI>When the discussion turns to errors made, emphasize the positive and point out the difficulties of making tough decisions. </LI></UL> These sound to me like fantastic material for building a business journal. The second context that I think could be very useful is the <A href="http://www.kmadvantage.com/cop.htm">Community of Practice</A>.  I don't want to write too much about these here because they're a big topic and I'm not an expert.  However one of the definitions given on the page I cite above is groups that learn.  In my mind, groups that learn by doing - not as a separate activity. Within a CoP people have a context in which they can ask questions, share knowledge, raise awareness and it may be that a business journal will seem a more natural place in which to do that.  Hopefully also within a CoP members can develop the levels of trust and respect that are required for any collaborative effort to be successful. Conclusion For me, all this leads towards a concrete realisation that business journalling cannot stand in isolation.  That it is not a solution, but, part of a solution that has to involve contexts which complement it's strengths.  It may be that After Action Review's and Communities of Practice may be good choices, time will tell. However this also means that, in order to bring business journalling into an organisation requires that they have either already established programs such as AAR, or you have to introduce those at the same time.  This sounds like a daunting prospect.  Any AAR experts out there? A few points to bear in mind: <OL> <LI>I've highlighted business journalling throughout the text to emphasize my use of the term where I might normalling say k-logging.  I'm open to better terms but I'm going to try and use this until someone comes up with one. <LI>I'm making a lot of assumptions.  Please challenge them.  I'm trying to keep to the philosophy of "strong opinions, weakly held" and avoid becoming dogmatic about something so new and unproven. <LI>I don't think I'm identifying anything new here.  I think this is these are formulations of the same problems people have been wrestling with since KM acknowledged that it wasn't a purely technical issue.  What is new is that I'm beginning to understand these issues better - your milage may vary ;-)</LI></OL> I'm also looking forward to hearing other peoples ideas for contexts for business journalling.   http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00001236.html Another term for klogging Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:48:41 +0000 How about: <UL> <LI>Action Journal</LI></UL> I like action because it emphasizes my view that good knowledge is inextricably woven into what we do. I like journal because it sounds more diary like than logging. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00001272.html Thinking about capturing knowledge Thu, 01 May 2003 22:53:48 +0100 <IMG src="http://matt.blogs.it/images/maps/knowledge_capture.jpg"> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00001445.html