| 27/09/07 | | Social bookmarking |
One of the new practices that will be essential at a time when information volumes are exploding is social bookmarking. That's because with social bookmarking you are getting help from your colleagues, community members and practically any one else who's doing it. Problem is, it's not the easiest thing to explain. So we are lucky to have Common Craft's 3 minute video that anyone can understand.
As readers of this blog you are probably already in the know about things like social bookmarking, weblogs and wikis. So your job is to let your colleagues know about this practice so we can all benefit from people using this tool. Just forward this post to them so they can see this cool video.
Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
| 9/09/07 | | How to make your workplace more storyable |
Story techniques are becoming popular but I do worry that people will become overly focussed on capturing stories with the hope that someone will search the story database in search of how to get things done. The other, and complimentary, approach is to create workplaces where it's natural to tell (and listen to) stories and therefore create spaces for constant knowledge flow.
Here are some ideas on how you might make your workplace more storyable.
- Do remarkable things. Stories are told when there is something worth telling a story about. And if there is very little to remark on that helps guide the organisation, then people will delve into the minutiae, the trivial, the professional pulp fiction
- Know how to ask story eliciting questions. Don't just ask for the facts. Ask “What happened?” “Tell me about a time when ...” “When was the last time ...”
- Eat together. We seem so busy these days. In many workplaces people don't even stop for lunch. Big mistake. The best stories, the most important stories are told over a meal.
- Tell stories. Someone has to start modelling the behaviour so why not start the trend yourself. But don't make it a big thing by saying things like, “I've got this great story to tell you ...” Just slide into examples and recount your experiences.
How storyable is your workplace?
Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
| 14/08/07 | | What do we mean by tacit knowledge? |
Most of our work here at Anecdote involves working with tacit knowledge. But it is clear that there is a broad understanding about what's meant by the phrase. In the knowledge management world there are two camps: one that believes tacit knowledge can be captured, translated, converted; and the other that highlights its ineffable characteristics. I must admit I was for a long time firmly ensconced in the latter category and our white paper on “How we talk about knowledge management” reflects this view. But I realise now it is simply impractical to adopt an either/or perspective and so I would like to propose a way forward that focusses on why knowledge is tacit (remaining unspoken, unsaid, implied, unexpressed) and then based on these reasons we can start thinking about the appropriate approach to capturing or transferring tacit knowledge.
I think the iceberg metaphor is useful. Below the waterline lies an organisation's tacit knowledge. Near the water surface lies tacit knowledge that's easier to work with but as we go deeper the nature of the tacit knowledge changes, it becomes murkier and harder to see and grasp. As we increase in depth we can think of the different reasons why our knowledge is unspoken.
Hasn't been recorded. Most organisations put their efforts in in dealing with this type of tacit knowledge. Probably because it's easy. “Let's find out what we know and then document it.” As a result wikis are popping up everywhere. Creating more explicit knowledge then creates a new problem of findability And as Peter Morville says, “what we find changes who we become.”
Will never be recorded. There are some things you know, that you could quite easily tell someone else, that you would never want to write down or be widely known. Imagine a diplomat who has an intimate knowledge of their counterpart's peccadillos in an allied government. Perhaps not the type of thing that would be written down. More benign examples include stuff ups and when people are breaking the rules for the right reasons (or even for the wrong reasons).
Too many resources required to record. Sometimes it just takes too much time and effort to write down what you know. For one thing, when you write it down you have to assume a broad audience (not like a conversation where you are assessing whether the person you are taking to is getting it), which makes the task even harder. Imagine Einstein walking in the room and someone without advanced physics knowledge asking him to explain the general theory of relativity. It would be impossible for Einstein to provide a comprehensive answer because his knowledge requires stimulation in order to be forthcoming. Dave Snowden encapsulates this idea in his aphorism, “you only know what you know when you need to know it.”
Everyone knows it (taken for granted). Now we are getting into the type of tacit knowledge that's more difficult to identify. This knowledge often represents the core values and beliefs in an organisation. It can manifest as metaphors. For example, I visited a investment bank in Sydney and their language revolved around gambling: “We can take a bet on that.” “Let's roll the dice and see what happens.” “Everyone was poker faced.” Another organisation was fixated with traffic metaphors: “It's a real roadblock.” “We got the green light.” “We have a clear roadmap now.” No one noticed how they were using these metaphors yet it guided their actions every day. I guess we call these things 'culture.'
Individuals don't know but groups do. Have you ever read Cognition in the Wild? It tells the story of the bridge crew of the aircraft carrier USS Palau and how together they can dock this enormous ship yet no single individual could describe how it is done. Many teams have this underrated and generally unrecognised this group-based ability.
Can't be recorded. Much of our tacit knowledge falls into this category. The effects of this type of tacit knowledge (some would say the only true tacit knowledge) are displayed in our action and therefore it's impossible to capture or convert it. The approach here is to become mindful and reflect of what is displayed—conversations, coaching, shadowing. Sure, we can video tape people undertaking tasks but time and time again practitioners have discovered there are qualities that are not captured and the task cannot be completed successfully. My favourite example is those white-coated gentlemen in France who test whether those humungous wheels of cheese have ripened. Using a little hammer they tap each one and know instantly which ones are ready to eat. How do they know? Is it the sounds, the bounciness, the smell? I recall a group of scientists set about to measure all these characteristics in order to create an automatic cheese ripeness testing machine but as hard as they might try they paled in comparison to the experience of the practised cheesemaker.
Technorati Tags: tacit knowledge
Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack
| 20/07/07 | | Taking on new tasks |
A few posts ago I described how you can delegate tasks in a way that informs people with what they need to know to do a job in a complex world. Now let's look at what you might do when taking on a new task, project, or assignment that has been delegated to you. What follows is based on an excellent podcast by David Maister called Managing Your Boss.
In order to do a good job and build a solid reputation you need to be good at receiving assignments. This means really understanding what your manager/client really wants and needs.
There are a set of questions you should ask whenever your are asked to take on a task. In an ideal world the person asking for your help will give you all the information you need to do a good job. Unfortunately this rarely happens so it’s up to create a way of doing things where it is OK to ask questions.
When your manager asks you to take on a new project or tasks simple ask, “I really want to do a great job for you but may I clarify a few things?”
Then use this checklist1 to collect the information you need to do a good job. I'm sure you will be able to think of additional questions to ask and I would love to hear your suggestions in the comments.
Get the context
First, ask for the context for the assignment. “Can you please tell me what you are going to do with this when I get it done? Tell me who it is for and where does it fit with other things so I know how you are going to use it so I can give it to you in the fashion which is best suited to your need.”
This may sounds like you are being picky, but it also sounds like you are truly interested and it is usually well received.
What is the deadline?
“When would you like it and when is it really due?”
Push a little to find out the absolute last minute that is must be done by while still promising to do it as soon as you can.
Get the scope clarified
“This time would you like me to do the thorough job and take a little longer or this time would you like me to do the quick and dirty version. I can do either. I just need to understand what you would like.
Format
What’s the format you want to see of the results?
”How would you like to see the output of my work presented? What would make your life easier? I want to smooth your way so please give me some guidance on the format which you prefer the best.“
What is the time budget?
”Roughly how long do you expect me to spend on this so I know whether I’m spending too much time on this task and not waste your time.“
Relative priority
”What is the relative importance of this task compared to the other things you have asked me to do? I will try and do them all but if push comes to shove do you want me to put this at the top of the list or put this one at the bottom of the list?“
Playing back your understanding
After asking your questions and making lots of notes, ask whether you can check for understanding. ”May I please just read back to you what you have asked me to do so I can confirm that I have got it down right?“ This is an important step and you’ll be amazed at how many misunderstanding will be avoided by undertaking this process.
Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
| 24/06/07 | | One of the many forces driving the need for knowledge retention practices |
The 'up or out' policy is well known in consulting firms like McKinsey & Company. If you are not promoted in 5 years to partner then you're out. It has been estimated that up to 5/6ths of people who leave McKinsey leave as a result of this policy. What might be surprising to some is that a similar (mostly tacit) policy exists in Australia's public sector; it's up or assumed you have given up on your career. This mindset of having to keep moving up the hierarchy is not isolated to the public service, the Australia Army has a similar and more overt example with what is informally called POMs—Passed Over Majors. These majors are readily recognisable because they wear a medal representing 10 years of service. Ten years as a major typically means you've been passed over.
To be a career bureaucrat requires a broad experience of policy and programme delivery. It's not unusual for someone to spend as little as 6 months in a job before moving to their next position. If you spend more than 3 years in one position then, according to senior management, you have given up, you've become stale. This expectation creates havoc resulting in what seems to me like excessive churn. One section I'm aware of has had 9 managers in 12 months. Remarkably the team held together and managed themselves, which was a testament to their resilience.
High churn will remain because the senior leaders who've benefited from hopping from one position to the next are now the power group whose every move and utterance is scrutinised by the aspiring leaders of the future. The power group will tell the stories of how they got ahead and expect the aspiring ones to do the same. The culture has been set and reinforced.
The result for knowledge (and in turn, productivity) is both good and bad. Frequent movement creates cross-pollination fostering opportunities for innovation. That's a good thing. People leaving after 2-3 years, however, creates knowledge gaps, especially if the group operates like a group of individuals, which happens a lot. Head down, bum up, getting your particular output out the door.
Knowledge retention has the wrong sound to it. It makes you think about holding on to what you've got. You immediately think of knowledge capture, which is an unhelpful mindset. Knowledge circulation might be a better phrase because the aim, I believe, is to share knowledge among people in the group so that it is resilient to someone leaving.
To become resilient to knowledge lost requires the adoption of a set of knowledge sharing practices that operate all the time, not just when you learn someone is leaving. They might include the following:
- participating in communities of practice
- after action reviews
- lessons learning sessions
- working together (radical concept) rather than as individuals
- pairing expert with novice
- fostering knowledge sharing behaviours
- story listening and telling