|
Easter sees the launch of a knowledge programe for one of our largest communities. Within the launch is a physical element (Easter egg left on each community member desk), a social element – videocasts of what knowledge means to members of the community and a virtual area for a key sub-group to support their physical meeting. The main elements of the strategy see top level sponsorship and setting up the structure of people within the community to act as connectors. There are key content that needs sharing but the main thrust is to put the people ‘on the ground’ to remove barriers to sharing and collaboration. |
Category: Uncategorized
The Middle Ages
|
In respond to New Comm Biz
Not sure we even have to go back to the middle ages. After WWII we saw, certainly in Europe, the move towards a more collaborative society. For me the last few years has seen us begin to reject the ‘global’ elements of our life and the shareholder led approacg. In my field, knowledge and intranets, this translates to moving away from faceless repositores and back to relationships and local becoming important. Social business allows large organisations to adopt this ‘local’ approach, built around communities. In the next few years the social business intranet will become the norm. In the wider business structure this may see stakeholder relationships within organisations become more important (workers, suppliers ect) rather than shareholders. Will this see the rise in fortunes of trade unions, trade associations, employee forums. Maybe not. But certainly those with knowledge and commitment to an industry or organisation have a far greater chance of being heard and involved.
|
Something to support the physical
|
One of our business units used video to deliver strategic messages throughout the year. The feedback we received from the unit (approx 250 people) was that it was a ‘nice’ way to deliver a message, but in terms of registering what was said it had very, very little impact (reports received back from employee focus group). I was also part of a discussion today regarding the launch of a knowledge programme with a large business unit (approx 800 people). We talked over a mixture of delivery methods to determine how to launch a new initiative in knowledge sharing. The general consensus of opinion from various areas of the business unit was that methods such as ‘video’ look and feel fresh but do not register with the audience without some physical take away. A number of people quoted an example of an initiative that was launched last Easter which included an Easter Egg on each employees desk. The initiative is remembered far more than video messages given by a CEO. My early musings on this is that any virtual campaign needs to be supported (or vice versa) by a physical example that the audience can take away. Someone quoted an example of a match-day programme or magazine from a concert of football game. You need something you can hold/touch to remember the messages (or event) you attended. I’ve always maintained that we need to look at channels which satisfy our physical, virtual and social needs to make an impact. |
Any examples of a maverick?
|
Been lots of talk recently regarding transitions in the economy, change in the workplace, new world order etc etc etc. Sure I’ve heard many of these messages before, so it led me to the attic to browse through some old books. Found the Ricado Semler book “Maverick” when the first shoots of democracy in the workplace were mentioned (could look back much future to books on the Russia Revolution or even Rousseau but it was the weekend and family time was limited – getting way off track here). Here was an example of the collective being used to steer and direct the future of the organisation. Employees, through self-interest, had real opportunities to fulfil those values of trust that each corporate brochure preaches about. It was examples like these that moved me into the work where we enable individuals to fulfil their full potential and each have a stake in their organisations. I wonder how far we have come since then? I am a great believer in technology being an enabler in what we do. I’ve used it to achieve work/life balance, enabling me to play a large and active part in my young son’s development. On a personal level I can feel satisfied. But on a professional level what has really changed within organisations? In our glorious world of knowledge, social media and intranets I wonder if we can find any examples of technology actually changing the way a company is structured and makes ‘real’ decisions. I know the a CEO may use social media to communicate to employees but isn’t that really just an extension of the email or the previous staff conference? Does anyone know of a company, anywhere, large or small, that uses technology to ’empower’ in a meaningful way – shifting the decision making process, not only for a few products but for the way the company is organised or structured? |
The Knowledge Scouts
|
One of the immediate goals of a community Knowledge Sharing (KS) project I am currently working on is to activate the structure of Knowledge Contacts.
These are ‘scouts’ within the community who can provide valuable intelligence to/from the community groups to the Knowledge Manager. A current group exists however, the expectations of the role has not been clearly defined or promoted to their Managers/Partners.
For me, setting up this simple, basic structure is more exciting than any thoughts of building a repository or database. Walking and engaging with people in your community, shows one way in which commercial insight into issues can come from simple interactions rather than formal organised learning and repositories. There is sometimes an obsessive fascination with the idea of knowledge as content, a object or a document. Itignores the human experiences – again moving systems towards people rather than content based.
If we are given a message it is assumed the delivery is known and complete. This doesn’t happen in a working environment. We don’t follow up how this knowledgeis translated into actions and behaviour.
The role of the Knolwedge ‘scouts’ will be to pick up information scents and use these to network and engage. These engagements may then turn into conversations of commercial value to the community.
|
Can we build it?
|
Chatting through an idea with Paul Miller (CEO and Founder of IBF) last Friday regarding a feature on IBF 24. Although I’m not a great fan (in fact no fan at all) of makeover shows I’m musing around the thought of giving an intranet site a makeover in 24 hours, or even build it from new! Here’s the plan. Thinking of finding a company that is willing to have their intranet built in 24 hours though the collective wisdom of the intranet world (i.e the audience of IBF 24). Would need to find a software vendor willing to provide the technical platform, and over the course of the 24 hour event, get the audience to determine the navigation, structure, governance model and adoption process of getting the site ready, minus the content. It will be the best intranet ever built or a Frankenstein – but the thought is exciting and challenging? Anyone out there fancy helping me with getting this thought into something practical?
|
We are the people
|
Finally getting a stakeholder session with our HR guys and owners of ‘people’ related content on our intranet. Negotiations over the process and protocols have been as torturous as organising the Nixon/Frost debates, but I felt this was essential before we begin any part of the process. All is now agreed. Echoing James Robertson’s theme of putting ‘people at the centre’ our aim (if we get our way) is to avoid the hierarchy titles used by HR and focus on a ‘tab’ called ‘People.’ Part of my thinking behind this is the ability for us to incorporate other ‘people’ related content into this area, that is not owned by HR, providing a richer, broader experience for the user. A danger is the ‘HR’ navigation still works within many companies and it would be foolish to tamper with this. Should a potential home buyer be put off a new home as they have furniture that doesn’t quite fit? If you get that analogy?
Our stakeholder session will include senior representatives from all HR functions, plus pension, business support and finance delegates. The stakeholder session will cover: the project overview reviewing the current sites to be included in the ‘People’ redevelopment design and communication goals User Identification Homepage Content
It’s part of the usability process we will conduct, which will also include user surveys and interviews, user testing and modifications and an adoption programme to ensure the new area will be seeded within the organisation. The Linkedin community has been a great help in providing screen shots, case studies and guidance (thanks guys) which I intend to showcase at the stakeholder session. From the feedback it appears HR sites now have a navigation structure centred around either:
1- the ’employee’, the manager and a section for HR professionals. Or 2 – Your Money, Your Benefits, Your Job and Career, Your Personal Life, and Life-changing Events
Common among all the sites is employees would not routinely visit the H.R. site unless they experienced a life-changing event.
It will be interesting to see what direction our rebuild takes. I hope to regularly report updates during the process. |
The needs of the audience
|
Had a lovely chat yesterday evening with William Amurgis, Internal Communications Manager at AEP, and in charge of their award winning intranet. Discussion looked at where Intranet teams are heading. Lots of predictions appear to see the merger of intranet and external website teams. At the end of the conversation I think we agreed that in an ideal world intranet and web teams, although collaborating closely, should remain distinct from each other. Both have very different audiences that have some similar needs but also major differences. We painted an analogy (if you can do such a thing) of teachers. A primary school teacher and a high school teacher both have similar skills but the needs of their pupils (audience) are entirely different and to merge such skills would fundamentally delute the ability to nuture and educate. |
Going local
|
Was provided with a good example of what I would describe as ‘localism’ knowledge sharing yesterday. I’m sure I read once that knowledge (or was it communications) can be treated like a monarchy (one rule, top down); communism (everyone told everything) and I also think they mentioned socialism and various other ‘ism’s. I am a great believer that knowledge sharing, learning, communicating etc needs to be pitched between the ‘personal’ and ‘local’ level to be truly sought, discovered, understood and re-used. The approach I’ve taken is to move away from large KM repositories or formal structures. Within the environment I work, knowledge is best-placed to be flexible, fluid, local, personal and based around a define community, with visible and active leadership. Anyway, back to the example. One of our most active communities have regular ‘Cappuccino’ meetings. These bring together group spokespersons of the community to share and take back key points. The subject matter is primarily technical, at a fairly high level, rather than deep or detailed. The key is to capture sufficient information on key issues in the group, to bring them to the table, and take back the points which are relevant in the local market place. A local group head had previously challenged Cappuccino Reps to consider the best ways of facilitating knowledge sharing locally and this meeting included a discussion on progress to date. One group has recently introduced a new series of knowledge sharing meetings and, following the Cappuccino theme, have named them Macchiato meetings! Formal minutes are being taken and circulatedon the communities intranet area. A number of other offices also have technical meetings, sometimes on an ad hoc basis, and others have knowledge/technical slots within general partner/manager meetings. The community leader acknowledged that a little discipline, in terms of regularity, note taking & follow through will make for better knowledge sharing generally, and he encouraged all offices to take steps in this direction. These very basic physical, personal and local steps has seen increased activity, in terms of chatter, sharing and collaboration. It didn’t need a formal central KM department or a matrix of workflow. Just a good community structure, a sense of local engagement and personal responsibility. Community and personal engagement equates to ‘localism’ |
We don’t do workflow
|
One of our knowledge stakeholders recently asked if we have a ‘workflow’ process document which is used across the intranet. The fact is we don’t – and deliberately so. Let me explain. Content comes in different shapes and context. Some needs ‘locking-down’, other content is ‘open’, while elements develop as it is pushed, modified and enhanced. There is not a ‘one solution’ fits all process flow within each stream, nor within each site area within a community site. Some communities have areas which are controlled by a central team, and no-one else can update/add. They also have areas which are open and require no authorisation or approval to publish and enhance. Other communities are more centrally controlled with some locked-down areas. What we do provide is a ‘governance structure’. Generally speaking teh governance structure provides visible ownwership for each area of a site. The owner is best placed to determine the requirements of content production for their area – from the user, risk and stream perspective. When we sit down with each ‘owner’ we then structure the content flow process and build as required. An overall ‘steering group’ would ideally determine the overall suitability of the workflow, however, experience suggests this is more a rubber stamping process. Currently many sites are built around a traditional knowledge management approach – the sites are merely manipulation of information already created. This type of governance structure us suitable for this. When/if we look to introduce more ‘knowledge transfer/sharing’ elements it may be of value to look at adding various processes for each area. The key thing in all of this, for me, is that whether we talk of process workflow, knowledge sharing, transfer, or management, it only has value if it can result in action: new knowledge generation; new ideas; thoughts. But I think that action is more likely if we are open-minded about where and how it may arise. This may not be an appropriate for some communities that require lock-down on many areas of content, yet maybe something that will develop once the site is launched, adopted and trust develops. But I think that action is more likely if we are open-minded about where it might arise. If we try and predict where it may be, and from which interactions it might come, I think it is most probable that no useful action and value will result in the long term. Acquiring knowldge has no value – it’s what you do with it that provide the value. |
Mark Tilbury - digital workplace specialist 