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.

Just reading a piece by Linda Stone, who coined the term “continuous partial attention” to describe the state of today’s knowledge workers, regarding “email apnea”: the unconscious suspension of regular and steady breathing when you tackle your email.

There are even claims that the relentless cascade of information lowers people’s intelligence. We pay a high price as we struggle to deal with information of limited value.

A study by Microsoft found that once their work had been interrupted by email notification, people took, on average, 24 minutes to return to the suspended task.

The answer to this? In an ongoing knowledge sharing project for our largest community, a key element is to define and enhance the role of the Knowledge gatekeeper – the head of this ‘sharing/networking/communicating’ community. Its almost Zen-like. We have to let go of the need to know everything completely. Trust your community, and particularly the gatekeeper of a community to filter and flow the right things to you when you need to know them. It really is turning back the clock. We should no-longer feel we need to know and connect to everyone but have faith (a key word) that the community gatekeeper will guide the relevant content as and when its needed.