Tag: knowledge

How formal do we need to be?

A recent Virgin Media Business survey had judged the University of Warwick the UK’s most ‘digitally savvy’ university with 92 percent provision of the services examined.

http://theboar.org/news/2012/oct/17/warwick-named-uks-most-digitally-savvy-university/

That got me thinking again about the issue of accredited qualifications within the intranet industry and how we still appear to have so few qualifications related to the world of intranets.

I remember Sam Marshall running a ‘Mastering Intranet Management’ course (a quick plug for Sam) but I don’t believe this was an accredited qualification (recognised by an educational awarding body such as universities or vocational bodies) – Sam happy for you to respond if this is not the case.

There are many training organisations that offer courses in areas that may assist in the role but, to my knowledge, none that offer a formal qualification. Maybe this type of recognition is not actually relevant as intranet folk come from different backgrounds. My original area of study was in psychology, and then I moved onto the study of how labour markets and organisations develop. This led onto knowledge management, online services and intranets.

Over the 20 odd years I’ve been involved in the connection of people to content and people to people I’ve seen the skills required move from very technical aspects around writing code, architecture and design, to the more business discipline around content management. Now I see the skillsets around assisting the nurturing of relationships and networks. I’m not sure there would be one formal academic qualification that would meet, or keep up with the shifting sands of intranet management and development.

I would be interested to know how other members of the group got into intranet and the relevance of formal qualifications in that path.

Any good plugs for training courses within the intranet field would also help the community.

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.

 

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.

Seekers of knowledge and wisdon

Enjoyed this post from Chieftech

Isn’t this the original role that early intranet managers adopted – bridging that gap between the technology and the business? In early examples these were mainly from the knowledge or information background role that had an understanding of what technology could achieve, but ensured it was the servant, not the master. Over the last few years I agree there has been a growing divide. I am amazed when I speak to ‘intranet managers’ and they have little knowledge of the platform, search etc. Similarly, those with a technology background should have a far greater understanding of the context and purpose of the information they manage.
I would suggest these business information managers are actually now also outdated. We should no longer talk about knowledge managers, business info shares, transfer, push, pull etc. The introduction of social media is a good start in creating a greater sharing culture but that should not be an end in itself, nor should well-managed business information. The intranet managers, business information managers of 2013 should be equiped to enable a seeking and discovering culture, putting structures in place, in social, physical and virtul spaces to create greater wisdom to solve problems and create solutions that bring value to their clients

When two become one

Got a baby sitter on Saturday so my wife and I went to see ‘Up in the clouds’ – good film but that’s not the point of my post. In one scene  ‘preppy’ rookie employee was giving presentation that focused on the merger of the words ‘global’ and ‘local’ to form Glocal!! Stealing my thunder I think. For a while I’ve garnered a sense that we are looking back towards local solutions to combat the rise of ‘global this and that’. The same applies in the world of intranets. Some of our most popular communities are based around strong local connectors, doing local things that matter to the members. Regardles of the ‘global’ solutions offered (or forced upon them) from new technology, fancy new branding,  etc. The communities work because they know and understand what’s required. A know all usability people will say that any site should do the user research etc prior to launch but sometimes you can’t please everyone and comprises to fit within the company guidelines. Our local community sites have purposely kept themselvs under the radar to avoid having to conform to global requirements and have remain far healthier than gloabl communities that have grown big and perished.

Creating the right situation for Knowledge to flourish

A fundamental mistake we often make when judging other people is assuming that their behaviour mainly reflects their personality. Unfortunately this ignores another major influence on how people behave staring us right in the face: the situation.

Our personalities certainly have an influence on what situations we get into and how we deal with them, but situational factors — even relatively subtle ones — can completely obliterate the effects of personality.

Don’t take my word for it, though, consider a modern take on an ancient bible story from social psychologists Darley & Batson (1973)http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/27/1/100/

What these figures show is the large effect that subtle aspects of the situation have on the way people behave.

How does this effect Knowledge Sharing (KS). We can’t just assume people do or do not want to share. In many cases it’s the situation which provides the hurdle. One of the positive aspects of a current KS community project is that actions are being taken to create a situation which encourages and supports KS. Finnace codes are being added to include KS while key influencers are being recruited within the community so the wider community can see KS coming from the leadership.

The old adage that a person can be judged on their actions isn’t the whole truth. Often people’s behaviour, and our own, may say very little about our personalities and much more about the complexities of the situation in which we find ourselves. These small changes help create the right situation for KS to flourish. 

.

Leave it to the gatekeeper

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.