Real Ideas/Authentic Problems

"Tacit Knowledge Emerges in Context"

Like expertise, tacit knowledge emerges in context - in other words when there is a real need, challenge or problem to be solved requiring specific knowledge and expertise. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to assess the extent of a person's knowledge through general conversation or through artificial question and answer based interviews, as there is no authentic context (or motivation) for the individual to apply and demonstrate their knowledge.

When people are engaged in solving meaningful, authentic challenges they naturally draw upon their collective base of knowledge in order to find a solution.

What does this mean for organizations looking to advance their KM practice?

Integrate Learning and Work

Let me provide an example. A little over a year ago I was working with a client who was tasked to improve the project management discipline within his engineering firm. When I met him (let's call him "John"), he was struggling to create a Community of Practice (COP) between project managers across divisions of the Company located in different countries. It was John's plan to have experienced and inexperienced project managers come together to share their "best practices" with one another, and then use these insights to develop a formal project management training program and subsequently host this on the Company's Learning Management System. (LMS)

John expressed frustration that very little meaningful collaboration or knowledge exchange had taken place within the COP - Why? - No authentic context, no problem or challenge to be solved, and therefore no catalyst for bringing forth tacit knowledge let alone to motivate individuals to share knowledge.

I suggested that instead of separating the two activities (the COP and the training course) that he combine them. Use the LMS as the environment for managing a real client project. In this way experts and non-experts work together within an authentic context (the project).

With a shared goal and collective responsibility for the outcomes, you create the necessary context for tacit knowledge and expertise to emerge.

Adopting this integrated approach provides a snapshot of the full life cycle of the project (process. decision making, new ideas and outcomes etc.) Additionally, if you involve the client in the development process you not only extend accountability and capture valuable client knowledge, you begin to see how project team members adapt their processes to accommodate the needs of the client.

As each client is unique and the likelihood the team will face challenges they have never encountered before is great, new ideas will emerge and be captured as team members combine their collective knowledge to advance their understanding of the problem or challenge, and work towards a viable solution.

Through this "Window to the Workshop" approach, John will capture the tacit knowledge of experts and non-experts alike,  gain a clear picture of the strengths and weaknesses of his project management processes and his team -  how well they work together, who are the top performers, influencers etc. and best of all this will become a valuable part of institutional memory and can be referenced at any time in the future.

With these insights,  John is in a much better position to develop an effective, formal training program targeted to address shortcomings in his Company's  current project management processes; identify and align experts with non-experts to support effective knowledge transfer, and drive better training and improved performance outcomes.

The Next Instalment: Improvable Ideas

Does KM Need a Theory of Knowledge?

The next series of posts explore ideas which will be addressed during the Electricity Human Resource Council's Annual Conference on November 6, 2013 and the KM Workshop we will be hosting at Royal Roads University on November 27th and 28th.

Over the next few weeks I want to explore the idea that the discipline of Knowledge Management needs an underlying theory of knowledge to unify organizational practices in order to produce a cohesive Knowledge Management strategy which is actionable at all levels of the organization.

The practice (and thinking) around Knowledge Management has changed significantly over the past 15 years. It has moved :

• Away from creating information stocks to encouraging knowledge flows
• From a technology and content centric discipline to one focused on people and process
• From a tactical discipline to a strategic one
• From tasks at centre to ideas at the centre
• From managing information to creating and harvesting knowledge

"Without Theory There is No Knowledge Building"

 

Around about 1999 in a meeting with a number of business professionals, Dr. Carl Berieter said this in response to a question along the lines of, "Why is understanding the theory of knowledge building so important?

Carl's comment continues to resonant with me to this day. Every time I'm at a conference with KM experts, I hear all kinds of great ideas and best practices around things like succession planning, on-boarding, change management, new technologies etc. and yet I'm always left with the uneasy feeling that these are simply practices common to many disciplines other than KM.

If we accept at a high level, that the reason for engaging in Knowledge Management is to create new knowledge, expertise and capability ( beyond what currently exists ) with the aim of improving performance across the organization, then it stands to reason that having a common theory which guides behaviors, attitudes and supports and sustains the activities of individuals and teams in their efforts to advance knowledge, would be desirable.

The Theory of Knowledge Building

Dr. Marlene Scardamalia and Dr. Carl Bereiter spent a good part of their careers researching experts and expertise trying to answer such important questions as, "What makes an expert?", Is specialization the same as expertise?", "Can there be specialists who are non-experts?"Are there patterns or behaviors, which when adopted,  lead people to become experts?" "Can we teach people (in particular young children) to become experts by having them model the practice and behaviors of experts?"

 

Twelve Principles of Knowledge Building 

 

Following years of research around the nature of expertise,  Scardamalia and Bereiter published the twelve principles of Knowledge Building in 2002 :

 

1. Real ideas and authentic problems
2. Improvable ideas
3. Idea diversity
4. Rise above
5. Epistemic agency
6. Community knowledge, collective responsibility
7. Democratizing knowledge
8. Symmetric knowledge advancement
9. Pervasive Knowledge building
10. Constructive uses of authoritative sources
11. Knowledge building discourse
12. Concurrent, embedded, and transformative assessment

As many readers of this Blog know, I have worked closely with Marlene and Carl for many years. however, where their focus was largely on Knowledge Building in the  K-12 classroom, mine was on adapting the Knowledge Building Principles to advance the practice of Knowledge Management within cross sector business organizations.

In the next series of posts I will discuss how organizations can apply some or all of these principles to improve their Knowledge Management strategy and drive better knowledge outcomes.

MOOCs - The Beat Goes On

This is a re-post mash up of my comments from a discussion following a round table session sponsored by the Corporate Learning Network along with my responses to a series of questions posed by @Peter Smith, Communications Director at the Corporate Learning Network

Firstly - great discussion by members of the panel (Kevin Currie, executive director of Northeastern Online, Curtis Bonk, professor of education at Indiana University, and Craig Weiss, founder of E-Learning 24/7) -They covered a lot of territory and presented a broad perspective on the MOOC phenomena - Thank you.

I had a couple of general comments and one observation from the session.

General Comments

With regards to comments related to low completion rates. This is not uncommon for online learning in general. When I was teaching online courses in the 90’s drop-out rates hovered around 70% (I did find ways to flip this around through purposeful design, but that's another story for another day)

The very nature of the MOOC design does not demand completion of prescribed curriculum. This is perhaps one of the strongest arguments in favour of MOOCs -  They support learning for its’ own sake. Students take courses they are interested in. They make the choice to engage in areas of a course that are useful to their specific learning needs - They have the option of auditing the course, participating in individual activities and assignments or not. – This really places the student at the centre of the learning process.

Another reason for low completion rates is online learning requires self discipline and a proficiency with a myriad of technologies beyond what most people have been exposed to throughout their educational careers.

What would likely increase completion rates would be to have students who have never experienced online learning, take a pre-course, which helps them understand how to learn in online environments.

Finally, many MOOCs and online courses assume that people are comfortable immediately sharing their ideas in a open, public space. Consequently many of the learning environments lack support for learning and knowledge work at the individual and small group level. This can serve to discourage those new to MOOCs from being active participants.

I was a little confused about the comments and discussion related to MOOCs being predominantly focused on synchronous learning – e.g. The MOOCsoffered through Stanford are a good balance of the two and assignments typically do not require synchronous participation because of the issue of collaboration between students across different time zones.

Observation

Panelists seem to still view learning and work as separate activities. I see one of the biggest advantages of MOOCs is their ability to embed learning in the context of real, authentic work and meaningful problem solving designed to produce an outcome.

 Questions Posed By Peter Smith

1. Are MOOCs here to stay in higher education?

Absolutely! – They will change and improve over time, but they offer an authentic learning experience like no other

2. Do MOOCs have a future in the corporate sphere?

Again, yes. MOOCs provide a cost effective means for organizations to support their employees professional learning and development plans. There will be an increasing need in organizations for on the job, just in time and as needed training and learning. MOOCs will be especially useful for large, global matrix organizations (think KPMG, Deloitte etc.) They can be designed to enhance on-boarding programs, succession planning leadership development, product training etc.

3. What is the biggest challenge a traditional college or university faces when implementing a MOOC?

There are a number:

1. Role of the teacher and their ability to teach online (greater emphasis on being a good teacher, than on publishing research)

2. Maintaining relevancy and currency in the curriculum to reflect exponential change in the market and in the skills and competencies required by employers

3. High overheads associated with running brick and mortar institutions of higher learning

4. The need to do away with the “ivory tower” mindset and enter into partnerships with business to deliver learning programs which address the learning needs to students

5. The need to integrate learning with work in real time

MOOCs: The Fuel for Debate - Changing our Thinking Around the Purpose of Education

This is a re-post of a comment I contributed to a discussion around MOOCs stemming from the recent NYT article: Online Courses Fuel a Campus Debate

"I am not surprised to see a backlash against MOOCs as they represent a threat to the status quo and signal a change in the way people are starting to think about education. MOOCS (at least good ones) are the embodiment of authentic, student centred learning in the context of the global classroom.

I have had many discussions over the past year with academics who have a very negative view of the trend towards MOOCs - but what I find interesting is that none of the folks I have spoken with who hold this view had ever taken or taught in one of these courses.

While MOOCs may indeed threaten traditional elements of higher Ed - e.g. Tenureship, status, the importance of degrees etc., they also provide an answer to many issues facing Education e.g. Escalating tuition costs, accessibility, social economic inequality, student debt and high percentage of student loan defaults and the need for just in time, as needed, ubiquitous learning to keep pace with exponential change.

MOOCs will challenge our thinking about Education in a number of ways:

1. Purpose of 21st C Education - is it about the degree or about the knowledge? Is it about addressing the gap between theory and practice? Is it about getting a job and being a productive member of society? Or is it about self actualization?

2. Role of the teacher - a purveyor of knowledge or an expert participant in the learning process?

3. Role of the student - Is the student the driver of the learning or the passenger?

4. Content vs. Context - is it the role of universities to provide content or is it to provide learning context around the content?

5. Models of Assessment - How will we assess learning? Is this the responsibility of the teacher/instructor/Professor or the students themselves? are tests, papers etc. the best methods of assessment or (in the case of MOOCs) is it the value of an individuals contribution to advancing the knowledge of the entire community of learners?

6. Role of the Private Sector - does involving the private sector in partnership with academic institutions result in a better educational experience for students?

These are all important questions to be discussed and considered by educators and educational institutions as well as for members of the public. MOOCs are the catalyst for debate and discussion and for this reason alone they have great value.

...and in case you are wondering I have taught and taken part in MOOCs and found the experience to be both challenging and rewarding"

Building Cultural Capacity for Innovation - A Time for Reflection

During our CKM program last week we focused on the challenge of building the  cultural capacity for innovation and excellence in our organizations.

Organizations represented around the table included:

• KPMG
• St. Lawrence Seaway
• Sutton City Realty
• Mercer
• UCLA
• University of Toronto
• Enbridge
• WSIB

The program featured three fantastic guest speakers:

Nowshade Kabir@nakosy, Owner of the Knolee Group of companies. Nowshade presented a theoretical framework for both personal knowledge and corporate  knowledge within organizations, which supported the Knowledge Building principle of Symmetric Knowledge Advancement - Individuals advance their personal knowledge, while at the same time advance the knowledge of the organization.

Margot Brown@KPMG, Executive Director of Knowledge Management Services for KPMG Canada, presented KPMG's strategy for advancing knowledge and capability within large and complex matrix organizations. Margot's presentation focused on  the importance of identifying the KM imperative, which for KPMG is "how to harness the knowledge of our 155,000 people, in order to create new levels of value for our people, teams and clients, and help drive our “one firm” culture. Margot's presentation demonstrated the need to align all the components of KM strategy to support this vision.

Oswald Zachariah@ONAgFoodRuralRI, Manager Innovation & KM for the Research and Innovation Branch of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, provided us with a case study: Knowledge–Based Challenges & Corrective Strategies for supporting a culture of innovation at OMAF/MRA.

“In learning you will teach, and in teaching you will learn"(Phil Collins)

I have to say that I love being involved in these programs - I learn so much from the students and guest presenters. Their ideas, challenges and questions help to significantly advance my understanding of the KM field as well as my professional practice. Below are my reflections around key issues which emerged over the 3-days.
.

Technology of Use Rather than Use of Technology

I was delighted to hear Margot and Oz as well as others reinforce the idea that technology needs to support the work people actually do within their organizations - This is so important in terms of adoption, effectiveness and impact.

Margot thanks for not falling into the all too familiar trap of referring to collaborative and social environments as "tools" (see my rant in the previous post). And Oz, for resisting the "one size fits all" approach that many organizations apply when looking for a "quick fix" technology solution for their knowledge challenges.

Piaget's Constructivism

It has been some time since I studied Piaget's philosophy of constructivism in the context of KM. What struck me in Nowshade's presentation, was how Piaget's theory of Accommodation - The challenge of changing mental models to accommodate changing external reality, is so relevant in today's constantly changing world, and very important for KM experts to keep in mind when implementing change management strategies, introducing new ways of working or implementing technology solutions.

Piaget recognized the first cognitive step people go through when presented with something new, is to try and relate it to their existing mental models - something they already know.  This explains the very typical response people have when confronted with new technology - e.g. collaborative or social systems - when we often here a typical response like "This is just like email or Facebook.... Herein lies the challenge. If people see your collaborative system is basically the same as email, then they will resist using the technology or use it exactly like they use email limiting its potential value and usefulness.

If we understand this very natural tendency, then we can design our communication, roll-out plan and training programs to focus on helping people to change their mental models by demonstrating how to view the new system; How it differs from the old,  and of course by addressing the "What's in it for me?"

KM in Global, Matrix Organizations

I gained a new appreciation for the added complexity of designing, implementing and supporting a KM strategy within large matrix organizations like KPMG.  So much of what KM professionals focus on  is "silo busting" in order to improve knowledge flows across the organization. Matrix organizations especially large, global ones, actually perpetuate silos by compartmentalizing expertise and knowledge and creating multiple lines of reporting. They are like businesses within a business. As a result developing a common body of knowledge is extremely difficult (if not impossible?) Here are a few questions to ponder:

1. Technology - Can you realistically expect consistency of adoption and use of company wide systems?
2. Culture - Does the matrix model lead to multiple cultures reflective of the lines of business?
3. Training - Can you develop training / learning programs which address the needs of all employees or do you need to develop specialized training for each functional area? 

 

Constraints are Accelerators of Change and Drivers of Innovation

 

Oz's case study from his work at the Research and Innovation Branch at OMAFRA clearly demonstrates that constraints provide the fuel for creative thinking and innovation. The constraints faced by Oz and his team should resonate with a number of you:

• How to effectively translate knowledge from the producers to the consumers to drive measurable outcomes.
• A one size fits all approach when it comes to technology which may not map to everyone's needs.
• Difficulty publishing results and conveying the knowledge imperative in a risk adverse, bureaucratic environment

What Oz and his team have managed to accomplish over a three year period is nothing short of remarkable (This will be covered in greater detail in my next post). He managed to find creative solutions for overcoming barriers and for clearly demonstrating the effectiveness of his KM strategy.

The Organizational Challenges Brought by the Students

 

Prior to each program we ask students to identify KM related challenges within their organizations, which they would like help in solving. We use these challenges to tailor the program to address their needs.

The key challenges tackled over the 3 - day, in class session were:

1. Breaking down silos within our organization (Government and Professional Services)
2. How can I add value and Increase my customer base through better KM practices?” (Real Estate)
3. How can I develop meaningful curriculum for learners with diverse backgrounds Higher Education)
4. How do I get my users to adapt to our new social technology? (Professional Services)
5. What are the key elements of an effective KM strategy? (Oil and Gas)
6. How do I share across knowledge disciplines and challenge the knowledge hoarder mentality? (Government)
7. How do I Implement KM Initiatives in an organization facing major financial and structural constraints? (Higher Education)

What I've come to understand is that almost all organizations are facing the same challenges. This makes sense as external factors are impacting all industries and sectors in virtually the same way, forcing them to think, learn and work differently. Most of the challenges noted above are related to culture.

Over the next few months I will continue to explore the theme of Building the Cultural Capacity for Innovation and Excellence and provide concrete strategies for shaping organizational structures to support this outcome.
 

 

Tools, Tools Tools...My Rant

OK, so everyone is entitled to a good rant every once in awhile. This one is about the obsession organizations have with "tools" and their belief that having lots of tools leads to better knowledge processes.

Take this Hammer... 

 

The term "tool" is constantly misused - Social Media Tools, Collaborative Tools, Productivity Tools and secondly, by assuming every piece of technology is a "tool" it creates the wrong mental model and limits the effectiveness these technologies have to drive the outcomes for which they were designed.

When I say the word, "tool" what do you think about? - I think of a hammer (tool used for hammering or removing nails) A pencil (a tool for drawing or writing). There are of course software tools - Word (a tool for writing/word processing), PowerPoint (a tool for creating presentations) etc.

Too Many Tools; Not Enough Environments 

 

Let me say from the outset, most organizations have too many tools and not enough environments. In fact many of the "tools' used by organizations, can and should be replaced by environments - Think email (a communication tool) @Don Tapscott does an excellent video interview for McKinsey on this issue: http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/organization/making_internal_collaboration_work_an_interview_with_don_tapscott

Social Tools? Really?

 

Do we really think we need a "tool" to be social? 

Folks, Facebook is not a tool! - Nor are most Wikis - They are environments! - They have embedded tools e.g. text editors, slide sharing etc., but Facebook. Linkedin, Jive, Yammer etc. are social environments. Twitter might be considered a communication tool although increasingly young people are also using Twitter as a social environment.

 Why is the distinction between "tools" and "environments" so important? 

 

Tools are used to accomplish tasks like hammering in a nail, posting a comment, sharing an update etc. Once the task is complete, the tool is no longer needed. Environments are places where people live, work, play, discuss issues, problem solve etc. I have heard companies refer to the launch of their "social media tool" - immediately people unconsciously adopt the mindset that this is something they will use when they want to be "social" or  complete a social task like deciding the venue for this years Christmas party, rather than a place where they can effectively and purposefully work, learn, collaborate  and share knowledge and insight with their colleagues to solve real problems or accelerate the achievement of goals.

 The "Best Technologies" are those that people actually want to use 

 

What our research shows over and over again is organizations have "too many tools" that don't effectively connect with the work needs of employees. As a result employees abandon company sanctioned tools/ technologies for ones they actually want to use. According to Bill Jensen@Jensen Institute, "The technology available to individuals are better those those available in most organizations" (see his video, #Hacking Work)

Here are common statements we hear from employees when they are asked about the effectiveness of their organization's tools:

• Too slow, takes too long to locate what I'm looking ffro
• Too confusing...don't know how I'm supposed to use this for...
• No version control
• Too many tools used for basically the same purpose - which one do I use? How do I find the information I am looking for? What's of value?
• These are not the tools I use for my work ...I use...

People in most organizations are unhappy with the tools at their disposal - Why? Because many of these so called "tools"reduce productivity and effectiveness. Employees are constantly being asked to shoehorn how they work into a common set of tools which is akin to saying, "this is how we want you to work" instead of recognizing that individuals know how to be productive and that this differs from person to person. For example, I'm a Mac user and have been almost forever. The Mac works the way I think and therefore makes me more productive - why would you want to take away my Mac and make me use a PC? - This would certainly cause an almost immediate drop in productivity as I try to re-wire my thinking to adapt to the PC  and I would now have the added challenge of shifting back and forth between the two (because of course I would continue to want to use the tool that allows me to me most productive.

Every Handyman Knows - You Need the Right Tools for the Right Job 

 

Why is this so hard for decision makers within organizations to understand? Why do so many companies invest in massive IT systems without first understanding what technologies they need in order to support the work their people actually do?

The right tool allows you to do the job more efficiently and effectively. The wrong tool, breeds frustration, complacency and slows down the work.

The Final Word(s)...

 

• Understand the knowledge needs of your people and the work they do BEFORE investing in tools and technologies.

• Give employees the ability to use tools and technologies which they need to be productive and effective - Tools and technologies they want to use. Spend the time find out what these are and why your people want to use them.

Building Cultural Capacity for Innovation and Excellence

It has long been acknowledged that one of the chief aims of Knowledge Management is to encourage innovation through a concerted, focused effort to continually advance beyond current best practices. As well, the field of study has advanced to the point where it has become generally accepted that sustaining innovation requires the creation of an organizational cultural and a prevailing mindset amongst employees and leaders committed to this goal” (B. Melnick 2013)

The June CKM will explore strategies and methodologies for designing a “culture of innovation” while demonstrating an immediate, measurable return on investment necessary to solidify the commitment to change.

What do we mean by organizational culture?

“Organizational culture is a set of rules, standards norms [insert: “values”] shared by members of an organization, transmitted by learning and responsible for governing [Insert: “actions”] behaviors of its’ members” (Nelson & Jermaine, 1987)
In essence it’s  “How we do things around here”

Changing a culture is time consuming, challenging and at times, seemingly impossible. So why do organizations do it?

Cultural change typically occurs under four conditions:

1.  The launch of a new organization or a new division within the existing organization
2.  When organizations merge or are acquired
3.  When an organization is open to cultural evolution
4.  The “burning platform” - when a crisis situation emerges which requires the organizations to examine and change how they do things

A strong organizational culture fosters effectiveness, productivity and creativity, through improved collegiality, communication and collaboration amongst employees. It ultimately increases the likelihood that change and improvement efforts will be successful.

Knowledge Centric Cultures

Knowledge centric cultures are ones where the pursuit of “new knowledge” is the shared goal of everyone in the organization.

At all levels of the organization, knowledge creation is valued, recognized and rewarded  Every task, activity, and project is approached with a mindset of “continual improvement”

Knowledge centric cultures build commitment, create a shared responsibility for successful outcomes; foster motivation and amplify energy in their commitment to innovation.

They do this by increasing the focus of daily behaviors on what’s important - Ideas, rather than tasks and activities; Continual improvement, rather that completion; New knowledge instead of old - All in pursuit of a shared commitment to innovation and excellence.

The Final Word: COMMUNICATION

 

“The first large scale challenge (before developing the culture) is to identify the desired culture and be able to articulate & communicate the compelling need for it” [N. Halpern, 2002]