If you subscribe to McGregor's feed and follow his tweets when trial resumes on Tuesday May 19th, you'll get a surprisingly raw and detailed "play by play" despite the short length of the feeds. A great compliment to the more ... polished... pieces that appear in newspapers, web sites and on TV.
Meaningful content from a credible source on a (to some) relevant topic in a timely fashion to any number of "subscribers" - great application for Twitter.
(Note: if you happen to review McGregor's feeds before he begins posting again when the trial resumes, you'll see reference to "about X hours ago," which doesn't give you the sense of frequency of posts. During the actual trail he's posting every few minutes.)
Via Louis Suarez' KM blog, a great overview presentation about presence management in Facebook, along with some good personal info risk mitigation strategies.
So, this past weekend I was walking through a few neighbourhoods as I was giving my dog (and myself) an opportunity for some fresh air and to enjoy the spring sunshine. Of course springtime for more northern climates is about switching winter "stuff" for summer "stuff," cleaning out the "stuff" that's collected in your car(s) over the winter, and heading to the nearest outlet and picking up "stuff'" to put on your lawn. Throughout this flurry of activity on the weekend, many of my neighbours' garages were open to the elements - including my own.
An informal survey of about 100+ open garages (it was a long walk), including my own, uncovered that for every one garage that was neat, clean, organized, and practically empty, about 30 were disorganized, cluttered, and most often over filled with "stuff" - including my own.
The results of this informal survey prompted me to ask "why?" repeatedly to try and understand the cause of the accumulation of all this "stuff." (Thankfully there were no adults around to smack me for asking repeated 'whys'.)
Some possibilities:
thanks to consumerism, we've developed into a society of people who are adept at acquiring "stuff" but not disposing of stuff
other activites take priority over dealing with our growing mound of "stuff"
very few people by their nature are organized, disciplined and are able to keep their "stuff" under control
because we don't know what the future will hold, we keep "stuff" just in case
No one can talk about "stuff" like George Carlin, so I'll not go much further.
Strangely, and I do mean strangely, I related my exploration of "stuff" this past weekend with a casual conversation I had with a practicing psychologist many years back. Her theoretical roots for her practice were the work of Alfred Adler. She talked about this metaphorical suit case we have as kids, and how, as we grow, we fill it with "stuff" - perceptions, values, beliefs, mental programs etc. - that are all developed through the eyes of a child and young adult. And this "stuff" is what we use to view and make sense of the world around us, and make important behavioural decisions that affect our lives.
I'm sure you'll agree - this is very important "stuff!" According to the psychologist, as we get older the "stuff" in the suit case needs to be thrown out and replaced with new "stuff" that we develop through the broader view of an adult. Other wise we continue to think and act like a child in some ways, and not always to our benefit.
So, "stuff" seems to be a perpetual problem in many different worlds. Perhaps there is a causal link between how upgraded our mental "stuff" is and our ability to manage our physical "stuff."
At a recent Conference Board Knowledge Strategy Exchange Network meeting, I had the pleasure hearing Adwoa Buahene from nGen Performance talk about the mix of generations at work (Traditionalists, Boomers, Gen Xers, Gen Ys), and most importantly, provide some very practical ideas on how to deal with the key challenges and create a good work environment for all.
A few key "take-aways":
Don't focus on one generation a the expense of the others. Many organizations focus so much attention on the impact of Gen X that they alienate the others.
Socio-economic status affects the prevalence/relevance of generational characteristics
You can't have engaged employees (expenditure of discretionary effort, emotional connection to the organization, acceptance of accountability) unless you have an engaged organization (transparent, responsive, partnering)
Don't over generalize and risk creating biases - seek to understand, and respect, each individual for their uniqueness, and potential contributions
It's important that organizational change initiatives, and language, accomodate the different generations at work
The sense of time is one of the key differentiators between the generations. E.g. younger generations are expecting value from their participation/contributions to an organization in a far shorter time frame than Traditinoalists or Boomers who were prepared to wait for many years. Generation X/Y will figure out in the first 90 days of employee whether or not the employer will deliver on what was promised during recruitment and around time of hiring.
Overall I found Adwoa's ideas refreshing, balenced, free of the "hype" that seems to surround many generation Y conversations, and closely linked to basic principles behind both facilitative and situational leadership.
Two questions crossed my mind; is leading a story with a Facebook status change good journalism, and the importance of good discussions across stakeholder groups on which social media functions to "turn on" inside the organization to enable productive conversations / collaboration, and which ones will interfere with or marginalize it.
I think one of the deepest divides and potential clashes between boomers and the millennials, in particular at the opposite ends of the spectrum, is/will be the use of technology - not only "Web 2.0", but even more basic tools. I've been overhearing a lot of informal hallway/elevator/shopping mall conversations recently where millennials are expressing their deep frustration at the "old folks" inability to use even basic tools like email.
Though personal computing history dates back to the late '70s / early '80s (depending on if your an Apple or IBM fan), as personal computers and networks replaced mainframes, or were a company's first experience with technology, not everyone embraced getting personal with their PC with the same degree of enthusiasm. For some people it was a necessary evil. For others it was a tool/task that was best avoided, or delegated.
Even today, over 25 years later, I personally know of people who refuse to touch a computer outside of work. They don't have a Blackberry / PDA, have no idea how to add phone numbers to their cell phone address book, and often ask someone else to do it for them. They've still got glue covering the time display of their VCR at home as a reminder of the tape that once covered the flashing 12:00 display. They ask someone else, often the dealer, to set the time display in their car.. Internet banking? They’ve only recently mastered the automated teller machine and still prefer to go to a real teller for even trivial banking transactions.
In the office, they have their administrative assistant print out their emails, and then write their responses for their assistant to re-key. They print documents they receive and comment on them with a pen as a matter of course not convenience. And they make no effort to use corporate information / document management applications, instead delegating the tasks to others.
Some people have a genuine phobia about using computers, and others have a genuine lack of skill. Understandable. But what I find astonishing is that some people speak of their lack of technology fluency/use as though it was perfectly acceptable, a point of pride.
I think that respect is an important element of good peer and manager/staff working relationships, and I think respect is equally important for all generations.
Millennials coming into the workforce will be far more critical of others’ lack of technology use/skills, and I suspect will not be particularly respectful of colleagues, direct managers or senior leaders if they are not competent with technology. In turn, the lack of respect will undermine working relationships and pose significant challenges in getting work done.
Arguably, time will solve the problem as more and more of the boomer generation retires. But until then, it could be a rough ride.
I recently attended a good environmental scan / overview presentation about what's happing "out there" in terms of information management, technology, and the internet. As I was listening to the speaker, my mind turned, somewhat uncharacteristically, to a "dark side" perspective. Many speakers / thought leaders extol the virtues/promise/potential about Web 2.0 and social technologies, but perhaps there really is a down side, or at least a few considerations for a more balanced view:
The rise of the opinionated - Emerging technologies gives a voice to all participants (yes, like me). But not every voice is worth hearing. And since these voices are manifested in an explosion of content in a wide variety of types and formats, determining best quality and value is a significant challenge.
The rise of aggregation vs. new and innovative thinking - We first heard about it in the context of students plagiarizing internet content for projects, but now it’s rampant. On the internet, content is so easy to find that there is a tendency to copy and re-use, often without citing sources, rather than create / innovate something new. Granted, re-use saves time and money, but not in all circumstances. Sometimes new and innovative approaches are required to solve problems created by status quo thinking.
The rise of aggregation and fall of awareness / access to original, authoritative sources - The technological capabilities to aggregate content, not to mention the broad re-purposing/re-use of content without attribution, makes it very difficult at times to identify the original, authoritative sources. True, content should be evaluated on its own merit, but often part of that evaluation requires context and source of origin.
Rise of the net evangelist - Over the last few years, the internet and Web 2.0 have been the new "cool thing" to talk about. As a result, there is no shortage of evangelists who are willing and able to take money and talk about the value of Web 2.0 and social technologies in a number of abstract, theoretical ways, or reflect retrospectively/summatively on experiences of organizations who've used some of these technologies to impact their business. Many of these evangelists miss an important point - social technologies are only useful if people use them. Crowd sourcing / wisdom of crowds only works if a crowd is participating. Most of the statistics I've seen around about participation in social technologies (e.g. How Do People Participate in Social Media), and my meagre personal experience online and with in-person groups, point to only a small percentage of any group actual participates. It's a little hard to get wisdom from a crowd when there is now crowd.
Rise (re-glorification) of the speaker not the listener – Early KM initiatives mistakenly focused on the information provider / creator and not the consumer / learner, evidenced in the many stories about unused “knowledge repositories.” Two camps seem to be emerging. I find much (thankfully not all) of the rhetoric around the promise and potential of emerging technologies seems to again focus on the provision / availability of content, and not the individual / group learning and collaboration that takes place, supported by the content. The underlying assumption is that people individually and groups will do the right / logical thing as a matter of course. A bit misguided perhaps?
I certainly agree with those who say that emerging social technologies for joint content authoring, networking, linking, sharing, commenting etc. present opportunities not previously possible in the organizational context. The real challenge from my view is how to deal with the many complexities associated with people – individuals or groups – in examining, choosing, and harnessing the opportunities to integrate social technologies to create productive work environments.
I was reading a John Tropea's Library Clips blog entry about My recent article on KM Review - When Two Worlds Collide and noticed that he had used a service called Scribd to put a copy of the actual KMReview article directly inline with the blog post. Interesting, I thought. (I'm wondering the value of this type of approach to providing easy access via blogs, wikis etc. to corporate documents in a document management system.)
But, what I wanted to point to is that once on the Scribd site with John's article on my screen, I scrolled through the Related Documents list and uncovered Belonging Networks, a 217 page document that explores the people and technology sides of implementing social networking inside organizations. Very interesting.
Knowledge Management (KM) is the cultivation of an environment within which people want to share, learn and collaborate leading to individual, team and organisational improvement.
The first one I've come across with a primarily cultural focus.
In a recent news article titled We Told You So, author Dan Gardner writes about Robert Shiller's books (The Subprime Solution and Irrational Exuberance) and the author's accurate predictions of both the housing crisis and the tech crash. Gardner's article points to Shiller's positioning of two flaws in conventional economics thinking that was a major factor in both economic events (and the Dutch tulip mania of 1637 as it turns out):
Flaw number one - the premise that people are always rational, and make rational decisions based on facts and what is in their best interests as opposed to "buy a house at grossly inflated price and expect its value to keep rising."
Flaw number two - "efficient markets theory" - prices are always reasonable and correct based on all publically available information, and markets are never wrong.
I haven't ready any of the above mentioned books yet, but what I find fascinating in the article is the link between what is referenced as conventional economic theory, and traditional management thinking that leading management writers and thinkers like Gary Hamel and Henry Mintzberg are attempting to break away from - that the world, its systems, and people are predictable.
It would appear to be the contrary.
(PS: Mintzberg talks about the current economic situation as a A Crisis of Management not Economics, and states that "... everything was short-term and everybody is under pressure and everybody is meeting their targets for each short-term period and so they were not managing. It is a management problem from beginning to end, and I do not think this is a banking problem or a finance problem. "
In a recent blog entry, Shawn at Anecdote posted a link to this YouTube video titled Generation We. The book by Eric Greenberg is available for free download on the www.gen-we.org web site.
Generally, I find discussions about the impact of this generation in the workplace fascinating for the variety of opinions espoused by the boomers Gen "x"ers, conflicting research on similarities and differences between the generations, and the sheer volume of conversations about the topic. I'm looking forward to reading the book, and seeing how it compares.
I do admit, though, thinking a bit to myself that this is very professionally done, and wondering if it was marketing to either encourage people to vote, or to market the book. What a cynic I am. But I got over it.
I think the messages in the video are right on - boomers and the preceding generation are leaving the world in a mess, and it's up to the millennials to fix it.. unfortunately. I also like how that generation is portrayed in the video - concerned, involved, energized, engaged. That's been my experience. And a very positive one.
Sometimes I wonder if business managers are doing themselves a disservice by generalizing group characteristics to help "deal" with demographic change, rather than dealing with the individuals as such.
The implementation of organization-wide knowledge programs or strategies are often plagued by the same challenge - finding interested / willing partners or clients. This is less of a challenge when a new core technology like a document or content management system is being implemented and driven by a central "owner" with funding, authority and control. But as numerous case studies published in various journals demonstrate, many KM- related initiatives are change initiatives launched after looking at how work is done (process and practice) through the "lens of KM." Examples come to mind like evolving a more knowledge sharing culture, globally instituting practices such as peer assists, after action reviews, and project retrospectives, or integrating various social/collaborative tools in the workplace that fundamentally affect how people work and require effective collaborative practices and behavour to deliver value.
Voluntary change in any form must be driven by a desire to move away from an undesirable current state and / or a desire to move towards a desired future state. This requires recognizing and acknowledging that the current situation is undesirable on one hand, and the ability to envision a more desirable future on the other.
Internal communications plays a vital role in most organizations by keeping employees informed of what is going on around them - events, appointments, jobs posted, announcements, and even human interest stories about colleagues. Vehicles tend to be internal newsletters, broadcast emails, RSS based news feeds, "ticker tapes" and content published on corporate intranets. And often, internal communications groups are involved in organizing hosting employee events for special occassions, whether social, like a holiday party, or business, like the launch of a new strategic plan.
In the context of a knowledge program or strategy, internal communications can play a more vital role well beyond the traditional, somewhat transactional role of communicating things of more immediate interest - that of marketing communications.
Looking at the strategic view, internal communications can assist knowledge programs / strategies by:
helping identify, define and characterize target markets within the organization
educating the market about key concepts and business drivers that underly the program or strategy, and increase receptiveness for further, deeper conversations about problem identification and resolution
helping the target market become more aware of or identify their own explicit needs and opportunities / possibilities (creating intolerence of the status quo)
encourage members of the target market to seek out represenatives of the knowledge program / strategy for assistance dealing with current or imminent needs
assisting with positioning / differentiating / aligning the program/strategy/initiatives relative to other work in the organization
reputation management (sometimes "KM" has a bad reputation based on misunderstandings or unusccessful projects)
situating / orienting the program/strategy with new employees and newly minted key stakeholders and steering committee members
promoting an internal services group that compliments work done at a strategic or programatic level
Another view occured to me in the context of the traditional sales cycle, of: suspect -> prospect - > educate -> propose -> close -> deliver. Communication can play a key role in enabling program / strategy representatives to reach out to receptive potential clients and offer solutions.
Most of the talk around "Web 2.0" rarely touches on the human element. There is lots of rhetoric about the promise and potential of emerging social / collaborative technologies, but no one connects these as tools that enable human processes / practices. There seems to be an underlying assumption of "build it and they will come" or "give the group these technologies and magic will happen."
I think this is a problematic and potentially costly assumption.
Example. Wiki technology enables a group of people to jointly create and edit a document, track who made what changes, and have a related on-line discussion about the document/content. A much more productive tool than using only Microsoft word and those ugly revision marks.
But without common purpose and motivation to contribute, the required skills and knowledge to contribute, agreement to basic ground rules and processes, clear decision making around what content stays and what goes, and a transparent, agreed to arbitration process in the case of irreconcilable conflict -- all the basic things guide group work even in the absence of technology - the tool in and of itself is ineffective and desired outcomes will not be reached.
Related to this idea is that the word "collaboration" has become a generic term to refer to ANY form of interaction between individuals and groups. Yet there are multiple forms, including consulting (asking for input), co-operating, coordinating.
In each one the motivation, process and outcomes are different than real collaboration, which can be defined as exchanging information for mutual benefit, and altering activities, sharing resources, and enhancing the capacity of another to achieve a commonly agreed to outcome through an agreed to process.
Common, explicit understanding and agreement about the outcome / goal, and HOW a group will interact together is important for establishing roles/responsibilities and rules to govern the interaction, and the choice of technology or tool.
I think when "collaboration" is used generically it leads to multiple interpretations and assumptions, which causes breakdown in processes/practices and prevents groups from achieving their potential.
Adding technology in the mix only multiplies the risks.
I was thinking back to a Google presentation at the APQCKMEdge conference, where the presenter challenged the need to delete information, and suggested that with the current and anticipated future state of search technologies and capabilities, there is no issue finding the right information.
Of course, that proposition tends to make Information Management professionals react quite strongly, in particular around the issue of ensuring that business is properly documented by retaining accurate, relevant corporate records and deleting transitory information from corporate systems.
But what about in the "networked world?" Imagine a not-so-distant future when a range of social technologies are in use inside the organization, and individuals link to internal/external shared content, others' personal / team spaces, URLs etc., very much like what is happening on the Internet today. They build on the ideas /information in those links, and presume that if a reader chooses to follow the path of precedence, they can. Multiply this by the number of people using these linking strategies, yielding an exponential rise in a "network" of connected information.
So, what happens if a number of links in the chain break because they are to information considered transitory in one circumstance, but provided a great foundation of ideas in another? What happens if the originating source is not longer available? (Perhaps a bit like a research paper footnoting another paper or book that ceased to exist.)
In a future of social technologies in the enterprise, can organizations afford to delete any information, regardless of its value, or lack thereof, as a corporate record?
Perhaps it's a little like meeting up with an acquaintenace in a totally different/new circumstance and not recognizing them. I've heard many people share that experience.
Below are YouTube clips of the song in the two circumstances if you too need a reminder. (Apparently it was also used on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.)
In today's fast paced work, we are all negotiating with suppliers, partners, colleagues, subordinates, managers etc. I had in my hand Stephan Haeckel's book titled Adaptive Enterprise, and dropped it on my desk. It opened to page 148 and a section titled The Commitment Management Protocol, an a few lines grabbed my attention:
"Its rigor imposes clarity on processes that may otherwise be rife with ambiguity and misunderstanding. "
"The commitment management protocol consists of four task phases - define, negotiate, perform and assess - and seven communications of a special kind - offer, request, agree, report, accept, reject and withdraw."
And on page 150 the author mentions "The commitments made must also be authentic. By authentic I mean two things. First, both parties must mean what they say and say what they mean - they must be sincere. Second, each party must know and understand what they mean - they must be competent."
Perhaps this could be the root of a protocol that enables collaboration/cooperation/coordination across hierarchical boundaries.
What virtually jumped of the page for me was his working definition of agility - the ability to manage and apply knowledge effectively so that an organization has the potential to thrive in a continuously changing and unpredictable business environment. He suggests that agility is derived from "both the physical ability to act (response ability) and the intellectual ability to find the right things to act on (knowledge management.)
Over the last number of years, threats and risks of retiring baby boomers was often suggested as the hook upon which to hang KM's hat (to demonstrate the value of KM.)
In only reading the first few pages of the book, it looks to me that increasing agility is a far more value add for KM, which would also include dealing with knowledge continuity in the face of retirements.
Rick Dove's book also looks at agile enterprises in the context of culture, structure, frameworks, change and management.
On a final note, Rick Dove seems is well versed in organizational agility, flexibility, decision making and change management. This book is well worth the read.
