Several months ago, I blogged about some KM "standards"--taxonomy, lessons learned, using collaboration spaces, and so on--that I thought would be old news by now for most organizations. What made me realize that these issues hadn't gone away was the fact that we were getting so many requests for help--both from organizations steeped in KM and those new to it. During one of my rare appearances in the office this week, I ran into one of my favorite Millennial colleagues, and our discussion led me to think that some other long-standing beliefs (or maybe myths in this case) are still running rampant out there.
As I began to tell my colleague about a new course in Web 2.0 technologies that I'm developing for our KM conference next May, we naturally got around to talking about microblogging--okay, Twitter
specifically. When I mentioned that I had become aware of another
application that is aspiring to become the "corporate Twitter," we both
agreed that that's an idea whose time may never come. Partially because
of the "corporate" or security constraints that such a product would
naturally have to overcome, but more importantly because of the nature
of change management.
What did my bleeding-edge colleague have to say about all this? Well, for one thing, that Twitter was passé now that Facebook has implemented similar functionality. Imagine that--Twitter already obsolete, and I haven't even gotten my 6,234 closest friends to follow me on it yet! Sure, part of what makes Facebook and its ilk so magnetic is the critical mass of friends and colleagues that users are already connected to, plus the investments users have made to ensure their profiles reflect their "real" personalities. Imagine trying to do that in a corporate expertise locator system!
So what's my reason for pointing out all this? It's that many organizations are still interested in implementing knowledge management strategies by leading with technology, acknowledging the change management requirements almost as an afterthought. For these organizations, the long-held KM mantra of "build it and they won't necessarily come" is but a quaint saying for others. Such organizations think that they can overcome inertia simply by the sheer force of their powerful collaboration and Web 2.0 technologies.
All this leads me to one conclusion: That my old friend Dale Arsenault was right all along. I've suggested that the Millennials communicate differently and that, in the future, knowledge management will need to look different for that reason. However, Dale argues that generational differences won't be the key factor in the future of collaboration and, consequently, technology adoption. According to Dale, the real key factor will be (and has always been) figuring out the "what's in it for me?" for users and implementing the change management required to answer that question. For the Facebook crowd, the fact that the application puts everything they need for their networking in one place in a way that they like makes it work. Conversely, for the "put technology out there because we can" set, I think they're likely to have a lot of pretty, sparsely used knowledge applications in their futures.
I recently announced that I'd looked at Twitter and decided I could live without it. Where did I announce this? In the microblogging window in Facebook.
That might seem illogical or contradictory. But all it really means is that microblogging makes sense to me in the context that Facebook (or LinkedIn) provides, for the audience of intimates or at least quasi-acquaintances I have in Facebook world, for the few moments each day I spend in Facebook. There's no WIIFM in it for the rest of the day. Whipping out a Blackberry and Twittering (tweeting) while waiting for a meeting to start would just feel narcissistic.
So, if there's a design lesson in this, then for me it's that there will be knowledge sharing methods and tools that have value in one specific context, but not at large. For you, perhaps the opposite applies. The trick for organizations is to figure out which behavior is productive and should be reinforced.
I find it ironic that this article cannot be easily shared via Twitter, Facebook, Orkut, Bebo, Linkedin or any of other the growing number of social networking software. I came to it via a Google Alert for "knowledge management" and quite by accident decided to click through.
As an entrepreneur, both Facebook and Twitter have been the source of original connection to contacts, contracts, consultants, and content - not because I was searching for something specific but something popped up as a flow of data and information moving past my point of focus.
I am reminded of Michael Fullan's words in "Leading in a Culture of Change" - the paradox is that transformation would not be possible without accompanying messiness...change cannot be managed. It can be understood and perhaps led, but it cannot be controlled.
Facebook and Twitter are messy but they are giving form and access to small bits of potentially powerful details that leaders can transform into innovation.
Jim.. I think what you're saying in a round about way is "let individuals choose / groups self organize within a broad set of parameters."
As you point out, "what's in it for me" is an important consideration, but the challenge there is the impossibilty of truly getting inside someone's head to understand complex motives. Therefore providing choice is important - for every generation. Choice of how to work, who to work with, and what functions/tools to use.
But in the context of an organization it can't be unlimited choice. Parameters / constraints are requied to ensure choice leads to business outcomes, that the available choices are supportable, and that decisions lead to positive action and change.
It seems to me that organizations who are looking at Web 2.0 as a "capability" set of functions/tools that staff can draw on are heading in the right direction, in particular if the functions/tools are "pre-configured" to serve both general networking, knowledge sharing and collaboration needs, and the specific task at hand.
Clearly establishing direction and broad guidelines for how work should be done is also important, in particular as turnover increases and new employees as need to learn the "rules of the game" far more quickly than in the past. This notion is obvously not new, as direction and parameters/guidelines are required to focus an organization on mission and outcomes.
The real challenges is in the "let go" factor. Many managers are still having difficulty understanding that knowledge work can't be easily engineered/controlled or micro-managed, and that there is value facilitating individuals and teams in maximizing their energy, innovation and contributions to outcomes rather than direct their activities and efforts.
So for those "younger" generations coming into the work force .. I say give them context, broad direction, key parameters, resources and let them go. Manage work as a high-level project, and not a series of micro-tasks.