At
this time of year, we are often inspired to reflect on what has occurred over the past twelve months. But I'm
not particularly interested in reliving my past unless we're talking Disco, and
I don't know why that didn't last. So, with an eye to the future, I'm spending
time thinking about how to solve a problem for all time: How much knowledge (or
information or data) is too much? I think the ultimate answer lies in
"sense-making," but that's too big of a topic for me to think about right now,
so I'm going to stay with much simpler examples to illustrate potential
solutions.
This
is not merely an academic exercise or thought experiment--it's a real problem
that many organizations experience, but don't know how to address. In fact, I'm
working with one such organization right now, and this problem has the
organization at a crossroads regarding what to do about it. And while I don't
have the complete solution yet myself, I do know what side of the fence I fall
on and what type of solution I would prefer to see. That'll be the basis of my
argument. Supporting evidence and even counterpoints are definitely welcome
here.
Situation:
A project-based organization wants to develop a comprehensive KM manual. A
common approach, and nothing inherently wrong with the idea. So far, so good.
Environment:
Since this organization is project-based, the vast majority--say 99 percent--of
the people involved in the process do not think about KM in even sporadic terms
(not unrealistic, given that 3,000 people may be on the project, so less than
300 are actively aware of and use KM). Exacerbating the problem is that the
projects are minimally many months long, and periodically many years long. So
the folks that started the project aren't always the same folks that finish it.
Implications:
The best opportunity for KM to be wildly successful is in the diffusion to the
99 percent. We already know that the current manual is distributed to project
leaders, but what does the organization need to do to bring a KM manual to the
masses?
My
response: Simpler is better. I don't want the entire KM collection from the
Library of Congress when I only need a quick definition of how a community of practice
can help me with the problem facing me right now. Or, more generally, I don't
need to boil the ocean when all I want is a cup of tea.
So
what's my evidence for arguing that "less is more" when it comes to knowledge?
Just off the top of my balding head:
- Printer
instructions. I've been lucky (?) enough to have gotten several printers in the
past few years. As a piece of machinery, printers seem to be complex devices.
Yet, for me to operate them, I'm given essentially a single-sided,
picture laden sheet of paper that tells me exactly how to connect it properly,
turn it on, and start printing! Sure, I still get a big, honkin' manual to go
with it, but I can't remember the last time I ever actually opened one of those
manuals to find an answer.
- I
fly--a lot. Last year I took 123 flights, which is about average for me. Not
enough to compare to George Clooney in Up
in the Air, but then again, who can compare to him? Presumably, the flight
attendants--the "knowledge managers" in this case--are given very good and
detailed instructions on how to effectively evacuate an airplane. The rest of
us? A cardboard comic book that doesn't even have text, but provides just
enough information to keep us from trampling each other on the way out
(assuming we don't all panic like I probably would).
- Google
wants to index the world's information, whether we like it or not. So why does
Bing exist?
- Even
though we may see Kindles everywhere we go, why can we still buy CliffsNotes?
- Why
is there fast food?
Okay,
I guess I've gone over the top now. What does anyone else have to say
about this?
Interesting timing -- Tom Davenport blogged just a few weeks ago that we shouldn't care about this topic (not sure I agree) because nobody's going to do anything about it.
http://blogs.hbr.org/davenport/2009/12/why_we_dont_care_about_informa.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+harvardbusiness%2Fdavenport+(Tom+Davenport+on+HBR.org)
Dennis, thanks for Tom Davenport's perspective. Like you, I obviously believe that this is a practical problem for organizations. And maybe that's the difference--Tom and I are talking about two different phenomena here. It's one thing as an individual to be willing to be provided with as much knowledge as possible. That awareness allows for general education, professional development, and maybe even fun just to stay on top of the topic. Not trying to speak for Tom, but I think that's what he's discussing.
What I'm trying to solve is the appropriate level of timeliness and volume for a specific organizational need; eg, how to safely shut down a nuclear reactor in an emergency. In that case, I don't want to go to wikipedia, count on an RSS feed, tweet for help, or like the commercial, get my "smarts" from staying at a certain hotel chain the night before. For authoritative knowledge, or even "pretty good" knowledge requirements, I can't simply wait for it to come to me (by chance), sift through it, make sense of it, and then apply it.
Within data / information domain, we still could measure quantitively how much is too much through probability-based metrics because we still could treat data / information as object.
But in knowledge domain, knowledge should exist inside human body resulting from emergent property of the human as complex (adaptive) system. Here, how much is too much not relevant any more. We should make our decision on possibility-based (Link http://mobeeknowledge.ning.com/forum/topics/the-function-of )
After knowledge evolved (not "created" or "captured" as commonly mentioned) inside human being or inside organization in the form of socially networked people, innovation is one of knowledge's goals beside learning and growth.
Further, the interesting phenomenon is where innovation in 2.0 platform environment and economic 2.0 becoming the seed of long tail economics where "tail section" community "rewriting-the-rule-of bussiness" against "head section" community as you mentioning : ...Google wants to index the world's information, whether we like it or not. So why does Bing exist?•Even though we may see Kindles everywhere we go, why can we still buy CliffsNotes?•Why is there fast food?...
Jim, Excellent question. In my humble opinion, the better KM processes are moving away from the Library of Congress-type repositories of knowledge but toward knowledge flow systems where the user can get exactly what they want when they want it. The link is an outstanding article detailing this approach much better than I can.
http://blogs.hbr.org/bigshift/2010/01/a-better-way-to-manage-knowled.html
What do you think? Take care, Mark
Md, thanks for the addition of your URL reference. While in the abstract I would agree with you that "...how much is too much not relevant any more." is accurate, I would also suggest however, that for the consumer of the knowledge at a specific time, for a specific purpose, to create a specific outcome, that there is an "appropriate" amount. Naturally, what is appropriate differs depending upon the nature of the situation, but for the knowledge worker, understanding the entire value stream at the point of use may be too much, and having no understanding of the impact on the value stream of one's actions based upon a decision made given the knowledge available, is probably too little.
Thanks for extending the conversation. Please feel free to continue as you uncover new sources. I look forward to it.
Mark, there's no question that the notion of systems built around knowledge flow provide a better framework than "build it and they will come" with respect to providing the right knowledge for the appropriate need. You know that's why APQC stresses the knowledge flow cycle in our discussions with clients. Our president Dr. Carla O'Dell and others have noted that "knowledge is sticky." Meaning, that in spite of elegant repositories that would make presumably lots of knowledge available, that without some insistence on how to get it to people (perhaps push with a little bit of pull), then the knowledge is a stock and not a flow.
BTW, thanks for the URL link. I've said for some time that if "KM systems" could mimic the behaviors of WOW players, that we would see immediate impact and improvment of collaboration and outcomes within their boundaries. I'm happy that I've latched on to similar ideas of these renowned authors.
I liked your usage "not to boil the ocean for a cup of tea".
KM, what I have observed all along is people tend to speak a lot about it - but nobody seems to be really doing any thing. The situation, especially in this competitive world - the more you know the more you are powerful, makes it tougher to implement.
The attitude "Knowledge is power and I should hoard it" need to change in the first place; The organisation need to create a "no competition space" within; Organisation should distinctly know what they know, what they do not know and what they have to know; Keeping these points and then embark on KM System. This is easily said or written than done.
I love this article, and I wholeheartedly agree. Most people do not want the manual when a card will do. The heavily illustrated examples you gave were all what the instructional design world calls "job aids."
Any ideas of what would be illustrated in a Knowledge Management job aid? In the case of your project-based organization, it may merely include a link to the company's internal wiki or sharepoint site, registration/login/password notes, a FEW guidelines/role definitions for contributors and moderators, a few examples of what to post where in the hierarchy, and a few non-examples of what belongs elsewhere.