by Paula Thornton
June 15, 2007 at 4:14 pm
· Filed under 2.0 Design Thinking, Barriers, Enterprise 2.0
My last post about 2.0 being the antithesis of “managing knowledge” struck a tender nerve or two based on the comments received. This raises an interesting perspective to barriers for 2.0 thinking: people have a tendancy to view new things with old mindsets.
As a result, there is an onus for us to identify common blockages and bring them in the open for observation and discussion.
One reader asked: “Was knowledge ever bound in some fashion?” and also suggested that perhaps I didn’t really understand Knowledge Management. Indeed, I understand the original ‘intent’ of KM…but it has sadly failed in this regard. And yes, knowledge is bound by the bad design of most KM technologies, in very fundamental architectural flaws. Again, this is not a ‘necessary’ result but is indeed the reality.
In lieu of my promise to capture my notes from the fabulous RAVE May 22nd call [.wav] I tease out some critical points here. One of the very best topics was around ‘barriers’.
Euan Semple (who managed KM for the BBC) shared great details about his challenges getting attention, funding, etc. for implementing anything 2.0 at the BBC. Hints of ‘old mindsets’ were evident in management’s perception that what Euan was suggesting was a bit “utopian”. Other evidences included the necessity for him to ”get the organization out of the way” and “fear”.
Jim McGee talked about Web 2.0 being “necessarily messy” and that the messiness is not comfortable. Management (note the inherent ’vested interest’ in this identity) wants things to be more organized and more predictable because the lack of such implies that something is not being managed well (a direct implication as to the mismatch of KM). I added emphasis to this, because I think that this ‘disconnect’ is the most fundamental issue to 2.0 adoption (you go, Jim).
What Euan had to do at the BBC (as we’re finding is necessary when new concepts are difficult to communicate), is go ‘underground’ and instantiate what it was he was asking permission to do. He had to ‘prove’ to the naysayers that what he was suggesting was a great idea. The results spoke for themselves.
This illustrates why the adoption of 2.0 is fundamentally a Design Thinking problem. I leverage the fundamental concepts of Design Thinking to reframe client mindsets in Innovation Sessions:
- “When it comes to innovation, business has much to learn from design. The philosophy in design shops is, ‘try it, prototype it, and improve it’. Designers learn by doing.” Roger Martin
- “Perhaps the most glaring difference between the worlds of business-as-usual and business-by-design is the way each side actually thinks. In traditional organizations, the dominant forms of logic are inductive (demonstrating through observation that something actually works) and deductive (reasoning from a set of existing principles to prove that something must be). Designers use inductive and deductive reasoning as well, but they also rely on a third type: abductive reasoning, the logic of what might be.” Roger Martin, Fast Company, Tough Love
Most people are not inclined to view a new concept with an abductive perspective. 2.0 requires this as a fundamental starting point. So to meet the ‘less able’ where they are…we need provide the corresponding proof:
-
Traditional…inductive – prove something operates
deductive – prove something must be.
-
Design adds
abductive…suggest something may be, reach out to explore it. May not prove something is or must be…reason that it may be.
Roger Martin,
The Design of Business [pg.10]
The beauty of 2.0 is that by embracing another fundamental principle — simple — the ability to put out a concept quickly is the name of the game: 2.0 instantiates proof.
Now, 2.0 doesn’t guarantee good results…indeed 2.0 implemented without Design Thinking fails miserably. An unstructured wiki is just a free-for-all for irrational exuberance;
Wikipedia has structure.
Permalink
Paula,
I may be one of those people whose tender nerves were struck (in a good way) by your last post.
This new post reminds me of a conversation I had over dinner tonight with my 26-year-old babysitter. She graduated right before Facebook went mainstream, and she’s not on a social network today. The probability of anyone just one year younger than her of having been or being on a social network site is about 99%, according to numbers on the adoption of Facebook among college students.
The point is that Web 2.0 is a generational thing with pretty sharp edges. Corporate “management” may be a bit gray around the temples to apply any kind of reasoning at all to these new social technologies because they are too new and different to even make a blip yet.
But when they start loosing related business opportunities, they’ll take notice. Jack Vinson at http://blog.jackvinson.com points to a great example with Airbus and Boeing, where Boeing’s voice in the blogosphere and Airbus’ lack of voice is a real business issue.
Lynda
I don’t believe it is because “nerves are raw”. I believe that you have not provided a coherent argument. KM failures outnumber KM success stories but there are indeed success stories. How do you explain the success stories that involve KM efforts? How do you break-down KM and acknowledge which aspects have succeeded and which have failed? If KM is a field of study then what is E2.0? How does KM relate to social software and/or social computing? Do you also believe then that Information Architecture (IA) has also been a failure?
I agree with the “design thinking” point of view.
It is important to learn from history as well. No one is going to disagree that “living in the past” is good, but E2.0 will repeat mistakes of the past if we don’t examine the totality of efforts (re: success and failure).
I can’t help but agree with Paula’s overall argument (though I wouldn’t want to underestimate the usefulness of a little creative anarchy). For too many corporations, KM= Knowledge Control and is frequently a consequence of traditionally focused IT departments taking ownership. The problem is in the very notion of ‘management’ – i.e. corralling knowledge in pre-determined directions. It’s not how Web 2.0/Enterprise 2.0 functions .
I acknowledge that there have been (and will continue to be) many failures under the KM banner. But I have also talked to and worked with clients that have had KM success long before all-things-suffixed-by-2.0. Although I am bound by client confidentiality, I know of KM “wins” in many industries – pharma, fed gov, manufacturing, life sciences, etc. KM is a heavily tainted term, especially the “M” aspect. But people have talked about knowledge contruction before wikis came along. Communities existed long before social networking sites became a rage. Being in denial about those aspects of KM that have been successful ignores how such success will be mimiced by things labeled 2.0.
To some extent, we are reaping the benefits of a maturing collection of platform, infrastructure and data services that enable the Web to become a platform in-and-of-itself – extra layers of abstraction – interfaces that can be manipulated (e.g., REST), XML schemas, etc. The recent wave of 2.0 applications and sites have been able to focus on design and interaction patterns that previous waves of solutions could not exploit.
But in the end, it still comes back to organizational dynamics. No matter what the enabling tool – if organizations do not address command-control structures, “need to know” communication flows, gated communities and teams that limit participation levels, and stovepiped information sources – then 2.0 tools will fail just the same.
Mike: I agree with your points about the potential for 2.0 to fail. For organizations that have had KM failures, if the same resources implement 2.0 technologies, they have not implemented 2.0. They have not enabled collaboration…they have stood up technologies claiming to facilitate collaboration.
And likewise, those who have had successful KM implementations, they will likely also do well with 2.0.
We need then to make sure that there is an understanding that they are not the same. One is emergent, the other is not. The one that is not, is far less flexible. And, I would argue, KM for whatever ‘good control’ it provides, would best be served by data or content/document management technologies.
My favorite latest reference is from Lynda Radosevich: Knowledge Unmanagement (http://www.centralityjournal.com/archives/kill_the_20_label_but_keep_the_big_idea.html).
Normally I just try to ignore asinine shock value journalism. “KM has been DOA for year”, maybe in your case. I should just ignore this – but hey I am on a role in trying to purge the market of such inane yellow journalism disguised as thought leadership by those that are hoping it will help keep them in the limelight.
But before I go on I find it hard to argue with Paula’s statement until she gives us her definition of KM. KM has been DOA for years – what exactly are you saying is DOA? Please provide us with your succinct definition and I assure you I will debate with you. Please do not cloud it or hide behind statements like “I understand the initial intent of KM”. We are not arguing “intent” – your statement is that KM has been DOA. So define KM and then lets debate.
Carl: As Clay Shirky points out in “Here Comes Everybody”, the craftspeople being obsoleted are quick to denounce the incoming replacements. Your language “asinine…inane” all reaffirm a posture of denunciation.
Rather than meet you where you are, perhaps you’ll consider the very balanced perspective of one of your own colleagues, Mary Abraham: http://tinyurl.com/ln3bof
Paula:
Lets not drag Mary into this. Still awaiting YOUR definition of KM.
Let’s say I gave you a definition. You’d pounce on it. The definition is irrelevant. Knowledge never wanted to be managed — it’s needs to be freed. KM was a misnomer from the beginning and it has only proven to be so through its failure.
The key is NOT the information but the people — an element that is absolutely and totally missing in the focus of KM activities (or, if there, an appendage). It is the information that is the appendage, not the other way around.
Whoa folks; calm down! Let’s agree that KM and E2.0 are both labels that mean different things to various people. And that those labels are imperfect attempt to neatly describe a philosophy, not just a bundle of enabling technologies.
Collaboration (another label, but one that serves as a ‘big tent’ for the others IMO) is about people — individuals and their human networks. It is the antithesis of artificially created organizational structure. The real battle here is not between KM and E2.0. It is between organizations that favor control and those that trust their employees, partners, and customers enough to let them manage themselves in pursuit of corporate mission and goals.
Mike says it very well in the last paragraph of his second comment above. Organizations that are willing to trust their people will successfully leverage collaboration to improve effectiveness, efficiency, and profitability. Companies that can’t make that leap in operating philosophy will fail at any collaboration effort they attempt.
What makes you think I would pounce on your definition. I am trying to debate your comment that KM has been DOA for year. How can that be debated if i do not know what you are calling KM. Please provide a definition. If you are going to make such bold statements you need to be able to back them up. Stop avoiding the issue.
Ayn Rand says that all things are defined by what they are and equally by what they are not. My last comments were just that. THAT WAS my definition.
Paula:
you are a whiz at quoting everyone but yourself. Ayn Rand, Clay Shirky, Mary Abraham. But you seem unable to give me YOUR definition of KM. I have no argument with those you quote. For the record I completely agree with Mary Abraham, or at least her comments that you referenced. So until you can back up your statement KM has been DOA for years by defining what you mean I cannot argue with you.
TTFN
Larry: Thanks for jumping in, but there’s no argument.
Carl: Considering where your strongest concerns might be coming from, let me step back and say that for your purposes, the more correct statement is not that KM is Dead — but that it should be (as was the sentiment in the closing of my post referenced at the beginning of this post). As Mike Gotta noted before there are many projects that are successful that are labeled KM…to which I say, success is relative.
There are a lot of successful “information repositories”. Most of the projects I’ve seen with KM labels are nothing more than that (SharePoint included).
Whatever definition you assign to KM, it is a flawed approach to solving the problem space it attempts to focus on. Defining it is not the issue, solving the right problem is.
» Subscribe to the RSS feed for these comments
HTML-Tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Additional comments powered by BackType
