Recently, I sat through a presentation about a Sharepoint-based intranet project to improve processes within the HR group of a medium-sized organization. The process in question was one of collecting annual performance reviews throughout the organization. Using Sharepoint, the HR group and their consultants replaced Word documents, spreadsheets, and email with Infopath forms and programmatic workflows. The client was happy and the consultants had a nice demo they could show to their prospects. Nonetheless, I found myself dissatisfied.

For all the new technology deployed, this effort struck me as an example of what my old friend and mentor Benn Konsynski calls "speeding up the mess." This HR process is an instance of the micro-processes that comprise knowledge work activities in organizations.

Other examples might include:

• Customizing an existing sales presentation for a meeting with a new prospect
• Designing the agenda and preparing materials for an internal brainstorming meeting
• Putting together the briefing materials for a quarterly business review meeting
• Analyzing and making sense out of a competitor’s recent pricing announcement

These micro-processes are characterized by:

• A small number of steps
• Ad hoc design created by the knowledge workers responsible for the process
• Loose definitions of the beginning and end of the process
• Loose notions of control, sign-offs, and approvals
• Technology-enabled, if at all, by email and office suite tools.

None of these processes were ever explicitly designed; they’ve evolved over time. The cumulative pain and productivity drag imposed by these processes is accepted as a fact of organizational life. While various technologies are offered up as ways out of the swamp, we need an overall improvement strategy to provide the necessary direction.

The appropriate strategy is readily available. It is the same strategy originally deployed by Frederick Taylor in improving the productivity of manual labor in factory settings. The late Peter Drucker summarizes this strategy nicely:

Taylor’s principles sound deceptively simple. The first step in making the  manual worker more productive is to look at the task and to analyze its constituent motions. The next step is to record each motion, the physical effort it takes, and the time it takes. Then motions that are not needed can be eliminated; and whenever we have looked at manual work, we have found that a great many of the traditionally most- hallowed procedures turn out to be waste and do not add anything. Then, each of the motions that remain as essential to obtaining the  finished product is set up so as to be done the simplest way, the easiest way, the way that puts the least physical and  mental strain on the operator, and the  way that requires the least time. Next, these motions are put together again into a "job" that is in a logical sequence. Finally, the tools needed to do the motions are redesigned. Whenever we have looked at any job-no matter for how many thousands of years it has been performed-we have found that the traditional tools are wrong for the task.
[Peter Drucker. "Knowledge worker  productivity: The biggest challenge."  California Management Review. V41, #2.  Winter 1999. pp. 79-94.]

While the strategy of “go, look, think, improve” is sound, there are some challenges in translating it successfully to knowledge work. First, the outputs of knowledge work are fluid and ill-defined. We have no widgets of constant quality to anchor process improvements against. I’ve argued elsewhere that one of the distinguishing factors of knowledge work deliverables is achieving the necessary uniqueness in the end result (Crafting Uniqueness in Knowledge Work). Applied uncritically, Taylor’s approach can lead us to emphasize superficial uniformities over essential uniqueness. Before we can even hope to improve a knowledge work process, we need to define deliverables in a way that allows us to judge them to be of sufficient quality.

Second, many of the steps in knowledge work processes are invisible. For physical tasks, what we could observe was more than sufficient to identify places for improvement. Not so with knowledge work. Is the person banging away answering email more or less productive than the one reading the latest journal article? Is the all-day project status meeting more or less productive than a well-maintained project wiki and issue tracking system? How would you go about comparing project management approaches to decide? The challenge is to find ways to make the invisible more visible, to distinguish essential activities from peripheral, and to develop robust insights into mental work processes. For that later challenge, I’m planning on revisiting books like John Medina’ Brain Rules: 12 Principles for Surviving and Thriving at Work, Home, and School and Dan Ariely’s Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions.

Third, we need to understand how to market knowledge work improvement to knowledge workers. In the world of Frederick Taylor we could treat workers as experimental subjects to be manipulated. Not so with the knowledge workers who drive today’s economy. These are individuals with the discretion and autonomy to ignore our advice on principle or on a whim. They can’t be compelled; they must be persuaded, sold, and possibly seduced into modifying their behaviors. At the very least, we’re going to need to carefully rethink the skills and perspectives we want to have in our deployment efforts.