Idealistic vs Naturalising KM
An idealistic approach goes something like this:
“In a perfect world everyone would update the KM system with details of their latest projects and contribute to a CoP relating to the area of their expertise.
Then when a new project starts all members of staff would check out the KM system for relevant material, use it and this safe money and time by not reinventing the wheel.
So we will set up a system based on best practice…and then train people to use the system as it is in the overall interests of the organisation for them to so do.
They will realise that a small amount of their time given now to maintain the system will save them (and the organisation) time in the future so that they will see it is in their interests to do this.”
…this fails to appreciate some of the basic rules of knowledge management in respect the conditions under which we share knowledge. Critically it fails to realise that the few minutes to maintain this system cannot be considered in isolation. These few minutes have to be added to the many minutes spent on email…
However when people fail to use the system, or it is not used properly the whole thing is either swept under the carpet and forgotten…In other cases a new argument is brought into play, namely the question of cultural alignment. The argument goes something like this:
“The system has failed for cultural reasons so we will institute a cultural change programme to align personal values and objectives to the greater good of the organisation as a whole. We will invest in further automation and control mechanisms to ensure alignment of those goals with the needs of the system. Personal incentive plans etc will now include incentive payments (or disincentives) to ensure full participation.”
Fortunately there is an alternative, which is to switch from an ideal, to a naturalising approach.
Here we treat the system as a whole (both the people bits, the organisation its environment and the technology) as part of a complex system. We know that in a complex system we cannot manage outcomes, only starting conditions. So that is what we do. Instead of designing the system based on ideal outcomes we start with a semi-robust architecture into which we introduce various tools.
As patterns of use stabilise, then we start to introduce some stability. We start to take a Just in Time approach to KM. We realise that informal communities are a lower cost option to knowledge storage and use than formal systems
Basically we allow the system to evolve from the interaction of its elements, not the idealism of a designer who does not share the context of the present let alone the future.
- Dave Snowden
Related
