Sharing knowledge is not a task but a way of working

I just saw this interesting post on this topic,  thanks to Martin Roulleaux-Dugage. The difference between traditional KM and its “2.0″ evolution is that it’s not a task anymore but a way of doing things, a on-the-flow activity.

Take time to classify, fill in forms, stock is real burden that often lead KM projects to fail. In the other hand, in just a few clics, classify, share an information as soon as it’s identified, write a quick note about it, quickly identify related documents and people who would be able to help me with my daily problemactics is rather a way of working. It’s not a task that need me to book some time, it’s an ever ongoing on the flow activity which is not its own purpose anymore but is linked to my daily problems solving.

This reminds me of my usual answer when I’m asked how much time it will take to a group to share knowledge within its members, how much time it will take to stimulate the group. The waited answer is often about hours, half days… My answer is the following : it won’t take a lot a time but it will take often a little time. But if there’s a business need behind, it will be painless. Minutes here, seconds there, on the flow, not hours spend when doing otherwise is impossible, when it’s impossible to wriggle and when job is botched up done reluctantly.

Enterprise 2.0 and Process Killing

I’m convinced that enterprise 2.0 doesn’t mean processes hunt in purpose to play a pure informal game but offers new opportunities to take the most of informal and non-structured assets. Though… what I thing being a rule has its exceptions. I’m not about to join the dreamer’s clan but a discussion I had with Luis Alberola, while having a coffee, a few weeks ago. There are processes and processes. Those that exist by calling and those that exist by default.

We were sharing nearly the same vision with Luis when he asked me “in fact, the “2.0″ will cause the end of some processes”. “Hem ! Can you tell me which ones ? “. “All those which vocation was to replace people”. Bingo ! Actually, two kind of process exist : those that are to organize people’s productivity and determine everyone’s tasks and those that are to organize people’s reflections (individually or collectively).

Two reasons for that. [Read more...]

What to do today with McGregor

collaborationYou know Douglas McGregor? It’s the kind of guy you can’t ignore just because every management education must have at least a few words about him. According to McGregor there are two management models: the X model and the Y model.Theory X:

The average human being has an inherent dislike of work and will avoid it if he can.

  • Because of their dislike for work, most people must be controlled and threatened before they will work hard enough.
  • The average human prefers to be directed, dislikes responsibility, is unambiguous, and desires security above everything.
  • These assumptions lie behind most organizational principles today, and give rise both to “tough” management with punishments and tight controls, and “soft” management which aims at harmony at work.
  • Both these are “wrong” because man needs more than financial rewards at work, he also needs some deeper higher order motivation – the opportunity to fulfill himself.
  • Theory X managers do not give their staff this opportunity so that the employees behave in the expected fashion.

Theory Y:

  • The expenditure of physical and mental effort in work is as natural as play or rest.
  • Control and punishment are not the only ways to make people work, man will direct himself if he is committed to the aims of the organization.
  • If a job is satisfying, then the result will be commitment to the organization.
  • The average man learns, under proper conditions, not only to accept but to seek responsibility.
  • Imagination, creativity, and ingenuity can be used to solve work problems by a large number of employees.
  • Under the conditions of modern industrial life, the intellectual potentialities of the average man are only partially utilized.

In fact it’s not a way of managing people but an analysis of how you manage considering the opinion you have about people.

McGregor wrote decades ago, in the taylorism era and things have changed since. The economy is now moving to the era of knowledge working and the Y theory seems less suprising than when it was formulated since giving people autonomy and responsability is known as the best way of generating added value with knowledge workers.

Although some are not very comfortable with that because lot of people still like to control everything and show “who’s the boss” (quite an improductive attitude), the question is now to see how to improve autonomy, innovation and self responsability in the XXIth century companies.

The fact is we can’t just say “things will be like that”. We have to face fear toward change and people who fight for their “status” without caring about the collective interest in terms of efficiency. Another point is that, considering management is also a question of social behaviors and that in a deconcentred company those behaviors are supported by communication tools, those tools mus be conceived to “support” management and become a place for exchanges, sharing experience and improving innovation.

Applying Y theory with X theory based information systems is downing the efficiency of your management practices.

And this will be the subject of a next post…