Handbags at dawn — defining the damned thing

So Shawn wants me to define knowledge workers?

One school of thought tries to define knowledge work based on the role. The thinking seems to be: “I’m a knowledge worker; therefore, whatever I do is knowledge work.” Definitions based upon this premise tend to creep naturally toward broadness. Because the activities that correspond to the role can vary so greatly from organisation to organisation, the definition of the role (and thus the activity) grows larger and larger.

The opposing approach is to define the role based on the activity. Whatever knowledge work is, an knowledge worker is the person who does it. These definitions tend to creep naturally toward narrowness. In order to speak meaningfully about the issues surrounding knowledge work and their solutions, we must define the scope of those problems in very concrete ways. When this definition (intended for the activity) is applied to the role, it creates for some the fear of being ‘boxed in’, trapped in a role so narrowly defined that many of the elements essential to the success of any given knowledge work are outside the control or influence of the knowledge worker. Ultimately, it leads to the result that Shawn suggests, with people saying “Our salespeople are knowledge workers but our gas fitters are not”.

The yearning for clarity of a concept by defining it is not something new. Many disciplines have gone through this agony. I actually stole borrowed reframed these words from Jesse James Garrett’s IA Recon essay. Some years ago, Information Architects were attempting to define what they did and ultimately got no where. Business Analysts are going through the same argument of definition right now. What then was Garrett’s solution to definition? Let me again, reframe his words:

Knowledge work is an activity that can be practised by people in a wide variety of roles. Knowledge work can be designed to achieve a wide variety of goals, not just information retrieval. The single most important factor in the success of knowledge work is the skill of the knowledge worker. This skill is applied through a combination of experienced professional judgement, thoughtful consideration of research findings, and disciplined creativity. This skill can be developed and applied by specialist knowledge workers and non-specialists alike.

Only by being honest with ourselves about what makes knowledge work valuable can we convince others of that value. Only by being generous with our knowledge can we reap all of its benefits. And only by creating a culture in which these principles are fully embraced can we foster the growth of our field, and ensure our continued success.

M

I’m a schizophrenic, and so am I

Back in my university days, learning psychology, we were taught a very important lesson about labels, and the pigeonholing that can occur as a result — because when a psychologist says someone is diagnosed with a mental illness, like schizophrenia, he uses the term to communicate something to other clinicians so they can communicate with patients and their loved ones. Unfortunately, the nuances of meaning are lost and even misunderstood when used outside the profession [1].

I find misunderstandings quite typical of terms created for use taxonomies. Taxonomies carry with them the implicit assumption that the terms created are for specific uses, primarily the communication of specific meaning within a specific community of practice. When used outside the group, the term can loose all meaning.

Loss of meaning is the real problem behind Shawn Callahan’s post on knowledge workers. He suggests that the term is now misused, and carries with it a sense of superiority of knowledge work over other types of work:

“Sadly, when we use the term ‘knowledge worker‘ today we are often unfairly saying one type of job is superior than another. It’s a dark undercurrent and tacitly becomes a basis for discrimination — ‘Our salespeople are knowledge workers but our gas fitters are not.’”

Shawn doesn’t articulate who ‘we’ are, but as a KM practitioner, I know what this term means. I know that many of my colleagues, like Jack Vinson, have argued and debated at length in the past about what this term means so as to better understand and support the associated activities of this sort of worker and his work. Furthermore, the majority of those who have, and continue to use, the term “knowledge worker”, from the likes of Coulson-Thomas, to Drucker, Nomikos, and others, broadly agree that there is a form of work which we might meaningfully categorise as “knowledge work” [2].

This is not to say, though, that arriving at a single and universal definition for the term ‘knowledge worker’ is the goal. Ultimately, the term ‘knowledge work’ and the debate that surrounds it is important because it highlights that there are people who need to consume, create and share knowledge as an integral part of their work, and need the support of policy, process and technology. This was basis of Drucker’s premise of the knowledge economy — the differentiation of the support required for the mechanised work that produces widgets from work that requires support to share and create knowledge.

Sadly, Shawn misses this point about knowledge workers. The term isn’t irrelevant because the term is still important for communication. It carries with it specific meaning to those amongst us who call themselves knowledge managers and practitioners. The term is vital for education of those outside the profession who still don’t understand (or even misunderstand) the importance of what knowledge work actually means in practice. And, despite Shawn’s suggestion of the ubiquity of technology making the term redundant, there are still organisations that are not yet knowledge-intensive [3] but probably will become, so who need to hear how understanding knowledge work can help them.

M

- - - -

[1]. Bellack AS. (2006) Scientific and consumer models of recovery in schizophrenia: concordance, contrasts, and implications. Schizophrenia Bulletin. Jul, 32(3), 432-42.

[2] Collins, D. (199 Knowledge Work or Working Knowledge?
Ambiguity and Confusion in the Analysis of the “Knowledge Age”. Journal of Systemic Knowledge Management, March. Online at: <www.tlainc.com/article7.htm>, accessed on 24 December 2008.

[3] Håkan WILÉN (2006) Measuring gender differences among Europe’s knowledge workers. Statistics in focus. Science and Technology, 12, 2006.

The real McCoy — how important is knowledge work for business 2.0?

“The real McCoy” is a funny statement. One theory suggests it comes from the days when Elijah McCoy, a Black Canadian inventor, was selling lubrication systems for steam engines. Supposedly, after failed attempts by competitors to make counterfeits of his lubricant, the phrase “real McCoy” was used to refer to his authentic product [1].

Over the last few decades we’ve seen different sorts of management theories saying they’re the real McCoy. I’ve studied aspects of TQM in my psych degree. I’ve read theories of time- and performance management (if you can really call them theories at all that is). Then, of course, knowledge management came into vogue along with claims of better productivity and if you only buy this ACME KM Software Suite, knowledge management and protecting the intellectual capital of your organisation comes with it like a set of steak knives.

But are any of these real? Do any of these products of theories actually give the modern workplace any competitive advantage?

Most of these ideas are just common sense wrapped in pretty cellophane and are largely untested in empirical terms. But as we all know, common sense is hardly common. Even Drucker’s work on productivity for knowledge workers, that sharing what you know, had very limited empirical data to back it up … until probably quite recently that is.

I’ve been enjoying Haas and Hansen’s [2] research into knowledge work and the different productivity benefits that can be gained from sharing knowledge in modern organisations — something vital to the success of businesses evolving toward 2.0 to take advantage of the Knowledge Economy and advances in social software. Specifically, Haas and Hansen asked the questions:

• does sharing knowledge save time?
• does sharing knowledge improve work quality?
• does a knowledge worker’s level of experience improve the signaling of their competency?
• does a knowledge worker’s lack of effort decrease the signaling of their competency?

Here’s what they found:

“our results demonstrate, knowledge sharing clearly has costs as well as benefits, including the investments required to rework documents and secure assistance from colleagues”

“because the costs of knowledge sharing may sometimes outweigh the benefits, using electronic documents and personal advice from colleagues around the firm does not necessarily help — and sometimes actually hurts — task-level performance”

“high quality documents offered greater benefits for saving time than for improving work quality in this study, while lack of effort by colleagues imposed greater costs on work quality than on time”

“electronic document usage primarily saves time but does not improve quality or signals of competence suggests that a firm’s repositories of codified knowledge can be viewed as an efficiency play”

“firms that primarily compete on quality can benefit most from emphasizing personal advice usage … and perhaps downplaying electronic document usage”

Even while ACME pushed KM until it killed it, knowledge management is still alive and has important lessons, real lessons, for us to learn. While other management theories have very little basis in reality, knowledge management is the real McCoy.

M

- - - -

[1]. Wikipedia. The Real McCoy. Online at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_McCoy

[2]. Haas, M. R. & Hansen, M. T. Different Knowledge, Different Benefits: Toward a Productivity Perspective on Knowledge Sharing in Organizations. Online at: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/…/3b154e913b7c5a40, accessed on 15 Dec, 2007.