tacit knowledge elicitation_and_transfer_140315

12
Tacit Knowledge Elicitation and Transfer Dimensions for selecting and understanding the different approaches Draft for discussion Revised 3/15/14 Kate Pugh, Columbia University and AlignConsulting [email protected] www.alignconsultinginc.com Sharing Hidden Know-How (Jossey-Bass, 2011) John Hovell, STRATactical [email protected] www.stratactical.com Making It Real: Sustainable Knowledge Management (ACPI 2013) 1 Tacit Knowledge Elicitation and Transfer

Upload: katrina-pugh

Post on 17-Aug-2014

154 views

Category:

Education


7 download

DESCRIPTION

In spirit of learning, here are slides where John Hovell (BAE) & I (Columbia) compare Knowledge Continuity (embodying knowledge for succession) and Knowledge Jam (codifying knowledge for innovation).

TRANSCRIPT

Page 2: Tacit knowledge elicitation_and_transfer_140315

What’s elusive about tacit knowledge and what should we pay attention to?

• One of the great management ideas of the last twenty years has been to make use of the knowledge that our organization has already learned, rather than having each new team or person learn those lessons for themselves.

• Managers in all types of organizations express that failure in their everyday language: “We reinvent the wheel!” or “We seem to have to keep learning that same lesson over and over.”

• There are three main issues: – We have blind spots (we don’t know who know

whom, who knows what, and who does what) – We have mismatches (even when we elicit

knowledge, it’s not useful to the receivers) – We have jails (knowledge elicited doesn’t go

anywhere – it sits on hard drives, doc stores or in people’s heads)

2 Tacit Knowledge Elicitation and Transfer

Image thanks to Parcel/Collison “Learning to Fly”

Page 3: Tacit knowledge elicitation_and_transfer_140315

What’s elusive about tacit knowledge and what should we pay attention to? (cont’d)

• The answer lies in having systematic processes. We need to: – Identify and get out tacit knowledge – Get knowledge into circulation -- putting knowledge to work

• Context and purpose matter. In the following slides we talk

selecting or designing an elicitation based on context: – Where does the knowledge reside? – Who’s eager to get it? – Do we understand the actual job to be done? (is it the right

knowledge?) – Where does it need to go in the organization’s (or the customer’s)

work? And, in what form? – How does the environment or political structure support the

process?

3 Tacit Knowledge Elicitation and Transfer

Page 4: Tacit knowledge elicitation_and_transfer_140315

Bird’s Eye View of the Tacit Knowledge Elicitation

Approaches

(Using the simplest dimensions, how are the methods different?)

4 Tacit Knowledge Elicitation and Transfer

Page 5: Tacit knowledge elicitation_and_transfer_140315

Bird’s Eye View: Comparing Knowledge Capture-Transfer Methods

Facilitation (is the elicitation

facilitated?)

Conversation (is it “many to many”)

Translation (is knowledge

get put to work in the

process?)

Search/Alerts Clipping services Decision-support

systems

After Action Review Wiki-thon Yam Jams Mentoring Discussion Forums Story telling

Reporting Interview Appreciative Inquiry Knowledge Harvesting

Community of Practice Master Class Retrospect

Knowledge Jam,

Knowledge Continuity

Peer Assist

5

Instructional Design

(not in graphic) Individual Journaling or Procedure Writing

IBM Innovation Jam™

Tacit Knowledge Elicitation and Transfer

Page 6: Tacit knowledge elicitation_and_transfer_140315

Nine Polarities for comparing knowledge elicitation approaches

(Let’s go deeper. What are all of the choices?)

6 Tacit Knowledge Elicitation and Transfer

Page 7: Tacit knowledge elicitation_and_transfer_140315

What are our choices when we select a knowledge elicitation approach?

Polarity This polarity sparks the question:

1. Group of originators/experts v.

indiv. originator/expert

Does the knowledge reside in the collective minds or in the individual

expert?

2. Conversation (group of

receivers/brokers) v. interview v.

individual's diary

Is the knowledge elicited as a group conversation (e.g., between originators

and brokers or seekers), an interview, or just an individual doing a diary.

3. Scaffolded v. free form Is there a structure, such as an outline, or rubric for thinking about the

content, or is there more spontaneity in the flow of the elicitation?

4. Facilitated v. self-facilitated by

the group

Is there a facilitator who is managing the process , and more importantly, the

elicitation event?

5. Synchronous v. asynchronous Is knowledge emerging in real-time, e.g., through a conversation, or

asynchronously, e.g., through an online discussion and discussion posts?

6. Translated v. elicited only Does the process include a formal step to translate the knowledge directly

into an outcome? (Note: this is likely to correlate with #2 “Conversation,” as

brokers will have a drive to move toward output.

7. Codified v. embodied Is the knowledge codified, e.g., in a word document or process flow that is

the property of the collective, or is it embodied in the learners (e.g.,

“Nextperts’) or listeners? (In the latter sense, the listeners may do a private

codification.)

8. Measured/bus. value v. ended

at capture

Is there an explicit step to measure the outcome of the knowledge in its next

incarnation after the elicitation?

9. Sponsored and planned v.

Unsponsored/Spontaneous

Is the whole event planned and sponsored with the clear line to leadership,

or is it more spontaneously initiated by the team? 7 Tacit Knowledge Elicitation and Transfer

Page 8: Tacit knowledge elicitation_and_transfer_140315

Use polarities to describe tacit knowledge elicitation and transfer

Group of originators/experts Indiv. originator/expert

Conversation (group of receivers/brokers) interview Individual's diary

Scaffolded Free form

Facilitated Self-facilitated by the group

Synchronous Asynchronous

Translated Elicit only

Codified Embodied

Measured/bus. value Ended at capture

Sponsored and planned Unsponsored/Spontaneous 8

Page 9: Tacit knowledge elicitation_and_transfer_140315

Knowledge Jam and Knowledge Continuity: Similar processes with different goals

• Knowledge Jam and Knowledge Continuity are very similar in that they are collaborative processes for eliciting knowledge.

• Knowledge is – “Codified for innovation” in Knowledge Jam – “Embodied for succession” in Knowledge Continuity

• Ownership / audience targeting:

– Knowledge Jam is motivated by issues around markets or cost objectives. (Thus, it is often driven by people worried about business unit or functional performance).

– Knowledge Continuity is generally more motivated by issues around human capital disappearing (Thus, it is often driven by people worried about succession)

Tacit Knowledge Elicitation and Transfer 9

Page 10: Tacit knowledge elicitation_and_transfer_140315

Read about Knowledge Elicitation

(Just some helpful references)

10 Tacit Knowledge Elicitation and Transfer

Page 12: Tacit knowledge elicitation_and_transfer_140315

Additional Reading

Books

• Sharing Hidden Know-How Book (Jossey-Bass, April 2011)

• Making it Real: Sustaining KM Book (ACPI, 2013)

Blogs

• We Know More Than We Can Say (Blog by Nancy Dixon, 2013)

Articles • “Don’t Just Capture Knowledge – Put It to Work,” Katrina Pugh and Nancy M. Dixon, Harvard

Business Review, May 2008. (This is one page and it is free)

• "Sharing Hidden Know-How," (Journal of Digital Media Management, Vol 1. No. 1, 49-54, May, 2012).

• “Knowledge Jam: Three Disciplines to Beat the Merger Performance Odds,” Ivey Business Journal, July/August, 2011.

• Jamming with the Institute for Healthcare Improvement “ (NASA Ask Magazine, Winter, 2011)

• Quick overviews for facilitators : – Facilitator as catalyst for innovation. (Training Magazine, 2011)

– Talk Trumps Text for Harvesting Hidden Know-How (IT Performance Improvement)

12 Tacit Knowledge Elicitation and Transfer