Preparing
for Conversations with Megan Santosus
Knowledge Productivity:
How Do We Know Knowledge Works?
Megan Santosus
Senior
Editor, CIO Magazine
Manager, Knowledge Management Research Center, CIO.com
 Biography
Megan Santosus is
a senior editor at CIO Magazine, the leading resource for information
executives. Santosus is responsible for managing the Knowledge
Management Research Center on CIO.com. In that role, she writes
"In the Know," a monthly column profiling a knowledge
management initiative at an organization; she also compiles the
monthly KM newsletter.
For CIO Magazine,
Santosus covers the knowledge management beat and is responsible
for editing and writing feature stories and shorter pieces including
Reality Bytes, a monthly opinion column.
Santosus has been
with CIO Magazine since 1989 and has been covering the
knowledge management space since 2001. Among her primary KM interests
is the role that knowledge workers play at organizations and
how organizations can encourage knowledge sharing among employees.
Santosus is a 1987
graduate of Connecticut College with a degree in American History.
Back
to top
Introduction
In the industrial
age, quantifying the productivity and output of workers was primarily
an issue of numbers and time, i.e., count the number of
widgits produced over a given shift period and voila -- we have
insight into worker productivity. However in the knowledge economy,
employee productivity is a much harder concept to quantify.
For one thing, output
often isn't measurable in the sense of purely counting something,
nor can one individual's contribution to a product or process,
for example, be directly correlated to business results. So how
can knowledge worker productivity be measured or quantified?
More fundamentally, should it be? How do we know if knowledge
management initiatives work and can be improved, and what role
should knowledge workers themselves play in designing KM systems
aimed at improving their productivity.
Megan begins her
tenure as July, 2003, STAR Series Dialogue moderator by sharing
the following column written by Tom Davenport in the June 1,
2003 CIO Magazine.
Back
to top
The
New Work Order: A Measurable Proposal -- Tom Davenport
Copyright
permission granted by CIO Magazine
He's back -- and
Tom Davenport's betting on a new, big idea: knowledge workers
are people too. Can their processes be quantified? Can we help
their plight? This might just be the new reengineering.
I've just coauthored
a book on new ideas in business. (It's called What's
the Big Idea? Only $29.95. Operators are standing by
for your call.) As a result, people keep asking, "So what's
the next big thing?" Mind you, I missed e-commerce and the
Internet, so I could easily be wrong. But I'm betting one particular
idea will succeed in the next few years, and the nice editors
at CIO are going to let me write several columns about
it. 
This big idea involves
knowledge work and knowledge workers, and the technologies they
use to do their jobs. My thesis begins with first identifying
who a knowledge worker is and (especially) who a knowledge worker
isn't. They're the people who, as a primary aspect of their work,
create knowledge, share it with others, or apply it in decisions
and actions. By my classification of Bureau of Labor Statistics
data, we have about 36 million of them in the United States alone
-- that's close to 30 percent of the working population. Think
of knowledge workers as the horses that pull the plow in sophisticated
economies -- they're the research scientists, the IT architects,
the strategic planners, the doctors, the lawyers, the Indian
chiefs. Then consider where we would be in terms of innovation,
science, management, marketing and high-level services without
them. Nowhere.
But how have we
treated these invaluable human resources? Have we given them
the attention they deserve? Have they been the focus of our best
efforts at process improvement, the design of effective work
environments, and the studied application of information technology?
Hardly. We have done little to help our economy's most valuable
capability (and I'll elaborate in later columns on the various
domains of scandalous inaction).
Now, I'm no Marxist;
but you can never discount the importance of class structure.
Knowledge workers as a class "own the means of production."
They have largely escaped systematic scrutiny because they don't
really have the desire to turn the analytical lens on themselves.
Knowledge workers don't like to be told what to do; heck, they
don't even like to be told that there is a common structure and
flow to their work. Their work is more variable and unpredictable
than production or administrative work, so if you do want to
understand it, you have to look hard and long. Much of what they
do is invisible -- it takes place inside the human brain. Eliciting
how a doctor makes a diagnosis or how an investment analyst chooses
a stock has never been easy. And finally, some of these groups
of workers have their own equivalent of unions -- professional
associations -- that have successfully resisted encroachment
from the outside.
When it comes to
knowledge workers, we pretty much hire smart people and leave
them alone. No quality measurements, no Six Sigma, no reengineering.
We haven't formally examined the flow of work, we have no benchmarks,
and there is no accountability for the cost and time these activities
consume. As a result, we have little sense of whether they could
do better.
Believe me, I'm
not in favor of a heavy-handed, top-down reengineering initiative,
but it seems these knowledge workers are too important and too
expensive to be left alone completely.
I'm not advocating
heavy-handed reengineering, but knowledge workers are too important
to be left alone completely. Which brings me to my big idea (finally!):
I believe that the next big process change initiative should
involve knowledge work. Let's examine how we do strategy, marketing
campaigns, mergers and acquisitions, and R&D programs. Maybe
we could even take on the process of management. This time --
unlike in days gone by with reengineering -- we should involve
those who do the work. I see no reason why participative, creative
efforts can't improve knowledge processes just as they improved
the more structured, less knowledge-intensive type.
Technology and
Knowledge Work
For several decades,
whenever we've had to automate a function, we've undertaken a
good deal of systematic thinking beforehand. We do detailed task
analysis and requirements definition; we model process and information
flows. Careful thought goes into what kinds of hardware and software
might be relevant to the work. Cost-benefit analysis is applied.
Some thorough organizations even do post-implementation evaluations.
What do we do when
a knowledge worker needs some technology? We say, "Here's
a PC and a phone," and recommend software already installed
in a one-size-fits-all approach. The more ambitious IT shops
might even provide a laptop for highly mobile workers, or, if
we're really progressive, throw in a BlackBerry. But if you want
a cell phone, you're on your own.
What are the chances
that your organization will supply you with policies or even
ideas about how to use these things? Would you like some guidelines
on managing your e-mail, your online collaborative team rooms,
your IMs, your voice mailboxes? Fat chance. Figure it out yourself.
At best we'll provide an update on "Using Microsoft Outlook"
or a standardized time-management course. If you want to figure
out how to integrate all your various devices and determine what
information you really need and get control of your e-mail and
use the right application for the right task and be really productive,
you'd better be prepared to do it on your own and take a lot
of time to do it. But do you do this? No. You have a life.
The good news: The
problem is at least beginning to be studied. The Information
Worker Productivity Council is a new organization comprising
technology vendors and integrators. Initiated by Microsoft, it
also includes Accenture, BT, Cisco, Hewlett-Packard, SAP and
Xerox. We (I confess to being involved on Accenture's behalf)
are also working with MIT, academics at several other institutions
and the American Productivity and Quality Center. A variety of
information work processes are under study, but one project in
particular addresses the personal information and knowledge environments
of knowledge workers like you and me. It's early days for this
group, but I have high hopes for its work.
The Other Stuff
Knowledge workers
need good processes and technology, but they also need an organizational
structure that doesn't get in their way; an office that facilitates
both quiet, concentration-based work and the free interchange
of ideas with coworkers; the ability to both stay put and move
around; and the right combination of team structures and individual
accountability.
What's the most
productive work environment for knowledge workers? Organizations
have adopted a wide variety of alternative arrangements for knowledge
work. Cubicles. Hoteling. The problem is that we don't learn
much from our "experiments." We adopt new ways of officing,
organizing and operating based not on rational experimentation
and learning, but rather on the four Fs: fads, fashions, faith
and finances.
I'm just getting
started here with my righteous indignation about knowledge worker
problems and privations, but I've run out of space. Stay with
me for the next few issues as I continue to work out my grievances.
By the end of your summer vacation, we'll have solved all these
problems!
Tom Davenport is
director of the Accenture Institute for Strategic Change and
professor of IT and management at Babson College.
You can reach him
at tdavenport@babson.edu.
Back
to top
Responses
sent to CIO Magazine
The online version
of CIO Magazine invites responses and those submitted
to the Davenport column begin with AOK's own Jack Ring.
Jack Ring, Owner,
Innovation Management
If it isn't being
measured and improved by every participant it isn't a 'knowledge'
process.
J. Siow, Doctoral
student
Quite a bit of work
has already been done and written up on this area since early
2002 (if not earlier). These include projects at MITRE Corp.
as well as more academically-oriented models, including one I
drafted for a Masters-level class project. Most of the activities
were based on the Capability Maturity Models (CMM) developed
at Carnegie Mellon's Software Engineering Institute and they
generally aim at developing a generic i.e. non enterprise --
or profession-specific KM CMM. As such, I'm certainly curious
as to how Mr. Davenport's big idea differs qualitatively from
these foregoing efforts at process analysis and quantification.
Ang Christopher,
Manager (Knowledge Management), Public Service
The term and the
underlying concept of "knowledge processes" is an interesting
one.
I can't help but
wonder, what would the desired endstate be if we have K-worker
reach a critical mass. Knowledge has a multi facet dimension.
So what encampuses K processes. What would be the desired composition
of K-workers in an organisation. Would this be an opportunity
for another round of new fad development if not what true value
can it be realised to the individual, the organisation, the community
and the society? And the list goes on.
I thought perhaps
organisations should relook at their structure, principles, leadership
and reflect on how would they strike a win-win situation in terms
of developing and nuture the common people to K-workers. It's
unfortunate the ROI is still very heavily emphased on financial
returns to the organisation and not the people. I have yet to
see any project or intiative undertaken rarely cover this portion
(unless the project is specifically targeted on people development).
It is the people
that needed to be convienced. Hence, it is important that any
knowledge processe that aims to drive innovation and bottom,
would need to address the needs of the people and the K-worker.
Richard Potter,
Principal, i-lawmarketing.ca
One particular knowledge
worker, the business lawyer, has an additional challenge. While
part of an organization (usually a law firm), the law firm/client
interface is now so highly competitive that the individual lawyer
must now be an entrepreneur, as well as being a productive worker.
Doug May, AIGA,
President, May & Co.
Big ideas come from
fertile creative minds that feed on information and have access
to the right tools.
I was trained to
be creative on demand. An expectation that was paramount in order
to graduate from The Art Center College of Design where I received
my degree in Advertising Design. I have worked as a creative
professional (no, that's not an oxymoron) for over 20
years.
In my time I have
experienced many different ways to achieve the "Big Idea"
(a term coined by the famous ad man George Lois). I appreciate
and use the many processes that serve as important tools to help
one get to the point of achieving this hard to reach pinnacle,
but the one factor that is always missing in the engineering
of this process is that of "creativity". The inspiration
behind the big idea, the eureka -- the breakthrough that takes
pedantic thinking to an unexpected level.
Creativity skills
need to begin as early as preschool, but are often suppressed
and discouraged during adolescence. This cultural problem is
evident in the lack of arts and music funding in our schools
and the lack of fine arts appreciation in our communities.
Creativity's important
contribution to the process lays somewhere in parallel with information
to knowledge moving toward wisdom and is called "talent",
although one would be hard pressed to pinpoint this act exactly
the same every time out. These epiphanies drive managers crazy,
because they are unpredictable, unless of course you hire trained
professionals that have a great batting average and treat them
as invaluable human resources and as our economy's most valuable
capability.
Precisely to your
point!
Copyright Granted
for AOK Reprint Only
CIO Magazine - June 1, 2003
© 2003 CXO Media Inc.
http://www.cio.com/archive/060103/order.html
To follow this series
online, visit CIO.com.
Each issue will be posted simultaneously with the publication
of CIO Magazine.
For more information
about subscribing to CIO Magazine, visit http://subscribe.cio.com/ for an application
to qualify for a free subscription.
(As a controlled circulation publication, the qualification form
is long and involved. Visit http://www.omeda.com/custsrv/cio/ to request
a paid subscription at $150 for 23 issues).
Back
to top
|
