Conversations
with David Snowden
Practice and
Communication
of 3rd Generation Knowledge Management
Table of Contents (Click on list item to go
directly to each topic)
Part II: Extended Discussion on KM Communication
 KM-Speak Doesn't Translate
on the Frontline
Joe
Katzman, principal, Communications & Technology Consulting
(C.A.T.):
In today's
post, you wrote: "I use narrative techniques to contextualise
the model for a company so the heuristics and boundary conditions
are defined not in some abstract language, but are rooted in
the defining stories of that organisation."
Wow. I hope nobody
is using language like that to try and communicate with their
organization. I know from experience, however, that many KMers
do.
A couple weeks ago,
I had an interesting epiphany. I was sitting in on a presentation
to a bunch of line managers, while a KM enthusiast went through
the usual charts and diagrams about theoretical knowledge management
and how KM can help the organization in a general sense. All
pretty standard stuff, and something I see often.
It was crystal clear
to me that the executives were being polite, but that they didn't
get it. It was also crystal clear to me that this was not
their fault.
Nothing in the communication dealt
with business value using concrete examples from their own organization.
The only aspects that were concrete were software screen shots.
That part was presented as a welter of choices for a confusing
interface, with no explanation of key organizing principles,
what made for effectiveness, etc.
Customizability
would cost a lot. Why do it? There was some jawing about the
KM value of this, until I stepped in and used one of my favourite
demos: I held up my Palm Pilot and explained how it was simple,
with just 4 key buttons. That's why it was popular, and why it
sells well. Customizability lets people make their window into
your company as simple as they need it to be.
They got that. Most
folks do when I use this example -- which is why I use it often.
If KMers wish to
be understood and valued, communication in Business English is
a requirement, not an option (also true in the public sector).
So is the use of examples showing clear business value, preferably
in the context of the organization's own activities and business
or at least something personally familiar to one's audience.
David wrote: ".
. . would have been unthinkable some years ago but has now happened.
But don't make the mistake of thinking that because companies
recognise the importance of human agents they will become more
humane. All ecologies have their predators."
All healthy ecologies
need them. The question is, does your ecology have the right
kind of predators? This strikes me as a helpful and meaningful
way of thinking about the question.
To use an unkind
example, organizations without predators who jump on statements
like ". . . contextualise the model for a company so the
heuristics and boundary conditions are defined . . . ."
are in roughly the same boat as a lake without predators who
eat zebra mussels. Pretty soon, everything will be clogged and
encrusted with this stuff while the real nutrients (i.e. meaningful
communication) disappear.
Back
to top
Debate on KM Words Between
Snowden, Katzman
Editor's note: The following exchange
is consolidated from two posts, the original from David Snowden
and responses by Joe Katzman.
David
Snowden:
The substantial response comes from Joe Katzman and I must admit
that I was expecting a response along these lines from someone
-- playing the "anti-jargon" card is always a good
one.
I'll explore this
in more detail, and have no intention of apologising for the
language; in fact, I think Joe's response is fundamentally flawed
and the attitude that often goes with it (and this is not directed
at Joe who has just triggered an allergic response) is at the
heart of ignorance in companies that prevents them moving forwards.
That is not to say that I do not believe in simple communication,
but there is a massive difference between being simplistic and
being simple.
Joe
Katzman:
I think it was Einstein who recommended that things be as simple
as possible . . . but not simpler.
Dave
Snowden: I
do not use the same language to my 10-year-old that I do to a
25-year-old university graduate, or again that I would to a practitioner
with 20 years experience, a different context, requires a different
level of abstraction. Joe cannot sensibly argue against expert
language; he has to take a position on the level of conversation.
In the absence of real (rather than virtual) audience, I have
assumed that a practitioner audience with some knowledge of both
the theory and practice. I would prefer to assume knowledge than
ignorance and the words I have used do this.
Joe
Katzman:
In fairness, I'm also using you as a whipping boy for a tendency
that is rampant within the KM field. There is a place for expert
language, but it can also be over-used. Or abused. George Orwell's
essay "Politics and the English Language" has applications
that go beyond politics.
Dave
Snowden: I'll
move through Joe's main points and throw in some more gratuitous
insults of my own in response (where I grew up an argument means
you are enjoying yourself, so take it in good part).
Joe
Katzman:
Me too.
Dave
Snowden: However,
I want to start off with the concluding remark about predators.
Joe says (in his original post): "All healthy ecologies
need them. The question is, does your ecology have the right
kind of predators? This strikes me as a helpful and meaningful
way of thinking about the question. To use an unkind example,
organizations without predators who jump on statements like 'contextualise
the model for a company so the heuristics and boundary conditions
are defined...' are in roughly the same boat as a lake without
predators who eat zebra mussels. Pretty soon, everything will
be clogged and encrusted with this stuff while the real nutrients
(i.e. meaningful communication) disappear."
I think you missed
the point to make a worthy witticism of your own. My point related
to the need to recognise that knowledge and learning ecologies
would not survive without inhumane behaviour. Managing in the
future will not mean us all taking a "humane" approach;
organisations will still require ruthless leadership in certain
situations, to emphasise the human aspects of knowledge is not
to require humane behaviour.
That aside I can
see the temptation to talk about Zebra Mussels, although I think
the assumption that "meaningful communication" is synonymous
with "things that Joe can understand" is a big one
(apologies -- that was "unkind" but it's the end of
a long day).
Joe
Katzman:
Actually, you're better off with me than with most executives
because I do have substantial grounding in both the theory and
the practice. But communication is a matter of habits, and one
needs support from executives and the front lines to get anywhere
with a KM program. If they can't understand it, I'll concede
the point that your communication may still be meaningful but
the results will range from zero to negative.
I'll also accept the "talking to a different audience"
defence; it's one I use myself. But back to my habits point .
. . friends like Hal rightly point out to me that the ability
to explain things in a consistently clear way is as much a matter
of practice and habit as talent. In a field often overloaded
with jargon, I'd say the consistency of practice has something
to recommend it.
And I'll also make the point that before assuming (and the derivation
of ass-u-me is . . .) audience fluency, it's wise to check. I've
received some indications via private email that your assumptions
about this audience may be flawed.
Dave
Snowden: I
thought I would use a narrative (sorry, may be I should say story
to make it more simplistic?) technique to respond. This story
comes from the collected tales of the Mullah Nasruddin collected
by Idris Shah and one of the inspirations for a lot of the work
we do.
Joe
Katzman:
Actually, that reminds me of a "story" is a fine start
. . .
Dave
Snowden:
Nasruddin found a weary falcon sitting one day on his windowsill.
He had never seen a bird like this before. "You poor thing,'"
he said, "how ever were you allowed to get into this state?"
He clipped the falcon's talons and cut its beak straight, and
trimmed its feathers. "Now you look more like a bird,"
said Nasruddin.
I think Joe has
just found a falcon and wants to make it into a pigeon so it
looks like something he is familiar with -- that's not being
a predator, the biological equivalent is a parasite, equally
a necessary part of the ecology (and that was really unkind so
I apologise with reservation) though lacking the same nobility.
I think that story
says it all, and if you agree then there is no need to read the
rest, to some extent writing it was a cathartic experience. However,
for those who want to read on . . . .
Back
to top
Differences
in Oral, Written Communication
Dave
Snowden:
Jerry started this discussion with a series of questions that
really required me to have completed the book to answer properly.
The work we are doing does challenge one hundred years of management
practice and the conceptual basis of scientific management. When
the first scientists came along at the time of the enlightenment,
the language they were using seemed strange to the dominant powers
of the day and was suppressed. If you read the debates at the
Royal Society in the 19th Century between Huxley (defending Darwin)
and representatives of the Church (defending creationism) you
will see that the church uses old style debating tactics -- they
know most of the audience are used to the concept that the world
was created in 4004 BC and find the ideas of Huxley and Darwin
both difficult, strange and threatening.
So they kept it
simple, reinforced the old ways of thinking and failed to make
the necessary leap. Those of us involved in complexity thinking
face a similar challenge in that the norms of scientific management
are so strong that it takes a conceptual leap to understand the
new science. My general view (and I hope that this does not sound
rude) is that if people aren't prepared to put the effort in
to understand the concept then they probably aren't worth working
with for a few years. This is from my perspective, where I specialised
in new thinking and new models and I need to filter out clients
who are unwilling to change their mental models.
Joe
Katzman: It
does. Question is how to get people across the gap.
Dave
Snowden:
Now -- I think this uncovers one of the dangers with a virtual
community -- and by implication one of the many limitations of
2nd generation thinking in Knowledge Management -- they rely
on written communication in which there is
little shared context. If I am engaged in a one to one dialogue
or speak at a conference then I can create a discourse (not the
same thing as a dialogue or discussion but lets leave that one
for the moment) between myself and the audience. If I am speaking
at a conference then I use simple words and paint pictures with
stories and drawings. The audience provides the context that
enables me to create a simple, but not simplistic message.
I know this works
on the objective criteria that I am never outside the top three
speakers based on the audience's completion of the assessment
forms at the end of the conference -- an objective measure that
most conference speakers check carefully. However, I also know
that oral and written communication are very different. With
an audience I can create a shared context through story and having
received the feedback can respond with a presentation which balances
what the audience is able to receive and I am able to give -
it's one of the reasons I never use slides. If I am writing something
down there is no shared context, I do not know what sort of an
audience I am facing.
I remember a similar
virtual event on story that Steve Denning and I ran; after that
I swore I would never engage in one of these virtual discussion
groups ever again, but I'd calmed down a bit by the time that
Jerry got in touch with me but made a mental resolution to take
no hostages the next time.
Editor's note: To contextualize the above
statement, Dave Snowden became one of the most prolific and positive
contributors to the STAR Series Dialogue throughout 2002. We
owe him an immense debt of gratitude.
There was a small
population of people on that discussion group who just wanted
to swap stories and keep things simple, they didn't want to get
into a serious discussion -- they came to dominate the group
because what they wanted to say was easily written down and easily
read, but no new learning took place.
A few other bullet
points relating to this point:
- In the first response
I supplied a longer set of text as a file and I have assumed
that this had been read when I provided the second answer to
which Joe objects.
- If you ask conceptual
questions you will get conceptual answers
- I've noticed a
higher resistance to concepts in the US (Editor's note, Joe is
in Canada) than I have in Europe or Asia -- I'm not sure of the
reasons for this; it may be that the engineering metaphor is
stronger in the US, it may also be the education system which
is less tolerant of ambiguity than a European model -- no positive
or negative implied in this, they are different approaches and
have both advantages and disadvantages. I do know that speaking
in the all three continents requires the adoption of a different
model of communication in each case.
- If you want examples
you have to ask a specific question. I can't remember now if
it were in a conversation with Jerry or on this chat line, but
I gave him a list of companies with whom I and my colleagues
had worked and said something like "all of these have used
aspects of both narrative and complexity approaches, but it's
a broad subject, so ask a specific question and I can give you
a specific example."
- I must admit the
comment on Business English I find ignorant (I'm allowed to say
this having been accused of being obscure). Who defines Business
English? One person's jargon is another person's expert language.
Without expert language, communication is painfully slow. Do
you want a research scientist in a Pharma company to always communicate
in the language of an undergraduate in Chemistry? Look at the
language of business -- process, core competence etc. Yes, sometimes
it goes too far, but the reduction to a lowest common denominator
language is just pig ignorant.
Dave
Snowden:
Let's look at some of the language I used in the quote paragraph.
Narrative means far more than story, but it's a common word.
Contextualisation means to put something into context. Heuristics,
that may be difficult but it's a common word, maybe I should
have said "rule of thumb" although it doesn't really
mean the same thing. you can always look it up in a dictionary
(something I tell my 13-year-old when she is too lazy to learn
something new and just wants it explained to her in "simple
terms").
Joe
Katzman:
Actually, let's. Consultants from large companies (I know, I
used to be one) are pretty famous for using a lot of this language
as a way to cover up the fact that (to be blunt) many of them
don't really know what they're talking about in any depth and
don't understand the client's business. But they're using $100
words, so the advice must be good.
While simple language is not appropriate for all situations,
there are a lot of people out there who have encountered the
scenario I described above and are properly wary of it. Which
means that simple language isn't a panacea, but it's probably
a wise default choice.
Problem. Different
individuals will therefore contextualize your model using different
modalities. For instance, Webster's has a pretty good definition
but my Random House pocket dictionary says "Heuristic: adj.
encouraging the student to discover for himself or herself."
Now they'll be really confused. Which is fine if that part of
the communication doesn't matter (though if so, why is it there?),
but a distinct disadvantage when it's a description of what you
do.
Dave
Snowden:
If you don't get "rooted in the defining stories of an organisation"
then I give up all hope.You should read some of the books I need
to go through to get some of the new insights if you really want
dense language.
As stated, you can
go too far with the jargon, however I think many of the problems
come from trying to justify a KM programme in its own right.
I would never do that. When I talk about contextualisation, my
practice is to use Narrative (oops, Stories) from an organisations
own history to understand not only what knowledge it has, but
what knowledge it might need in the future. I then place this
in a simple matrix (that's two dimensions divided into boxes)
that links the organisations process and activities to its knowledge
assets. It's at the intersections (the places with the boxes
line up) that we get knowledge projects. That's where I would
explain knowledge management to a business audience. This process
is dependent on this asset, and the nature of this asset is such
that you are highly vulnerable to its loss.
Joe
Katzman:
I think everybody gets this version.
Dave
Snowden:
A key process highly dependent on a knowledge asset vulnerable
to loss is a knowledge project that requires little explanation
or justification.
Joe
Katzman:
It shouldn't . . . beyond the drawing of the connection to said
key process, and a convincing explanation/illustration of the
dependence.
Dave
Snowden:
I also would not explain or define knowledge to a business audience,
but would use metaphor (much more powerful than simple language),
for example I explain the difference between using knowledge
and using information as the difference between using a map and
using a taxi. This works, particularly as I back it up with stories
about the use of maps and taxis in the contrasting cities of
New York and London.
Joe
Katzman:
Aside: the differences between New York and London taxis are
greater than the differences between Sufi and Wahabbist
Islam.
Dave
Snowden:
It's not uncommon when a new area is being explored for some
of the ideas to require a willingness to engage in some discussion
of concepts and many people aren't prepared to make that leap.
People not prepared to make that leap generally carry on in the
old ways, until the new language is common place enough for them
to be able to cope.
Joe
Katzman: Maybe.
At least we have that assumption out in the open. Personally,
I find there's a bit too much of the "enlightened few vs.
the great unwashed" embedded in it. You know, the old "secret
society, we know the code," etc. This would be OK, except
that at heart you are talking about other people's work - an
area in which they are actually more expert. While KM enthusiasts
may have some neat tools that are unfamiliar, the fact that in
the end they are always on someone else's native territory
should induce humility and all too often does not.
Dave
Snowden:
A few years ago, " tacit" and "explicit"
were words requiring definition; now they are common place.
Joe
Katzman:
Unlike "taxonomy," which was a more commonly used KM
word but never caught on. Probably in large part because "tacit"
and explicit" were easy to explain in consistent, straightforward
ways that people could relate to. "Taxonomy" never
was, and its application more often created (creates?) more confusion
instead of enlightenment.
Dave
Snowden:
In ten years time "narrative," "context,"
"emergence" and the like will be equally common place.
The issue is do you want to lead or do you want to follow? If
you want to lead then you need to combine pragmatic executive
capability with conceptual flexibility.
Joe
Katzman:
. . . And the ability to translate those concepts effectively
for those not yet at your level. Which you seem to be able to
do, but this step is often missed by KMers and the results are
disastrous.
Back
to top
Don't Abandon Terminology
for Simplicity
Keith
De La Rue, Knowledge Development, Telstra, Melbourne, Australia: As Churchill said (of the
US and UK): "Two countries separated by a common tongue."
The point of language is critical not only when talking about
KM, but also when doing KM. (You could say that this
forum is meta-KM, perhaps?) Joe Katzman has raised a good point,
but I must agree with Dave Snowden that we cannot throw out terminology
just for the sake of simplicity.
In my little microcosm
of KM, we take information on telecommunications products and
services from subject matter experts, and translate it into knowledge
for a business sales force. This knowledge transfer takes the
forms of written communication, online learning and face-to-face
learning. In this process, there needs to be much simplification
of technical jargon (and a translation into business terms),
but the sales force needs to be able to at least understand technical
questions.
The solution is
to pitch our training and communication in the right language
for the audience, but to also introduce them to the level of
technicality and jargon that they need to understand the topic.
Thus, the jargon will be used, but only after appropriate definition.
Surely, the same should apply when introducing an organisation
to the larger picture of KM?
I also find the
simple "fog index" calculations of my word processor
a handy guide (a heuristic, if you prefer) -- when I write articles
for a Mensa audience, I will expect a fairly high number. When
writing for the sales force, I pitch somewhat lower!
Back
to top
Arguments
for Simplified Narrative, Specialized Analysis
Stephen
Denning, former KM, World Bank, and partner with David Snowden
on the Storytelling world tour: I
feel sympathy both for Dave in his efforts to communicate some
new ideas and for Joe and others who seem to be having difficulty
in following the terminology he's using.
One way of looking
at what's going on is this: It's narrative that leads us to understand
something and to get the sense of what it means and to get "inside"
the ideas. It's sharp-edged technically-defined terminology that
enables us to stand back and analyze something and slice it up
into its component parts. Both are useful activities -- narrative
and analysis. In my experience, the understanding of the overall
idea of what's being talked about has to come before any useful
shared analysis can take place, and hence the narratives have
to come first, to permit understanding.
In a live discussion
or presentation, one can often get a sense of whether there is
enough understanding to proceed to the analysis stage -- though
some presenters don't bother to ask themselves the question,
or may not have any suitable narratives at hand anyway.
In a virtual discussion,
one can't gauge where the participants are at, and so if one
starts into analysis on the assumption that participants have
already "got" the overall idea, then one can get these
expressions of frustration of not understanding and so on. Also
in a virtual discussion, for better or worse, participants are
much more able to interject and say they're not following, than
they are at a live presentation. This does run the risk, as Dave
points out, that virtual discussions may run the risk of staying
at a fairly low level of analysis.
This may mean that
in conducting virtual discussions, which we're all trying to
learn how to do, one needs to pay particular attention to give
enough narratives so that participants can understand the gist
of what's being talked about - "contextualize the heuristics,"
and perhaps to provide a glossary where the definitions of terms
are spelt out and can be referred to by those who aren't following.
When one is starting to do some analysis with some precisely
defined terminology, one may need to put down some kind of marker
that indicates "now I am going to do some analysis with
some precisely defined terms, so if you're not following the
discussion or the terminology, please go back to the earlier
part of the discussion where some narratives were offered that
gave the basic gist of what we're talking about here and where
the terms were defined."
Jack
Vinson:
While Dave has clearly heard Joe's argument before, I think there
is merit on both sides -- and I think the arguments are closer
than we think. Joe is complaining that he has heard one too many
people come in with "consultant-speak" to wow management
into spending lots of money. Dave is complaining that people
want to take all meaning out of conversation.
But the core of
what you are both saying is that the discussion must mean something
to the listeners. Dave clearly tries to expend the effort to
get to know his listeners and to come across to them in their
patois, rather than something "academic" or otherwise
cooked up in isolation. I think Joe's example gets across this
same point.
And this gets us
back to context. When we are trying to "sell" any project,
it must make sense to our colleagues and to the people who hold
the purse strings. To do this, we need to sell the financial
end to our accountants, the efficient work processes to our business
process people, and the work benefits to the people who will
actually use the results of the project. We can do this any number
of ways, and if I read Dave correctly, he is suggesting that
putting the tool into the right context will help people understand
how the project will fit into the company.
Back
to top
Business
under the Discipline of Complexity
Fred
Schoeps:
David, thanks for the last couple of days. I've missed in real
life your wonderful Welsh humor and your evolving thoughts on
complexity -- your spoken words, the conversations, the physical
aspect of communication.
Your sharing of
what may very well become one of the forefront disciplines in
business reminded me of all things about the evolution of mathematics.
Having been trained a couple of lifetimes ago in mathematics
-- its history, its evolution and how it branched into various
disciplines has always fascinated me long after leaving to go
into business. Lest we forget there was no group theory, no number
theory, no non-Euclidean geometry, no calculus, no statistics,
etc., etc. at some point in the evolution of mathematics. These
are all things we take for granted; all things that have a language
of their own; all things that make today's business possible.
Certainly applying
math to the practical world of business took decades if not centuries.
Hopefully the evolution and adoption of complexity into how business
does business will not take as long. I will be very interested
in how the power of new thought (and correspondingly new language)
that you and your community of believers are creating evolves
knowledge management and changes how business does business.
Thanks for sharing.
Dave
Snowden:
Keith and Steve both make good points and I think that Joe and
I both had an allergic reaction to elements of what we both said
and we may now mutually concede that this may be unfair. I like
Keith's reference to the fog index -- I tested my original reply
(the one that sparked Joe's response) in Word and came up with
a Flesch Kincard reading ease of 46.5 and a grade level of 12.
Not sure how that pans out between salespeople and MENSA. I'm
also more than happy to be judged on my communication skills
to a broad audience at the AOK/Delphi event later this year.
Editor's note: Dave Snowden had no difficulties
with communication at the AOK/Delphi Meeting in March, 2002,
and received strong acclamation.
I have a last few
bullet points, but I'm happy to terminate the debate on language
and hope for some more practical questions (see my last contribution).
My practical experience
outside the context of virtual discussion groups is that I have
little or no problem with communicating to executives at all
levels, measured by requests to run workshops, seminars, engagements
and repeat business, so I don't buy "results will range
from zero to negative"
My general view
is that to talk down to people, is to insult them. If I say something
which isn't clear I'm happy to clarify it, that's the nature
of discourse; what irritated me is the absence of the question
and the accusation of jargon for words I consider part of any
reasonable vocabulary.
Nasruddin is a character
in Sufi story telling -- in the wider tradition of the wise fool
he didn't actually exist and I stand by the falcon/pigeon story.
We use a Nasruddin story form to create confessional environments
in organisations so that people can admit to failure without
attribution of blame - the actual use of the character in the
Sufi tradition.
Simple stories like
the Art of War, and the Parables of the new testament unfold
multiple meanings over time; this is partly due to their enigmatic
and ambiguous form that permits multiple (contextual) interpretations.
This is a different form of communication to my attempt to answer
a direct question.
There is a real
issue here in a virtual group. The first question I was asked,
provided the linguistic context for the answer. I responded at
the same level of abstraction, but the group may or may not have
understood the question. In a physical meeting I would see the
wider context. I was with Steve Denning in London today (one
of two members of this forum that I met physically today) and
we agreed that without a prior physical meeting it was very difficult
to create a virtual discussion beyond the banal. I think more
work needs to be done to find ways to set the context at the
start of a virtual discussion like this, and possibly segment
the questions and responses once that is done.
Other than that
I think both my statements and Joe's responses both make sense,
in each case one or other of us will be right depending on the
context.
Back
to top
 Part
I: 3rd Generation Knowledge Management
Part III: Postscript Between
Snowden, Ash 
|
