cache recovered from search rank 1:
Knowledge worker paradox
In his recent CIO column Thomas Davenport writes:
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 (Davenport, 2003).I read these words and I can't agree more. Many knowledge management researchers and practitioners talk about "improving knowledge worker productivity", "embedding knowledge work into daily practices" and importance of answering "what's in it for me?" questions, but there is still not much known about what and how knowledge workers do.
My impression is that most of KM focus is on specific methods or technologies to support knowledge flows in a company, as well as supportive organisational factors or communities of practice as an environment for knowledge creation and sharing. We say that knowledge worker productivity is important, but we don't even have a good definition of what knowledge work is. It's a paradox for me.
I would like to share with you my explanations of this paradox and to find out what do you think about it.
I suspect that the lack of focus on the issue of "the individual knowledge worker" comes as a result of the specific characteristics of the work they do. Knowledge work is discretionary and invisible, thus difficult to identify and difficult to control.
Knowledge worker as investor
Knowledge workers are best described as investors (Stewart, 1998; Davenport, 1999; Kelloway & Barling, 2000): they make choices of when and how much of their knowledge and energy to invest in a company that doesn't have much direct control over these investments. Taking this standpoint leads to defining knowledge work as discretionary behaviour, as a system of activities that knowledge workers opt to do, and managing knowledge work as establishing conditions that increase the likelihood of making the "right" choices:
As such knowledge work is understood to comprise the creation of knowledge, the application of knowledge, the transmission of knowledge, and the acquisition of knowledge. Each of the activities is seen as discretionary behavior. Employees are likely to engage in knowledge work to the extent that they have the (a) ability, (b) motivation, and (c) opportunity to do so. The task of managing knowledge work is focused on establishing these conditions. Organizational characteristics such as transformational leadership, job design, social interaction and organizational culture are identified as potential predictors of ability, motivation and opportunity (Kelloway et al., 2000: 287).Similar frameworks of factors and conditions that empower and guide knowledge work are being developed by other authors as well (e.g. Kessels & Keursten, 2002; Schütt P., 2003). However, they only propose ways to explain or predict how KM interventions are influencing knowledge work, but do not provide a good definition of knowledge work or any good way to evaluate how these interventions have influenced knowledge worker performance.
Iceberg of knowledge work
There is a striking similarity between studies on different aspects of knowledge work: unlike physical work, it is mostly invisible. The "iceberg" metaphor is used in studies of informal and incidental learning to describe the 20/80 ratio between learning in formal settings (e.g. taking courses) and learning informally that most people do not even consider as learning (Center for Workforce Development, 1998). We also hardly take into account the time we spend building and maintaining our personal networks (Nardi, Whittaker, & Schwarz, 2003) that are vital for sharing knowledge (Cross, Parker, Prusak, & Borgatti, 2001). In most of the cases one can observe only products of knowledge work – reports, designs, decisions made – but not the process of creating them (Drucker, 1999; McGee, 2002). Much of the work of finding, interpreting and connecting relevant pieces of information, negotiating meanings and eliciting knowledge in conversations with others, creating new ideas and using them to come up with a final product, happens in the head of a knowledge worker or as part of communication or doing work.
The invisible nature of knowledge work makes it difficult to recognise and to measure. Next to it outcomes of knowledge work are often unique and quality is the essence of output rather than a minimum restraint (Drucker, 1999), thus establishing benchmarks even more challenging task.
Why is there lack of focus on knowledge worker?
I believe that the difficulties of measuring knowledge work and the lack of control over it explain the lack of attention to the individual knowledge worker: interventions supporting specific knowledge activities of many employees are more visible, easier to measure and to manage. These interventions often bring valuable results, but many of them do not fit the work practices of knowledge workers and are perceived as an overhead instead of being an integral part of work (Davenport & Glaser, 2002).
This is how I explain the knowledge worker paradox: organisations focus on things they can control and can measure, thus knowledge work is left to knowledge workers. However, I may be wrong, so I wonder:
Am I right that we don't know much about knowledge work?
Do you agree with my explanations or there are other ways to explain it?
What could be done to understand knowledge workers and to help them becoming more productive?
References
Center for Workforce Development (1998). The teaching firm where productive work and learning converge: Report on research findings and implications. Newton: Education Development Center.
Cross, R., Parker, A., Prusak, L., & Borgatti, S. P. (2001). Knowing what we know:: Supporting knowledge creation and sharing in social networks. Organizational Dynamics, 30, 100-120.
Davenport, T. H. (1999). Human capital: What it is and why people invest it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Davenport, T. H. (2003).
A measurable proposal. CIO Magazine, June 2003. (See also
another column about knowledge worker struggle with technology).
Davenport, T. H. & Glaser, G. (2002). Just-in-time delivery comes to knowledge management. Harvard Business Review, 80, 107-111.
Drucker, P. (1999). Knowledge-worker productivity: The biggest challenge. California Management Review, 41, 79-94.
Kelloway, E. K. & Barling, J. (2000). Knowledge work as organizational behavior. International Journal of Management Reviews, 2, 287-304.
Kessels, J. W. M., & Keursten, P. (2002). Knowledge productivity in organization: Towards a framework for research and practice. Paper presented during the workshop "Converging knowledge management, training and e-learning", Telematica Instituut, 7 October 2002.
McGee, J. (2002).
Knowledge work as craft work. McGee's Musings [On-line]. Another version is
here.
Nardi, B., Whittaker, S., & Schwarz, H. (2003).
A networker's work is never done: Joint work in intensional networks. To appear in Computer Supported Cooperative Work.
Schütt P. (2003).
The post-Nonaka Knowledge Management. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 9, 451-462.
Stewart, T. A. (1998). A new way to think about employees. Fortune, 169-170.
Lilia EfimovaKnowledgeBoard, 30-Oct-2003Categories:
QuaererePublished by: Lilia EfimovaStory read: 11192
Mail this article to a friendPrinter friendly versionAdd comments to this articleUser Comments
Share your views with other users:
add your own comments to this story.
Legal NoticeNumber of comments: 12
Chris Macrae , 20-Apr-2004 difference between mapping process and value exchange-based theories of firm
Mr Chris MacraeI have spent quite a lot of time trying to understand the exponents of these 2 arts
for example John Caswell spends much of his life making process maps for boardrooms - seee eg
http://www.grouppartners.net/whereas Verna Allee does value exchnage maps:
http://www.vernaallee.com/I cannot connect the 2 worlds as wholly as I would have hoped. But this may be my limited ability. Also, if people feel this is going off the piste of the thread - and actually I love threads wherever they go deep but that's me - I am happy to try and continue clarification by email at wcbn007@easynet.co.uk
Far Mill , 20-Apr-2004 Everyone's a Knowledge WorkerExcellent comment threads....
I have found Six Sigma and a few other similar methodologies helpful when trying to impact the performance of business processes, sets of sub-processes, etc. The impact can be positive - increasing performance, such as velocity, quality, yield, margins, etc. or negative - decreasing cost, defects, cycle time, etc.
Six Sigma can be effectively applied as a disciplined (sometimes overly disciplined) manner to impact performance of processes. It is not appropriate in every situation, so I'm generalizing its role here.
I still believe in the hypothesis that most employees in an enterprise are knowledge workers and that knowledge workers generally are assigned to various business processes. Few have visibility to all processes or have full understanding about impacts up/downstream of their process. Every enterprise has opportunities to enhance their performance and make their knowledge workers and their processes more effective.
I think the integrity and trust of people relationships are essential to well functioning processes, businesses, and enterprises. These elements are part of an enterprise's culture and play a large role in the success of changes required to impact performance. Six Sigma always guides the practitioner to manage risks at every step in the improvement process. Cultural and organizational risks must be understood and planned for at each step.
My industry experience leads me to believe that service, knowledge, and products/goods are tightly linked. While the company I work for might be viewed as a "product company", we are bundling services and knowledge with the products now. In some cases, the knowledge and services are the key differentiators.
So when the products are service and knowledge, I feel the above process-orientation and measurement-guided improvement approach can be successful in making knowledge workers effective.
Respectfully yours,...United in the goal of making knowledge workers more effective...
Far Mill
Achieve Breakthrough Performance through Six SigmaChris Macrae , 18-Apr-2004 how are you defining performance
Mr Chris MacraeHow about telling us how six sigma is defined and how you visualise this construct( which I believe originated in physical quality defects) translating to the integrity/trust of people relationships in service and knowledge markets?
Far Mill , 17-Apr-2004 Everyone is Knowledge Worker?Conceptually, everyone in an enterprise is a knowledge worker. And, an enterprise is made of many business processes that require inputs, generate outputs, and require resources to execute. There have to be some measure of success and internal performance metrics to understand how a process is working - efficiently or not. I believe if we understand a knowledge workers role in their process, then we can help them be effective in that role - through organizational, process, and technology enablers.
Thanks, Far Mill
Achieve Breakthrough Performance through Six SigmaChris Macrae , 7-Dec-2003 what's the paradox of people being central to orgs?
Mr Chris MacraePerhaps this is a problem with language, but if KM isnt interested in making organisations better for people, will you please tell me what it's for? The knowledge worker isnt a paradox - at least in all Drucker's writings as founder of the term - its the core principle. If an organisation isnt enabling people to do great work, then its a poor organisation. QED!
For people with knowledge worker paradoxes, here are some other questions:
Have you ever worked in a large organsiation, where you've spent most of your time having to double guess what your boss wants done? I have been in at least 2; firms that charged huge consulting fees to their clients; but were riddled with knowledge-sharing failures
have you ever tried a method called open -space?; it simple and shows how much more can be obtained where everyone is respected in a conversation as long as there is a challenging purpose everyone's agreed they're spending their time of clarifying. Open space is the real version of whatever people dream of when they wax lyrical about the possibilities of virtual communities or networks. We need real methods as well as virtual ones and until KM blends both then perhaps it is the whole curriculum of KM that is the paradox, not us poor human beings and would-be workers.
http://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=120512&d=1&h=417&f=56&dateformat=%o%20%B%20%YAngela Nobre , 2-Dec-2003 Well done! & try to read between the lines!
Angela NobreMiguel, James, Denham and Chris commented on Lilia's article. Any similarity among them? Being male?... This is a silly joke just to show how complex and intricate are these kind of discussions! I mean: there are so many invisible, hidden, unconscious issues involved that we have to go very slowly! Lilia knows well my difficulties with the knowledge worker concept: I think that it is a great issue for a management focus in order to try to improve their working conditions and thus their productivity. However, I think that it brings in so many 'hidden' issues that I fear that it becomes a misleading line of thought/ argument if we try to dive into those less clear issues. Such as: the relationship between collective and individual development, the 'social invention' side of K, the cognitivist vs non-cognitivist perspective on K, the mental cartesian model vs the action focus vs an emotional intelligence approach, bla bla bla. My feeling is that 'that' which we are trying to capture through the k-worker concept CANNOT be explained through an individual or individualistic perspective, as it would be a contradiction in its own terms. To focus on the individual and to let others focus on groups is as misleading as to look at Organisational Learning as a 'summing up' from individual, to group, to organisational learning!!! Most people see OL this way and they would feel as confortable separating the individual from the social aspect of the K-worker! Lilia has grown with Vigostky ideas and theories, so she is well aware of the importance of the social dimension of social practices, and knowledge, in particular at organisational level, which is the specific context of the KM field, is intrinsically and inescapably a social process, legitimised by a social practice. So, yes, the K-worker concept can lead us into becoming more aware of the K content of most work - manual and repetitive work has a k content. Non-K-workers would be ONLY the ones who would do something in an automatic automate (blind/ deaf/ mute) way - and this would include both intellectual and manual work! But if we want to have any real impact we must consider the individual and the collective dimensions as a single reality and we must use theories which enable us to do this. Lilia is already familiar with my line of thought though I wonder if this feeling of unease is shared by others. As I said, in the OL field and also in most KM approaches there is little understanding of the importance of this approach. There is an indirect focus through issues such as the importance of CoP, collaborative work and K sharing. However, I rarely see a strong hold on conceptual approaches which make this argument more visible and operational. And here is my two-pence comment!
Chris Macrae , 26-Nov-2003 Why do we pretend organisations are for knowledge workers
Mr Chris MacraeWhat you measure isnt only what you get but what you compound in a system over time. The fact is that globally accounting still regards machines as investments, people as costs. Whilst that perverse hangover from the industrial age perpetrates wherever accountants report, it must be obvious that the organsaition isnt just neutral to knowledge workers, it is in direct conflict with them.
But it gets worst. Most knowledge work needs connectivity, yet separating bits of the system and dividing people silos is the model that tangible counting is based on. So there's no real chance of organisation and knowledge worker interfacing in a systemically productive way until we introduce a second goverance system that systemises metrics the other way round from tangible accounting. More on all this at
http://www.knowledgeboard.com/community/zones/sig/kmei.htmlLilia Efimova , 23-Nov-2003 On knowledge worker environment
Lilia Efimovaif we assume that knowledge workers want to be productive and will always try their best to be productive then for the moment perhaps the quality of the knowledge worker environment becomes the measure?
I believe the environment is important and this is the only thing that a company can change (and hope that knowledge workers will change as well). I would refer to existing models that describe it well (e.g. Kelloway&Barling above). I see the only problem with the models I found so far: they describe an environment well without providing satisfying (me) description of knowledge work. So, we can play with variables that influence knowledge work without having any good idea what should be improved :)
It's also perfectly right to assume that knowledge workers want to be productive, but I would say that we could also assume that they don't know how. That's why I want to have a good model of knowledge work – to help knowledge workers find how to be productive.
Lilia Efimova , 23-Nov-2003 On measuring knowledge work
Lilia EfimovaI will start from Denham's comment (to continue our
long-term discussion ;) - why focusing on improving knowledge productivity of individuals?
I will not argue with Denham that knowledge is social invention: I share this standpoint. I don't say that we shouldn't look at improving group knowledge productivity. I believe that there is an individual component of social knowledge processes and I'm interested to focus on it (leaving valuable research on groups to others).
Recently I started to think about knowledge worker productivity as about personal effectiveness in a knowledge-intensive environment. I'm interested to see how knowledge workers do their work and what could be improved.
For example, being involved into conversations in different communities or professional networks is an important part of learning and coming up with new ideas, but our time and capability to establish and manage relations are limited. How do I make choices selecting groups to join? How do I remember all different conversations and their contexts? Some people do it naturally (I guess I'm not the only one wondering how Denham manages all his online activities J, others have to struggle… I could think about many other knowledge-work-related activities that could be improved: keeping track of someone's readings, brainstorming ideas, effective sharing. Next to it there are different technologies that can make those tasks easier or more difficult. And other "simple" issues like time management.
These activities are often not accounted for in organizations and this is something that made me wondering. By "accounted" I don't mean accounting or any measurement in economic sense, but "taking into account", paying attention, providing with time and resources. I'm not sure if knowledge work could and should be measured in traditional sense, I agree that by doing so we risk of loosing the essence of it. What we can do is recognizing flows of intangibles between people and making sure that they are facilitated for acquiring skills and experiences they need to manage their own work.
Denham Grey , 12-Nov-2003 Focus on knowledge worker
Denham GreyLilia,
You ask good questions. I think we often start from the wrong assumptions:
1) We should be able to measure knowledge - our attempts here are like measuring a artist -what do number of paintings/per year or brushstrokes per painting or even gross value of paintings sold really tell us about the artist and their influence on society?
2) We often look at 'knowledge productivity' of individuals - wrong - knowledge is a social invention - we need to look at awareness, increases in group understanding, agility and ability to appreciate consequences.
3) Why do we have this constant paranoia about knowledge worker productivity? - we somehow manage to judge competencies & productivities of designers, artists, flower arrangers, care givers, hospice workers - all without hard measurements - what makes knowledge workers any different?
4) Knowledge work - by it's very definition is complex, uncertain, often high risk, there are always lags between the activity and useful results, much of the real value is emergent, ephemeral, tied to relationships rather than process.
5) If you can appreciate that much of the real knowledge work is tacit in nature, why keep beating the measurement drum? - it just does not make sense.
Not so much a paradox as having the wrong assumptions methinks!
James Dellow , 11-Nov-2003 Quality of the knowledge worker environment?
James DellowLilia,
Tom Davenport posed a great question.
Like Miguel I agree with your explanations, but I would begin by asking why we assume knowledge workers aren’t productive? This is an important question because at the heart of this discussion is perhaps a conflict between the nature of organising and knowledge work in some organisations.
Certainly I feel that we must carefully balance the need for short-term productivity improvements against the need for long-term sustainability and the ability to respond to emergent change. In fact I see more of a paradox with the idea of measuring a complex system with traditional accounting methods.
This doesn’t answer your question of course, but if we assume that knowledge workers want to be productive and will always try their best to be productive then for the moment perhaps the quality of the knowledge worker environment becomes the measure?
Best Regards,
James
Miguel Cornejo , 3-Nov-2003 Agree, and a bit more
Miguel CornejoHi Lilia,
a great article.
As far as your questions go, IMHO,
* "Am I right that we don't know much about knowledge work?"
I'm not sure :-). What we don't have is an agreed model for it, but we have a lot of information, theories... and a lot of experience on it.
* "Do you agree with my explanations or there are other ways to explain it?"
I agree with your explanation but find that it could be useful to focus on the reasons for it to be so. Organizations can't systematise what they can't detect. They can't detect amounts of knowledge work input in a business object. They can't detect cost of that knowledge work for the organization (other than in terms of organization time, which is often not complete). In other words, they're not conscious of any measurable element in knowledge work other than time expended. They lack a model that they can understand, that links knowledge work, its "inputs", and the way it affects the corporate "outputs".
So they deal with knowledge workers at an aggregate level they can understand. Training offices, HR, CoPs, career management, etcetera (overhead, as you say), can be more or less related to global productivity.
* "What could be done to understand knowledge workers and to help them becoming more productive?"
Create a complete economic model, with no "externalities", of the business processes within a knowledge worker. What the kworker does to build productive ability. How that affects the organization. What the kworker does to create value at the organization.
Lot of k-work ;-), but it'd be worth having. Best regards,
Miguel
cache from search rank 1.1
BSI Knowledge Management Skills and Competencies: Call for contributions
Successful organisations depend on the abilities of their people. Knowledge management (KM) programmes, introduced by many organisations to improve decision making and innovation, have focused the attention of management on the skills and competencies required to support and enable effective knowledge working.
TFPL is currently drafting ‘Knowledge Management skills and competencies: a guide to good practice’ as part of a series of KM related guides published by the British Standards Institutution following their practical introduction to KM, ‘Knowledge Management: a guide to good practice’ (PAS 2001) published in 2001. The intention of the guide is to provide a clear and practical overview of KM skills and competencies that draws on the practical experience of organisations in a wide range of sectors and with varying approaches to KM.
As there is no consensus definition of KM, TFPL and the BSI’s Knowledge Management Committee (KMS/1) are using the term to describe the many approaches that organisations use to mobilise and maximise their ideas, expertise and information in order to meet their business goals. The key aim of this guide is to identify and illustrate the approaches taken to develop the roles and competencies required in “networked and knowledge intensive organisations”, and how these reflect different sectors and organisational structures.
In preparing the Guide TFPL will be consulting widely with organisations, practitioners and experts and holding consultative workshops for both the private and public sectors. If you would like more information about the preparation of this guide or would like to contribute your experience please contact
Angela Abell.
KnowledgeBoard, 4-Mar-2004Categories: Published by: Stephanie PhillipsStory read: 1681
Mail this article to a friendPrinter friendly versionAdd comments to this articleUser Comments
Share your views with other users:
add your own comments to this story.
Legal NoticeNumber of comments: 4
Chris Macrae , 08 March 2004 @ 16:07 PM 1,2,3
Mr Chris Macrae1 thanks for the article link to life after KM2 yes: like the slogan life is KM3 I dont really get the change of name of Drucker's knowledge worker- his point was we are all knowledge workers; organisation once it goes beyond machines must transparently be for all the people , enslaving nobody who honestly wishs to connect their life's accomplishments into maximising their productive talents around a truly needed purpose; and the value of future organisations revolves around the workers not the machines or the financiers, at least not to the degree that they dominate. There's a case today of a 30000 global organisation where the top 25 people pay themselves more for their strategy than all the effort and brains and trust and lifetimes for of the other 29975 - clearly such organisation goes bust in a knowledge worker age- how can 25 people learn more about what the world outsides wants 30000 people to adapt to than the other 29975? Its a tragic farce (I mean 90% tragedy) that Russia of the second half of the 20th century invented the least knowledge-working form or organisation conceivable, and now america's global corporates are doing the same
In one case it was called ownership by the people but never was. In the other case it is called ownership by shareholders, but never was. Long-term shareholders (ones who invest for a pension or like founders because they have a belief worth gravitaing value multiplying around) are the first to be gobbled up by the rampant speculators who have spun this extremely unknowledgeable organisational state into our midst.
One way forward is to stand up for a method,
see link - any method that you will stake your reputaion on as opening up organsiation for knowledge workers or whatever we call people who want a promise that if they put all their learning and energy into an organsiation, everything is being done in that organisation to sustain a better future for everyone. The organisation won't be milked by someone coming alonmg and saying let's take all the money and goodwill out in the next 90 days. Organsiations are ways to invest in what individuals alone cant do; if they engage our communal trust with lies they become the most terrifying destroyers of social fabric. This needs to become the most widepsread popular debate of our times; whether it will depends partly on epople coming out, stop lurking, linking everywhere.
Enjoy going to Russia,
from here, jump to your country and start locally linking those who are developing methods that heroise the knowledge worker's energies.
Nikolai Krjachkov , 08 March 2004 @ 13:49 PM ?
TextVirusExpert Nikolai KrjachkovChris,
what term do you mean - ‘Life is KM’ or ‘knowledge person’?
Chris Macrae , 08 March 2004 @ 12:50 PM thanks
Mr Chris Macraefor the link Nikolai
this seems like a fun article- in fact I was quite surpriised when googling life after KM how much there is - wonder who coined the term to raise what conversational focus?
Nikolai Krjachkov , 07 March 2004 @ 15:03 PM Life is KM
TextVirusExpert Nikolai Krjachkov‘Life is KM’ – it is a great thought (!) from the article ‘What next? Life after Knowledge Management?’ written by Nigel Oxbrow, Founder and CEO, TFPL, Angela Abell, Director, TFPL.
So the term - ‘knowledge worker’ - is out of date (as far as I remember ‘knowledge worker’ is P. Drucker’s concept).
Absurdly for the person to be a knowledge worker (in working hours) and to be a gullible customer (in free time) whose behavior/life is being managed from outside (by producers of intangibles who spread - brands, advertisements, news, etc.) and based on belief, not on understanding.
I would suggest a term ‘knowledge person’ instead of ‘knowledge worker’.
