SKMF News

Das SKMF hat zum Ziel, ein aktives Netzwerk zum Thema Knowledge Management zu bilden. Durch Initialisierung und Koordination von Aktivitäten verbindet SKMF Praktiker im Bereich Knowledge Management. Primary goal of the Swiss Knowledge Management Forum (SKMF) is to provide a lively and energizing environment for KM practitioners to network, collaborate, learn and share, thus enabling for personal growth.

[skmfnews]

Zauberfee zum Zweiten

von Pavel Kraus

Seit einiger Zeit gebe ich laufend Interviews rund ums Wissensmanagement (WM). Es macht richtig Freude. Firmen interessieren sich für Erfahrungen mit WM-Projekten und Studierende machen Praxisprojekte mit WM-Fokus. Fragen tauchen auf, wie z.B. Wie kann es organisiert werden, dass Mitarbeitende Erfahrungen effizient austauschen? Wie kann man ohne grossen Aufwand Dokumente erstellen und publizieren, die von anderen leicht und schnell gefunden und verstanden werden?

Hinter diesen Fragen stehen jeweils Projekte, die handfeste Probleme lösen müssen. Es ist vielfach eine Erwartung da, dass die Technologie, d.h. Tools, einem Arbeit abnehmen und die Zusammenarbeit erleichtern. Es fühlt sich wie ein Déja-vu an – man erhofft sich eine «Zauberfee» die einem das Problem löst.

Die Vision beinhaltet, dass Informationen einfach zu strukturieren, einfach zu verwalten und so darzustellen um sie effektiv nutzen zu können. Leicht zugänglich und im Kontext sollen die Informationen sein. Durch clevere Verknüpfungen der Inhalte soll man hohe Verfügbarkeit und Verständlichkeit erzielen. Soweit der Wunsch-Katalog, der sich seit 20 Jahren nicht geändert hat.

Mein Déja-vu fängt Ende der 80’er Jahre an. Da war ich nach dem Studium als Berufsanfänger im Marketing der Basler Chemie tätig. Wir waren knapp ein Dutzend Mitarbeitende, sechs Sachbearbeiter, vier Assistentinnen und ein Chef. Das war noch die Zeit als wir Analysen und Berichte von Hand schrieben.

Die Assistentinnen tippten unsere Handnotizen ab, organisierten gleichzeitig unsere Informationen und Dokumente. Sie wachten über die Verschlagwortung, Strukturierung der Ablage, wie auch über den Kontext. Sie suchten auch unsere Dokumente zusammen und waren virtuos darin.

Ich habe mir die Mühe gemacht um auszurechnen wie dieser bestimmte Teil ihrer Arbeit – heute würde man es als «Records Management» bezeichnen – zur gesamten Arbeitsleistung unserer Abteilung stand und kam auf 23%. Das bedeutet, dass 23% der Arbeitszeit aller elf Vollzeitstellen für Dokument-, bzw. Records-Management verwendet wurde.

Ein Jahr später bekamen alle Sachbearbeiter Computer, wir schrieben und speicherten unsere Dokumente selber ab und das Chaos fing an. Ab diesem Zeitpunkt konnte ich in der elektronischen Ablage meiner Kollegen nichts mehr finden.

Was ist da genau passiert? Unbemerkt hat man die Informations-Organisation von den Assistentinnen an die Spezialisten übertragen. Mit dem Unterschied, dass die Assistentinnen hierbei über ein Wissen verfügten, das wir Sachbearbeiter nicht hatten. Die 23% des Aufwandes hat man vermeintlich einsparen wollen und vergessen, dass es trotzdem gemacht werden muss. Den Wert dieser Arbeit hat man unterschätzt und unterschätzt ihn noch heute.

Die «Retourkutsche» kam einige Zeit später, als man bei der Informationssuche begann viel Zeit zu vergeuden. Die für diese Arbeit schlecht ausgebildeten Sachbearbeiter kreierten chaotische und unübersichtliche Dokument-Ablagen, damals auf gemeinsamen Laufwerken und heute in den vielen «SharePoint Site Collections». Jedoch haben Dokumente nur einen Wert, wenn sie richtig bezeichnet, logisch abgelegt werden und vernetzt abrufbar sind.

In dieser chaotischen Zeit betritt die «Zauberfee» die Bühne in der Gestalt von Software-Lieferanten, welche Suchmaschinen, sich selbst organisierenden Collaboration-Suites oder ausgeklügelte Apps anbieten, die nach dem Kauf das Chaos aufräumen und beseitigen.

Mein Schlüsselerlebnis war 2004. Damals half ich bei einem Innovations-Thinktank solche Missstände zu beseitigen. Auf dem gemeinsamen Laufwerk waren die Dokumente nur dann auffindbar, wenn der Autor bei der Suche half. Sonst nicht. Die Mitarbeiter hatten schon eine Lösung in Form einer «Zauberfee-Datenbank» zur Erprobung installieren lassen. Alternativ zu diesem Tool haben wir gemeinsam eine Informations-Architektur und drei einfache Regeln erarbeitet. Das alles konnte auf einer Mausmatte visualisiert werden.

Diese Lösung funktioniert nun seit 14 Jahren selbstgesteuert, weil die Arbeit damit einfacher war als vorher. Der Nutzen war sofort da. Die Anschaffung eines Tools hat sich erübrigt, die Ablage funktioniert direkt auf dem gemeinsamen Laufwerk und alle finden sogar bei Kollegen alle nötigen Informationen.

Der Erfolgsfaktor hier ist eine logische Strukturierung der Informationen, und eine gemeinsame Arbeit am Kontext, bevor an ein Tool gedacht werden darf. Die überraschende Erkenntnis: diese Vorarbeit kann einem kein Tool abnehmen, aber wenn die Arbeit geleistet ist, braucht es kein weiteres Tool mehr.

Kürzlich haben wir eine Datenbank eingeführt, welche Spezialisten hilft, ihre Arbeit vernetzter und einfacher zu gestalten. Sie wurde auf ihre Aufgaben ausgerichtet und erfüllt die Anforderungen an logische Strukturierung, vernetzte Visualisierung und kontextuelle Wissensdokumentation.

Folgende Erfolgsfaktoren waren entscheidend:

- Massgeschneiderte Lösung für die expliziten wie auch unausgesprochenen Wünsche der User

- Kompromisslose Beachtung der Ergonomie: im Vordergrund einfachste Bedienung und im Hintergrund komplexe Vernetzung

- Kurze, dreimonatige Entwicklungszeit in agiler Vorgehensweise zusammen mit den Kunden

[skmfnews]

Introducing the 3 Sphere Model

by Pavel Kraus and Gil Regev

The 3 Sphere Model assists managers to decide on tools enabling interaction between knowledge and information and link them to action. The model accommodates current fashionable trends like design thinking, serious games, canvas type forms, agile development or artificial intelligence and puts them in an easy understandable context.

The 3 Sphere Model emphasizes the role of time in which various techniques and tools should be used and so delivering the greatest benefit. It also exposes the fallacies of technologically driven knowledge management and clarifies the thinking about what tools should be used how.

The 3 Sphere Model has been introduced at the Swiss Knowledge Management Forum (http://skmf.net) roundtable at the EPFL Lausanne on November 23, 2017 by Pavel Kraus and Gil Regev. It is currently under further development by the SKMF community.

[skmfnews]

Beyond activities: How to use KM tools successfully

by Pavel Kraus

In a recent paper Gil Regev and myself have investigated the necessary conditions for organizations to successfully deal with both processes and innovations. A lot has been said in this regards starting with Schumpeter or Christensen over to Brown and many others.

We have realized that the detailed depictions of processes, be it in process maps or on various canvas types is more hindering then enabling innovative thinking. The boxes describe what we do and what is there. But they do not give us freedom to think outside or to come up with the new.

Now, to be innovative one has the challenge the status quo. Our brain can do that if challenged with a question or a vacuum or an uncertainty. This is what we have put forward as the first step. Based on Gil's research at EPFL we have applied a simplified high level process representation leaving sufficient room for phantasy and creativity.

This method was combined with a number of knowledge management (KM) techniques and tools in a series of workshops for various organizations. The goals of these workshops was either to develop new business models due to the digitalization opportunities or to introduce innovation and creativity into a well established, but also settled if not sedated organization. In all cases the management was under pressure to change things and a sense or urgency was present.

But motivation and resilience is necessary, but not sufficient. It has to be integrated with good choreography and orchestration of techniques. An external consultant one has to facilitate workshops. One deals often with people overwhelmed with their daily business, who do not have much time for any preparation or follow-up. 

Therefore the type and speed of workshop inception is another of the many challenges. To immerse the group fast into their topic and bring their attention and thinking where they need to be.

During this work we have realized that specific KM techniques or tools work well only within a specific time span. It is the time span in which knowledge and information is generated, consumed, and reused. 

So e.g. questioning techniques work within a very short timespans (few minutes), fish bowls within medium time spans (45 – 120 minutes) and more information based tools for longer time spans (Wikis, Chats, FAQs etc.) To realize how critical this dependency is was a major break through in understanding.

So we started to map the many KM techniques and tools against their ideal time span in connection with their impact on information and knowledge. This will have a major impact on the future process optimization and knowledge management projects with our clients. It also opens doors to research how to further optimize collaboration, business model development and innovation endeavors.

When applied consciously and rigorously knowledge management works and brings expected benefits. However, if people expect that the issues in dealing with knowledge (brown circle) will be solved through technical solutions (blue circle) their projects and tools will continue to fail.

[skmfnews]

[skmfnews]

Fruitful collaboration at the K4Dev conference: Gil Regev, Leif Edvinsson, Véronique Sikora, Pavel Kraus

[skmfnews]

Just reflecting on the overall tone of the K4Dev contributions. So many talks emphasize the role of knowledge in collaboration, communities, learning and development. But this nothing new. Humankind has managed knowledge since the antiquity. We do not do Knowledge Management a good service, if we just recapitulate old obvious trivias in new words. Goal of knowledge management is to change human behavior (Richard Bryan-Cox). In order to be successful we have to find what does KM provide that is useful, new, different and therefore adding value. I am grateful that some speakers have identified in their K4Dev talks exactly what made a difference if compared to the past. Be it in processes, techniques or attitude.

https://tagboard.com/k4d2017geneva/search

[skmfnews]

Talk-thru, walk-thru, run thru

Talk-through, walk-through, run-through: learning needs practising on different levels was the subject of the SKMF Round Table sponsored by IT-Logix in Bern, October 18, 2016. It was an opportunity for like-minded professionals to network and to gain hands-on experience on knowledge flows and knowledge transfer.

Participants found the round table to be of great value, giving them a solid overview of how IT Logix deals with the challenges of knowledge sharing. “The content, combined with exercises we delved into during the round table, was practical; it will be easily applied to knowledge management cases” expressed Anders Bröchner. David Gemmet’s biggest take away was “how knowledge transfer as an unstructured field can be managed by utilising a structured approach such as talk-through, walk-through and run-through.”

The SKMF thanks IT-Logix for hosting the round table and for its warm hospitality including the wonderful buffet. It was a great workshop and a perfect location for people to meet and share KM perspectives.

Véronique Sikora

[skmfnews]

Trial and error: The path to effective communication in a small start-up company

Dr. Pavel Kraus

The proliferation of apps that promise to focus on communication in working groups is still mind-boggling. The magic word is collaboration. So, which software can synchronize teamwork and overcome the pitfalls of email?

In our small start-up company, we relied on email for one year; we did not know any better. Then, as we managed various projects and supervised consortia teams working internationally, emails took so much time, that we had to stop.

The question was: What next? We sat together and thought about what we needed. The list was short:  1) Various communication streams, private, semi-private and public, 2) Recorded history of the communication chronological order,  3) Fast recognition: who contributed what and when, 4) Broad and comprehensive overview of content and decisions, and 5) Instant and constant access to the information.

We tried several solutions; some very sophisticated, and then we  discovered Slack. In the end, the benchmark for success was the number of emails still circulating within the team. Only practical experience could show.  

So once again, proof that usability is a delicate balance between simplicity, quality of information, and finally, user acceptance.

[skmfnews]

Discovering what we don’t know about recruitment and were always afraid to ask

Véronique Sikora

June’s roundtable, facilitated by Joyce Miller and Eli Defriend, took us on a journey of exploration of the recruitment process from the needs assessment of the various stakeholders in the organisation to the specific requirements of the concerned department, to recruitment, which liaised with, and ended with the recruitment agency.

The various actors, stakeholders, at each table represented a segment of the recruitment process. Some were applicants, some represented the production department with their needs and requirements, and some were professionals in recruiting, internally and externally.

How could we represent our process? What would we tell the stakeholders who had questions for us? Or who required our services? What did we think we would achieve? Would we be hired? Would we find the right candidate? Would the candidate have the right qualifications? And according to whose needs?  These are but a few of the questions that arose. Some were answered, others were left in the air for many to ponder…

[skmfnews]

Knowledge Management and The Magical Fairy of Change

Dr. Pavel Kraus

KM projects tend to be accompanied by illusions, that once the right technology is in place, the people will inevitably start to exchange information and knowledge. It was the 90's when Thomas Davenport first wrote about it.  

So, what did we learn since then, if anything? Still today, we see this expectation floating through the halls of many companies. Recently, I had a discussion regarding a «knowledge sharing system». My discussion partner was an IT specialist talking about sophisticated functionality in systems like Google+, SharePoint, Livelink and other ECMs. I asked him if he has ever seen active information sharing behavior among employees. The answer was no. But he was convinced; this was so, because the functionality was not there yet.

And this is the moment when the magical fairy enters the stage. The magical fairy is the one, which makes the people to change their behavior. And so, they actively start to share knowledge or write contributions. She is the active change management agent for knowledge management.

 How can we improve the way in which people work? One has to dive into their complex working environments, understand their ways and grow the understanding that leads to developing of improvement possibilities. This is cumbersome and takes time. However, there is no alternative, because the easy stuff has been solved already many years ago. Still today, in-depth understanding of the knowledge processes leads to improvements and new tools.

 So, once the new tools have been worked out, then comes the time for their introduction. This the moment that some executives believe, the magical fairy will take over and the people will just start adopting and start to work in a new way.

 Those experienced with the thorny paths of change management, know many of these executives are still waiting for the magical fairy. In the meantime their investments into the KM analysis and tools are wasting.

[skmfnews]

Again and again: Why differentiate between knowledge and information?

Dr. Pavel Kraus

David Gurteen recently cited Tom Wilson: Knowledge only exists in the human mind. Everything else, however is information.

 As knowledge management professionals, we cannot over-emphasize this distinction. I myself heard this definition in the late 90's from a Canadian lecturer and did not like it very much. It was too simple compared to the long academic definitions of that time.

However, as my own practice of knowledge management progressed, I started to like this definition. It has brought clarity and focus into any KM project or initiative. Today, I am convinced that it contributes to success. In fact, I have declared it as the make or break factor in the success logic of KM projects.  

I have seen too many KM initiatives fail because the initiators did not clearly distinguish between knowledge and information. Failing to do so, they soon created such a terminology mess, that none of their sponsors understood their goals anymore. And this confusion was the first step to their failure.

 Knowledge defined as being only in a human mind was also the common understanding when the Glossary of the top 50 German KM terms was created in 2009.

  To sum up, as the KM profession develops, the clear distinction of knowledge and information should become firm foundation of KM initiatives. Thanks to Tom Wilson, David Gurteen and DACH glossary creators this will be the case.

[skmfnews]

Great Insights From Gurteen’s Knowledge Café In Bern

Véronique Sikora

Peter Jacsman & I attended Gurteen’s Knowledge Café Master Class in Bern at June 18, 2015 and had some great insights.

Many people have pointed to the power of conversations and the importance of being present in the moment. Gurteen's perspective is very similar. It is about the conversations that take place and not the harvesting of conversations, nor the outcomes that may be written down. It is what the conversations spark in people and leave with them to take forward; whether today, tomorrow or in six months. Like me, many participants were focused on what to do after the conversations. 

What Gurteen emphasized is precisely not that. Gurteen asks us to stay away from writing what it is that we are talking about because it takes away from the moment. This brought me back to the concept of presencing which is found in in Presence by Senge, Jaworsky, Flowers, and Otto Scharmer, best known for the Theory U - U Lab.

Lessons learned

It’s about:

The Journey – the process over the product

Connection before content

Listening – learning from silence

Developing and building trust; building relationships

Creative destruction of structure: breaking down structure

Democratisation of group conversation

Bringing out the Potential in people

Avoiding distractions such as pen and paper to write or take notes

Conversations that are personal and social, that come with emotions, behaviours and so much more.

What works best with a group that gets together to discuss common interests, which comes together voluntarily(as a stand-alone "tool"

In an organisational environment the knowledge cafe is one tool amongst many and could be used in a problem-solving or decision-making process.

More Infos:

David Gurteen 

[skmfnews]

Der Mythos vom sinkenden Maturaniveau

Tages Anzeiger, Andreas Pfister am Montag 6. Juli 2015

In der Rubrik Bildung des Politblogs geht es um aktuelle Themen der Bildungspolitik. Autoren sind Andreas Pfister (Leitung), Philipp Sarasin, Patrik Schellenbauer und verschiedene Gäste.

Der Fachkräftemangel ist in aller Munde, und gegenwärtig etablieren sich entsprechende Fachkräfteinitiativen. Auffällig ist: Sie fokussieren vor allem auf die Frauen, die Arbeitslosen, die Alten. Nicht aber auf die Jungen. Eine Bildungsoffensive ist für sie nicht vorgesehen, das jugendliche Potenzial gilt als ausgeschöpft. Man will lieber weniger als mehr Maturanden, denn man fürchtet um das Niveau.

Eigentlich ist die Sorge um das Niveau erfreulich, denn was den Bildungsplatz Schweiz auszeichnet, ist Qualität. Doch diese Qualität gegen Quantität auszuspielen, vor Massen-Unis und Mittelmass zu warnen, greift zu kurz. Bei einer moderaten Erhöhung der gymnasialen und der Berufsmatura-Quote ist es sehr wohl möglich, sowohl das Niveau als auch die Quote zu steigern. Das eine schliesst das andere nicht aus.

Eine echte Fachkräfteinitiative wäre in erster Linie eine Bildungsoffensive.

Das Lernen wird gelernt – wie ein Handwerk: Maturanden in Aarau. (Keystone)

Die Klagen über das angeblich sinkende Niveau folgen ziemlich durchsichtigen diskursiven Mustern. Das Bluffen mit der eigenen Strenge ist vor allem Selbstinszenierung, die Niveau-Jammerer betreiben billige Empörungsbewirtschaftung. Die Story von ungenügenden Maturanden ist einfach zu schön, sie ist Balsam für die Ressentiments den Studierten gegenüber. Der Mythos vom angeblich sinkenden Niveau geht auch deshalb nicht auf, weil nicht einfach die Intelligentesten am Gymi sind, sondern jene mit entsprechendem «sozio-ökonomischem Hintergrund». Das heisst, es gibt noch viele talentierte Jugendliche aus «bildungsfernen» Schichten, die den Ansprüchen des Gymnasiums oder der Berufsmatura durchaus genügen könnten. Dazu kommt: Jugendliche sind nicht einfach dumm oder gescheit. Intelligenz ist nicht nur angeboren, man kann sie auch entwickeln. Talente kann man fördern – oder verlieren. Denken ist eine Praxis, das Lernen wird gelernt – genau wie ein Handwerk. Sonst bräuchte es keine Schule. Das Niveau wird gemacht.

Es ist wahr: Eine wichtige Studie (Evamar II) hat bei einem Teil der Maturandinnen und Maturanden Mängel festgestellt, z. B. in Deutsch und Mathematik. Das Problem ist erkannt und wird angegangen. Heutige Maturandinnen und Maturanden können nicht weniger – sondern anderes. Es geht nicht nur um die Stoffmenge. Innovative Köpfe beherrschen mehr und Anspruchsvolleres als die blosse Anwendung von Rechtschreibregeln oder Formeln. Sie sind besser auf das selbständige wissenschaftliche Arbeiten vorbereitet denn je. Die Maturaarbeiten, welche heute geschrieben werden, dürften manch einem – mir zum Beispiel – die Schamesröte ins Gesicht treiben, denkt man an die erste Proseminar-Arbeit zurück.

Was tun? Das Niveau ist nicht verhandelbar, deshalb ist ein «Heimatschutz» für Schweizer Studierende und Dozierende keine Option. Aber wir müssen dafür sorgen, dass sie mindestens die gleichen Startchancen kriegen. Gegenwärtig werden sie benachteiligt durch mangelnde Förderung und übermässige Selektion. Darum wäre eine echte Fachkräfteinitiative in erster Linie eine Bildungsoffensive.

Über den Autor

Andreas Pfister ist Gymnasiallehrer und Bildungsjournalist. Er ist Herausgeber des Sammelbands «Das Gymnasium im Land der Berufslehre» und schreibt regelmässig für die Fachzeitschrift «Gymnasium Helveticum». Er arbeitet in Zug und lebt mit seiner Familie in Zürich.

Alle Beiträge ansehen von Andreas Pfister

[skmfnews]

Zweiter SKMF Roundtable zum Thema Wissensmanagement im ISO 2015 Update

Dr. Pavel Kraus

Was wird der Auditor fragen um festzustellen, ob eine zertifizierte Firma den neuen Anforderungen bezüglich Wissensmanagements genügt? Und wie wird er prüfen, ob die Nachweise genügen?

Diese Fragen haben wir uns am zweiten SKMF Roundtable zum Thema «Wissensmanagement wird obligatorisch» gestellt. Um die Aufgabe des Auditors nachvollziehen zu können haben wir zum Text der neuen ISO Norm eine Reihe von Fragen entwickelt:

 Was ist die Basis für den Umgang mit Wissen? Wie werden wissensintensive Prozesse ermittelt? Welcher Level an Wissensmanagement-Aktivitäten ist genügend? Welche Wissensrisiken haben wir und wie stellen wir das fest? Wie viel Wissen geht an den Schnittstellen unserer Prozesse verloren und wie können wir das Wissen aufrechterhalten? Wie ermitteln wir zukünftigen Wissensbedarf?

Diese und alle anderen Fragen haben wir in sieben Clustern gruppiert. Die Frage war am Anfang, ob wir die Cluster gemäss dem Probst-Bausteine-Modell gestalten sollten. Am Schluss zeigte sich aber, dass der Normtext bezüglich des Umgangs mit Wissen bereits die richtigen Schwerpunkte setzt: Sicherung der Prozesse, Aufrechterhaltung des Wissens, Innovation und Trendbeobachtung, Umgang mit Informationen und organisatorische Verankerung von Wissensmanagement.

 Eine der ersten Fragen konnten wir direkt beantworten. Die Basis für alle Wissensmanagement-Aktivitäten bildet das DACH-Glossar. An diesem Glossar haben sechs führende WM-Communities aus Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz mitgearbeitet und haben die wichtigsten Begriffe rund um Wissensmanagement definiert und erklärt. Darin ist auch die klare Trennung zwischen Wissen und Information festgelegt. Diese Basis sorgt für Klarheit in der Terminologie und Auslegung.

 Das Ziel der SKMF Roundtable-Serie ist die Erstellung von Guidelines für Auditoren und zertifizierte Firmen. Es soll ihnen helfen die Neuerungen in der ISO-Norm 2015 in Bezug aufs Wissensmanagement gut zu meistern.

[skmfnews]

Knowledge management and ISO Update 2015

Dr. Pavel Kraus

If you are an ISO certified company and have an audit in 2016, your auditor will most likely ask you about some of the ten new topics. Among the new topics, two in the support section are relevant for the Swiss Knowledge Management Forum: Caring for company’s competencies (7.2) and assuring process results by identifying and managing necessary knowledge (7.1.6).

 In this way Knowledge Management becomes compulsory starting in September 2015. The organizations will be asked to identify, manage and make available all necessary knowledge to ensure process results, which are in line with quality and conformity requirements. This will be audited in the context of the whole organization.

To be compliant and retain the ISO certification, companies will have to prove that they take action towards this goal. The process owners will be asked by the auditor to demonstrate how they address the risks of losing critical knowledge when e.g. experienced collaborators leave the company or scaling-up a delicate process to another site.

 In addition, the knowledge development should react in an agile fashion if changes or trends occur such as e.g. adjustments in customer’s requirements. These are moments when new or additional knowledge should be acquired. Education and hiring new collaborators according to a specified set of competencies should become the norm and not be left to the arbitrary.

 What definition does ISO uses for «knowledge»? This is a key question, because many KM projects have failed in the past that treated information as knowledge and did not make a clear distinction. The ISO norm makes it clear, that knowledge is linked to people. In this way they are conform to the definitions used by the key opinion leaders.

 This means that the new ISO norms lay a new foundation for knowledge management initiatives. We at SKMF expect a fresh new breeze for this topic coming up in the next few years.

[skmfnews]

Arbeitskräfte 45+ Nur noch altes Eisen?

Markus Hainzl

Immer schneller, immer leistungsfähiger, immer jünger. In Zeiten des ewigen Jugendwahns wird eine grosse Gruppe oft ignoriert: Die Gruppe der über 45 Jährigen.

“Wir suchen jungen, dynamischen.....Ideal Alter zwischen 25-30 Jahren...” Solche Anzeigen gibt es reichlich in den Online-Jobbörsen. 

Das Gegenteil ist jedoch selten zu finden: “Wir suchen älteren, erfahrenen....Ideales Alter 45-65 Jahre..” 

Warum eigentlich?

Seht hier einen interssanten Artikel darüber:

http://www.intraworlds.de/talent-blog/2014/06/aeltere-mitarbeiter/

[skmfnews]

Understanding & Encouraging Knowledge Flows

Véronique Sikora, Associate Professor Business School Lausanne & Knowledge Practitioner Markus Hainzl, Professional Knowledge Manager Swiss Knowledge Management Forum

Summary of the workshop at the Congrès du Management de Projet in Lausanne, April 9, 2015

Barriers to knowledge flow - Mental constructs, language, culture, behaviour, identities,

“What are your project headaches?” was our first question to participants at the Congrès du Management de Projet in April 2015 where we addressed knowledge flows in organisations. We then took them on a learning journey to explore how knowledge is shared between people working in groups or teams on projects in organisations. With the help of marshmallows, and the experience in the room, we soon found out how quickly people, and groups, form their own identity. In French we would use the verb “s’approprier”. The workshop allowed people to recognise, appreciate, and understand how their mental constructs, their language and their common experience can motivate or hinder knowledge to flow within a group and more so, externally to the group. The project managers present understood that sharing what we know is not necessarily understood, or natural, and that as people, we are quick to make assumptions about what others think.

Method:

Participants randomly sat at five tables in groups of three or four. After a short introduction to the topic and the tasks to be performed, participants were asked to build the tallest structure out of materials including spaghetti, string, tape and marshmallows. They did this several times, followed by time to reflect and to share their individual and collective experience within their groups, and then with the whole group.

Activity - Outcomes

The first round allowed participants to experience the task within a team of new colleagues. Participants were questioned on their behaviour, including what stopped them from talking to others. The learning outcome included how motivation is influenced by the task at hand, and how quickly groups become closed entities. The final step in the first round was for groups to share their new found expertise with other groups. 

A second round took place in which participants set out to learn from round 1. Having accomplished the task in the first round, one group chose to simply build a similar structure. Another group had an expert engineer who understood the challenges involved and who was responsible for driving the task. Other groups focussed on working together to create a structure that would stand on its own. Again, none of the groups reached out to others, although it had been brought to their attention that this was possible.

 A second round of questions brought participants to reflect on what they did differently in this round and how they benefitted from it. Having recorded their group learning it was shared with the whole group. What was surprising are the assumptions that were made about the resources used in the first round; and the lack of motivation due to leadership. The learning was the optimisation & management of resources and the trust that enabled collaboration.  

 In the third round, many participants were faced with a loss of identity as the groups had been restructured. They had developed a relationship with their first colleagues, although over a short period of time. The time they had spent was taken for granted and assumptions that they could reproduce exactly the same structure, in the same way, were made. The time was shorter, which caused newfound knowledge difficult to transfer. The group that managed to build yet a taller structure had an expert engineer who took the responsibility for constructing the structure; the new colleagues prepared the resources needed, watching as it took shape.

In Nonaka’s terms, the socialisation process was approached from a different angle, and stopped there. (Nonaka's SECI Model of Knowledge Dimensions). The expert engineer’s previous colleague (from the first two rounds) explained how he had observed and prepared the resources in the first round, shared the new knowledge with new colleagues, and in less time, successfully built a standing structure.

A final round of questions drew participants’ attention to their behaviour and to how they shared, or did not share knowledge with other participants or groups. The main focus was on assumptions that we make due to our mental constructs and mental models; the context we are in, the language we use, the culture that binds us, and so much more. Tapping into the participants’ existing knowledge takes time and energy; it is about building a relationship.

The workshop used proxy exercises that map well onto many kinds of tasks involving trust, knowledge sharing, and the humility of being willing to watch/listen/learn from others.

Quote from a participant

Kim of the Fédération International de Volleyball said: “I attended Veronique’s workshop at the Congrès du Management de Projet in Lausanne. Véronique is a great speaker who engages participants in a version of the Marshmallow Challenge. Her inspiration and her capacity to share knowledge and ensure knowledge is shared among participants, allowed me to reproduce a similar activity as an Ice-breaking Session in my organisation.”

Acknowledgements: We would like to thank Dimitri Huwyler and Gil Regev who inspired us to use the technique and Tom Wujec of the marshmallow challenge.