Note: Prefer to take questions within the discussion of the factors (not during the stories)
Not to spend a lot of time on this slide – we’re going to go into the rationale for choosing these types of approaches later
A successful, over budget, 2 yr drilling project in an unexplored deep water area Individual interviews with team members to identify issues that were critical for team to work through 1/2 day f2f meeting of team members Use visual display of time line to keep the whole project in perspective - team members add to timeline during the f2f Agenda is the list of issues identified in the interviews Sense-making is the focus - how do we understand this Members list findings as they are discovered by the group Agreement on what to include and not include in any reports 2-3 team members assigned to write up findings - to be reviewed by whole team Findings team becomes ambassadors to other teams
Make into a build slide to introduce the 3 concepts you will cover in the intro 1. It's 3 steps! 2. There are many stakeholders involved in harvest events. 3. Harvest is valuable when it gets into circulation! Approach 3 steps: “Plan-Capture-Transfer” Facilitated and Self-Managed 3 Knowledge types: Solution Approach, Business/Project Management Process, Platform Innovation/RV2I Success Criteria “ Goal is action, not just accumulation.” Knowledge is USED to enhance our platforms, positioning, or ESS project delivery. Great facilitation results in great reusable insight Primary Knowledge Stakeholders geographies, SDI, BMO, BPKI, RV2I, Sales Support, Capability Development, Platform Groups Share the responsibility for transfer within their deliverables Format of Harvested Knowledge Insights and tacit knowledge surfaced/packaged Project documents (often linked) Facilitated “Just-In-Time” transfer (e.g., between project teams, with stakeholders) Timing Harvesting is a two-way street during the project; BPKI gives back Harvest “Just-In-Time” , not just at the end of the project
You need to harvest mindfully ─ with reuse and learning in mind.
Integrated, well-planned and well-facilitated harvesting does pay off.
What is Harvesting? Some Approaches Select Plan Discover/ Capture Transfer 1 Reuse 2 1 Knowledge transfer begins during planning (with project team), continues during capture (between and among teams, with facilitator, or with stakeholders), and downstream, resulting from publishing and from conversation. 2 Reuse begins immediately with transfer and continues as a result of these varied vehicles. Types of Approaches
Reuse knowledge acquired during harvest or received via transfer
Innovate/ build upon knowledge
Conduct transfer event with team, other stakeholders, and/or
Work with stakeholders to integrate knowledge into process, training, etc. or publish in a repository
Do capture interviews, and/or conduct harvest events
Preview findings individually or in group setting
Review with sponsor
Identify harvest topics via pre-interviews with participants and/or meeting with sponsor
Identify potential knowledge seekers who may participate and/or receive
Story 2: Intel ® Solution Services Project Knowledge Harvest Return Value to Intel Solutions Development and Integration Service Owners Capability Development Solution Delivery Kit Another Active Project or Sales Process Training Sales Support Case Study Knowledge Nugget Sales Support Business Process Knowledge Integration Project Team Panel
HP ® Services Knowledge Harvesting (General) Select Plan Discover/ Capture Publish Reuse Knowledge Capture through Individual Project Team Member Interviews
Determine if you will include customer in the interviews
Successful and failing projects
What Decisions do You Need to Make about the Approach?
We sought to answer approach decision like:
Have a facilitator?
Format (e.g., facilitate a meeting)?
When to harvest
Have subject matter experts present?
Get commitment to harvesting?
We tailored our harvesting approaches in response to 10 environmental and business factors
Ten Factors Driving Harvesting Approaches Do tacit harvesting in real-time and explicit harvesting offline (e.g., Get Docs, include survey, etc.); ignore non-unique knowledge; do a timeline to encourage sense-making. Match the harvest format(s) to nature of the knowledge (tacit/explicit) and degree to which originating team needs to engage in sense-making. 2. Proportion of knowledge that is unique and, of that, tacit vs. explicit Facilitate taking into account internal politics and reluctance to share Complexity may be technical or organizational; harvest facilitator(s) should have topic insight; selectively involve participants in events Involve knowledge seekers as harvesters; harvest during the project vs. just at the end Selectively harvest; profile and track projects to determine which to harvest Approach Decisions 5. Degree of hierarchy, politics 4. Complexity of the knowledge topic 3. Need for immediate transfer 1. Criticality of the knowledge to the organization Environmental Factor Consider need for anonymity; include/ exclude senior team members; assist group in discerning facts from abstractions; use carrots and sticks Select subject matter experts from related disciplines who can use specialized knowledge to probe more precisely; have independent interviews where there is potential for conflict or defensiveness Have originating team as panel format. Seekers among those asking questions to panel. Harvest if there is a risk or error that could be spared another project team Examples
Ten Factors Driving Harvesting Approaches (Cont.) Include people who will translate and contextualize the knowledge downstream (e.g., Marketing) Differences (e.g., role, culture, dispersion across time and space) necessitate packaging for reuse. 6. Differences in knowledge recipients Formats of the harvest interview (e.g., Microsoft LiveMeeting, face-to-face, representative, sub-groups) The larger the group, the more difficult are logistics and conversation effectiveness 8. Size of group/team Augment/refine/validate comments of originating team Role of the facilitator as broker of related knowledge, developer of reports, subject matter expert, group facilitation, live recorder Use technology appropriately to accommodate dispersed locations or involvement in different modules of the project Approach Decisions 10. Need for external viewpoints/valida-tion 9. Type of facilitation 7. Degree of dispersion of team (i.e., dispersion figuratively and literally) Environmental Factor Separate interview (e.g., client/customer, supplier, expert) Facilitator does just-in-time transfer of related knowledge to knowledge originating team Format(s) of the harvest (e.g., face-to-face, Microsoft LiveMeeting*, teleconferences, individual interviews, wiki) Example
How Do These Factors Match or Differ from Your Environment?
Which of these factors are most important to your harvesting approach decisions?
Have you encountered different environmental and business factors?
How Have these Approaches Worked for You? What Other Approaches Have You Used?
How did your use of these approaches help you to meet your harvesting objectives? Why?
Nancy Dixon Dr. Dixon is an author and consultant working with clients to create effective ways to hold knowledge conversations. She is the author of eight books as well as over 50 articles that focus on how organizations learn. Her new book, CompanyCommand: Unleashing the Power of the Army Profession , is a description of how the U.S. Army’s leading community of practice, CompanyCommand.com, was created. It is co-authored with Tony Burgess and Nate Allen, the company commanders who developed one of the Army’s most effective and acclaimed communities. Before forming her own company, Common Knowledge Associates, Dr. Dixon was Professor of Administrative Sciences at The George Washington University in Washington, D.C. Earlier, she was a member of the Human Resource Development graduate faculty at The University of Texas, Austin. Dr. Dixon serves as an editorial reviewer for the Human Resource Development Quarterly and as a member of the Editorial Board for Management Learning and for Action Learning: Research & Practice. She is a member of the Editorial Advisory Board for the Journal of Workplace Learning. Dr. Dixon’s consulting company has worked with corporations and government agencies to prepare professionals for knowledge conversations, develop lessons learned systems, and facilitate after action reviews and peer assists. She is a frequent speaker at national and international conferences and serves as a member of the Knowledge Management Advisory Board for SAIT Samsung. Common Knowledge Associates 2857 Selma Lane Dallas Texas 75234
Kate Pugh is with Intel ® Solution Services, Business Process and Knowledge Integration, responsible for knowledge harvesting, communities of practice, and portal design.
Intel Solution Services is Intel’s 300-person consulting organization and the only for-fee, externally-facing Intel consulting organization. It provides architecture, design, and planning services in these solution domains:
Data Center of the Future
Digital Supply Chain
To succeed, Intel Solution Services must rapidly learn from its customer-facing engagements. Not only does it need to continuously improve the speed and accuracy of its consulting, but it must also detect and incorporate emergent business needs of the industries it serves.
Kate joined Intel from JPMorgan Chase (formerly Bank One Corporation) where she spent three years as a First Vice President, Finance, responsible for planning, delivering, and operating the portal and managing the training and communications functions.
Before working in the technology and banking industries, Kate did strategy and technology consulting for 15 years with IBM, PwC Consulting, Mercer Management Consulting, Aberdeen Group, Monitor Group, and DIA*logos. With IBM (formerly PwC Consulting), Kate led the global knowledge management strategy consulting practice.
In each knowledge management program, Kate focuses on business disciplines such as strategy, finance, business process reengineering, and organizational learning. This raises the credibility for knowledge management, and up-levels the way we think of knowledge from abstract and intangible to measurable and profit-driving.