Innovatie in de 4de dimensie, de 4 ruimtes van KM door @pauliske #4ruimtes

Volgende spreker is Paul Iske over 'Innovatie in de 4de dimensie, de 4 ruimtes van kennismanagement'.
Net als de vorige spreker Pierre benadrukt Paul dat de wereld wordt steeds complexer. Hoe blijf je bestaan in de wereld? Hoe pak je een rol in deze wereld?
Het vraagt om Agility. Paul laat een leuk voorbeeld van agility zien aan de hand van dit filmpje.
Veel organisaties komen snel terecht in routines. Routines zijn een deel van leren; je kunt zo dingen sneller leren doen. Maar het kan ook beperken. Je mist dingen als je niet de moeite neemt om even buiten je routines te kijken.
In deze tijd wordt er van ons gevraagd om de snelheid van ons leren te verhogen. Want we leven in een tijd waarin de snelheid van het leren, sneller gaat dan de verandering.
Innovatie is dan het proces om (bestaande) kennis toe te passen in een markt/omgeving.
Een omgeving bestaat uit 4 ruimtes:

• social space
• virtual space
• physical space
• process space

Het klimaat is ook belangrijk voor innovatie. Leadbeater heeft 9 condities benoemd voor creativiteit, leiderschap en innovatie:

• diversiteit
• selectie
• imbedding
• co-evolutie
• ontleren
• verstoring
• eenvoud
• verspilling
• timing

Er is geen schaarste aan kennis. Het gaat erom wat je met die kennis doet. Als je aan mensen vraagt welk deel van hun kennis ze gebruiken (op het werk) dan blijkt dat het bijzonder klein is. Het hoeft geen 100% te zijn, maar wat meer zou veel opleveren.

Belangrijk bij innovatie is samenwerken vanuit verschillende perspectieven. Samen kijken naar een probleem op verschillende manieren. Uit onderzoek blijkt dat op deze manieren doorbraken worden gerealiseerd. (Heet ook wel 'open innovatie' of 'collaboratieve innovatie'.)

Maar je kunt nog een stap daarvoor innoveren. Dan weet je eigenlijk helemaal niet wat je wilt, maar door partijen bij elkaar te zeggen kun je 'combinatorisch innoveren'. Op basis van serendipity komen mensen/organisaties tot combinaties die vermarkt kunnen worden. De basis vraag is dan: Wat zouden wij samen kunnen doen?

We zijn hier ook mee aan de slag gegaan aan het einde van de keynote: gewoon met je buurman kijken of er raakvlakken zijn om samen te werken.

Ontwerpen van organisaties door Pierre van Amelsvoort #4ruimtes

Vandaag ben ik bij het lustrum congres van de DutchOpen KM. Het DutchOpen KM en een netwerk van kennismanagement ervaringsdeskundigen die regelmatig bij elkaar komen. Het netwerk bestaat 10 jaar en het leek ons goed om dit te vieren met een congres over de ‘4 ruimtes van kennis management’. Ik zal mijn notes van de dag delen in een aantal blogposts. Ik schrijf live, dus let graag niet teveel op de zinsbouw en typo’s.

Eerste keynote spreker is Pierre van Amelsvoort. Zijn keynote gaat over ‘Ontwerpen van organisaties’.

Pierre neemt ons mee in de veranderende wereld van organisaties. We bewegen van de focus op efficiency naar kwaliteit, flexibiliteit, innovativiteit en nu service/duurzaamheid. Dit is niet en-en-en. Dit wil niet zeggen dat jouw organisatie alle deze stappen moet zetten.
Belangrijk om naar organisaties te kijken vanuit het begrip 'regimes'.
Een grote ziekte in organisaties is het opknippen van organisaties in functies/fragmenten. En dat groot perse beter zou zijn.
Volgorde van organiseren is P > B > S: proces, besturen en systemen. 

Betrokkenheid van medewerker bepaalt kwaliteit van het werk, weten we al lang. Maar wat doen we daarmee?
Pierre’s antwoord is: organiseren met mate en zorg voor ruimte voor diversiteit en coleur local. Zoekt naar de menselijke maat van samenwerking. Dat heeft volgens Pierre ook met de grote van organisaties en groepen binnen organisaties te maken: 

• 8-12 mensen is een goed team, kleiner dan dat heb je onvoldoende diversiteit 
• 40-50 mensen in je hoofd hebben voor een community. 

Hierarchie is goed, om richting te geven aan mensen. Maar hierarchie moet altijd wat toevoegen, vooral het tijdsperspectief. De functie van hierarchie is het nemen van beslissen, niet administreren.

Het is belangrijk om meer te organiseren op basis van vertrouwen.

Bij veranderingen in organisaties moet je sturen op mensen, cultuur, structuur en systemen. Vooral bij vaste, bureaucratische regimes naar een flexible regime, moet het ‘disruptive’ gebeuren.

Social Media in Practice Event #socmedprak

A conference about social media, organized using social media and presented by experienced social media enthusiast, can that be done? Yes, it can. I was part of such a conference a couple of weeks ago. It was called 'The Social Media in Practice Event' (Dutch: Social media in de praktijk).

Ronald van den Hoff of Society 3.0 kicked off the event. He gave an interesting talk about the influence of the internet and social media on society, and its implications for businesses. I liked how he stressed businesses should be built around passion and learning from mistakes. They should be ever more open to what's happening around them or else they will be eclipsed. Interestingly he also said large companies will get smaller and smaller and independent contractors/free agents will be the 'companies' of the future.

I also went to Roos van Vugt's breakout about leading into social media. She works for Deloitte and explained how see introduced and is cultivating social media inside the company. She stressed to make sure higher management is on board and agrees with internal social media deployment.

I also was asked to give two breakouts about social media and knowledge management. My slides (in Dutch...) can be found here:

Kennismanagement en social media, een perfecte matchijk 27 10-11

View more presentations from Samuel Driessen

During both breakouts the discussion was lively. Discussion topics were about the difference between business processes and networks, the security of hosted social media like Yammer, how people can be encouraged to share their knowledge and should companies introduce a central, all-encompassing social media platform or separate tools?

Knowledge Sharing and Incentives Revisited

The Internet is such a great place to share and learn. I find it a fantastic place to connect with all kinds of people you hardly know, but are willing to share and help you learn anyway.

I recently had such an experience I'd like to share with you. Remember my post on knowledge sharing and incentives? I could have kept this thought to myself, researched it and come up with the answer myself. But I didn't. I blogged about it, commented on a related post (which popped right when I was thinking about the topic...) and shared it in the LinkedIn Group 'Gurteen Knowledge Community'.

What did I get back? Did my readers or experts in the field criticize or laugh at me for wondering about this topic or asking 'dumb' questions? Did they leave me in the cold, completely not responding to me at all? Of course, this can all happen, but none of this (has ever) happened to me. I'll tell you what I got back in this case.

For one, Nick Milton wrote a separate post about my question. Secondly from the Gurteen Knowledge Community I got several replies. I'll share some here:

Pink and others have also done some TED presentations on this.
As Dave said, tasks with simple action-objective structures do well with exogenous rewards like money/tokens/etc., but anything where reflective thought, innovation, creativity, etc. are involved or where the action-objective link is complex, exogenous rewards tend to have the opposite effects.
My guess is that it is a Stroop-effect thing going on or one of those mutually inhibiting effects like when you wake up the nucleus accumbens with a reward like cash and the generosity of a person takes a dive.
In a practical sense, I have seen how money rewards or even individual rewards tend to simply lead to gaming behavior and a big pile of worthless junk instead of usable or novel material.
Bottom line is that you are trying to increase use of social values, not inhibit them.
- Posted by Matthew Loxton

Samuel, read Dan Pink's book "Drive". In the book he says that the research shows that for simple tasks that require no cognitive processing - rewards work - but for more sophisticated tasks that require even a modicum of cognitive engagement - they have an adverse effect. Asking someone to call in to report that they saw something in connection with a crime seems to me to fall in the first category.
Dan Pink and Alfie Kohn also state that when you offer a reward for something - the reward becomes the motivation and replaces the intrinsic motivation to do good. So I would not be surprised if research found that people who are rewarded to report a crime would be less inclined to do so at a future date when no reward was offered.
So yes it seems to be more subtle and at times counter-intuitive.
- David Gurteen

Agree...that's why for KM I think it's about "engagement" that's why I think this slidedeck is spot on http://www.slideshare.net/TSystemsMMS/the-wikipedia-myth-enterprise-20-knowledge-management
Dan Pink also has a video for RSA http://www.thersa.org/events/audio-and-past-events/2010/drive-the-surprising-truth-about-what-motivates-us
Also and animation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
To mix it up, here's some research on children
http://johntropea.tumblr.com/post/685512595/rewards-reduce-intrinsic-motivation-the-children
http://johntropea.tumblr.com/post/391619553/being-cautious-about-rewards
http://johntropea.tumblr.com/post/391616299/intrinsic-reinforcements

- John Tropea

Isn't this wonderful? Direct answers to my questions, pointers to information answering my questions, implicit links to people knowledgeable about the subject, etc.

Thanks all for your help! This has been my repeated experience as a blogger. And I hope this post will encourage many more to start or continue blogging. The blogosphere is alive and kicking!

Relating structured and unstructured knowledge processes - KMers chat #kmers

Just a small post to invite you all to join the next KMers Chat on this Tuesday, October 5 from 17:00 - 18:00 UTC. I'll be moderating this chat. Participating is easy. All you need is a Twitter account. Just wait for the chat to begin and make sure to append your tweets with #kmers. Lots of interesting and smart people join in.

This chat will be about: Relating structured and unstructured knowledge processes.

Here's a short overview of this topic and some questions:

Knowledge Management is currently often related to the unstructured information and knowledge processes in organizations. In the past the focus of KM was on the structured side. But how can/are these combined in organizations? More specifically: how does enterprise 2.0 relate to BPM? (As you may know this is being heavily debated now on the web.)

Questions:

1. Intro: Is the summary clear? Is the distinction clear? What do you call unstructured information/knowledge processes and structured processes?
2. Do you agree KM currently mostly focuses on unstructured processes? Why is this?
3. Are both types of processes supported holistically/in context in your company or companies you know?
4. What does this mean for tools? Should tools support both processes? Or should we piece together a tool landscape?

Hope to meet you there!

Knowledge Management People

For some time now I've been participating in a group of information and knowledge management practitioners ('DutchOpen KM'). These friends work in large, international companies, based in the Netherlands.

The idea is simple: We get together about 2-3 times a year, define a topic per meeting and discuss that topic. Sometimes some participants will give a short presentation about the topic and how it's addressed in their company. Sometimes a couple of lines of text is enough to spark the discussion.

I'm always happily surprised about the way these meetings go. The open way we talk, the respectful way disagreements are discussed, the great ideas that are shared, the contacts these meetings give afterwards, etc.

Is this just a coincidence? We just happen to have a nice bunch of people grouped together? They definitely are nice. But I don't think it's a coincidence. It's what I also see in the blogging community - at least the part I interact with. It has to do with what I call 'knowledge management people'. Good KM practitioners should be open, willing to share, interested in different and strange ideas, social, etc. And the nice thing is they often are. They don't have to be knowledge manager, just to be a good KM practitioner. One other characteristic is they are not self-centered and usually share their knowledge without asking back up front.

In short, it's great to work them and be with these kind of people.

Tags van Technorati: knowledge management,information management,knowledge sharing