There’s no tougher time slot to speak in at a conference than that dreaded “post lunch.” Humour & good story telling always helps. And that’s what Susan Reisinger & Gregor McLeod brought as they presented “Tools for Knowledge-sharing: Wiki Success Case Study for the US Navy’s Global Distance Support Centre.  Imagine for a moment trying to implement technology to deploy highly sensitive information in an extraordinarily security conscious environment — oh, with no budget. And, that the information may be about how to move a cat from one country to another, or it may be about informing next of kin that their family member is deceased. Oh — and that many of the influencers in the organization have “tribal knowledge” and have been chiefs who held that information.  Those information holders know quite a bit, and they know who to know & who does know.  You definitely want them on board (no pun intended.)

The platform chosen had to have an easy access and easy to use, & allow ppl to attach documents; it had to have a training application, as well as a way to relay and highlight new, hot information - and threads for discussions.  The wiki supports 20 ppl working in the call centre that are responding to the requests of more than 250,000 ppl.  Wow.

The answer? the wiki — a commercial wiki was free, with access controlled via the internet.  It met all the criteria, plus it could be customized by any call centre to meet its unique needs.  Usage can be tracked and refinements made based on experiece.  It has been an easy access into the 2.0 environment for people that don’t text on their phones, probably haven’t heard of Twitter and are dubious of Facebook. The disadvantage has been security, but no classified information has been put on the wiki; like other government agencies, wikis are making their way into their internal intranets — they are looking at using Sharepoint, and they’ve seen a significant shift in the attitude towards collaborative tools like this in the past year.  Another disadvantage was that there is currently no way for the wiki to interact with their crm; this will be a huge step forward for knowledge sharing when this connection can happen.

What have they learned?

- That if they ask ppl what they need on the wiki, those same ppl will then use the wiki

- they did start with content they already had, and then began enhancing that content that may be outside the standard environment — that “tribal knowledge”

- that after a while, ppl will start to ask for content to be added to the wiki

- that a “gate keeper” works in some environments, like the navy

- that giving the wiki prominence as the authoritative source works in engaging ppl

- having a signle authority to review and manage content frequently is critical

- all 20 ppl in the call centre will be engaged in the upkeep

- “even the most resistant will embrace

the wiki when they see how easy it is, and how

it helps them do their job.”

The wiki allowed them to have a son in Iraq r

espond to his family that he was “ok” within 45 minutes of them hearing on the news that his unit had come under fire.  That works.

Kiho Sohn, Chief Knowledge Officer for Pratt Whitney Rocketdyne raised an interesting question: why, at KM conferences, do we talk about innovation, but at innovation conferences there’s no mention of KM? Hm….. at PWR the expertise is in-house — not too many other companies are designing rocket engines.  So they’ve concentrated on helping employees generate ideas that lead to solutions — and out of this they’ve developed many new patents, using the TRIZ method within a 2 day innovation workshop.

TRIZ is founded by a Russian scientist — the practitioners of TRIZ will say it’s the greatest method out there. It relies on a semantics-based technology which has the logic built in.  While listening to Kiho, I checked out TRIZ on wikipedia - TRIZ is the theory of solving inventor’s problems” or “The theory of inventor’s problem solving”. It was developed by a Soviet engineer and researcher Genrich Altshuller and his colleagues starting in 1946. It has been evolving ever since.

Interesting - I’m going to follow-up with Kiho after today’s sessions to get a better understanding.

Kiho Sohn overview of innovation process at KMWorld 2009

Gordon Vala-Webb’s (Nat’l Director, KM, PriceWaterhouseCoopers Canada) session on Knowledge Sharing Using Social media Tools in the Enterprise has already given me some pause for thought…..he’s talking about the difference between networking and collaborating in a team/work environment.  Hm…..it makes perfect sense, as Gordon would, I just hadn’t thought about it.  When ppl network, they do so voluntarily, and the actual outcome of their networking is unknown.  But when they collaborate in a work environment, they aren’t doing so as volunteers and the output is the end goal.  Those are very different starting points for people, and drive their behaviours. There’s a difference between team work and net work.

So what? Well, the issues today that clients want help with require a very broad perspective & broad network; yet ppl won’t net work at work & express their opinions if they don’t feel safe to do so. I picture ppl on a highwire with a “net” to save them if they fall off.  Is that a metaphor for net working on the wire, or wireless, as the case may be?

“Ambient Awareness” Gordon says, is really the need to have some sense of what else is out there in order to connect when needed. That’s net working. Email is still the #1 social collaborative tool in all organizations — I’d say beyond organizations too, but I may be wrong.  Team collaboration spaces have only a 14% adoption rate — and that’s for all age groups.  why? these spaces are obviously not how ppl want to work together & connect. Do you fight email? If email is “where knowledge goes to die” then how is it a collaboration tool? Because everyone uses it……..

The alternative is to get a tool that does “everything”; what would that be? He used a wonderful metaphor of a swiss army knife - that does many things, just nothing really well. Social media is just the same. Social or shared messaging or micro blogging within the organization helps build ambient awareness  - commenting back & forth on each others comments - but it doesn’t really do anything very well. Social media within the enterprise may work the same as it does outside the firm, but the consequences are very different; how it differs depends very much on leadership & the culture they want to create.

Next steps? First, figure out where your organization is — who, in your organization is interested in this capability & where you are in terms of a relationship with them.  Next, you need to map out who you need to connect with — you can’t do this alone, & you’ll need friends in legal, technology, etc.  Finally, you need to have some sort of strategy for moving this forward. Just as in chess, you need a strategy & you need to adapt that strategy depending on what happens.  Move & adapt, move & adapt. Strategy isn’t easy — & is about making decisions in the face of uncertainty.  Social media is uncertain for organizations - & although it may still be at the swiss army knife stage, not doing anythings really well, it is in it’s early stages, and organizations need to start to deal with it.

Microblogging tools he mentioned are: www,present.ly, www.yapper.com and www.status.net

Next session at KMWorld 2009, with Tracy Conn and Kathy Valderrama discussing the experience of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland with lessons learned (LL).  Banks are notoriously conservative culture where ‘mistakes’ aren’t usually widely shared.  But they started the KM work in 2000 with after action reviews, looking for improvement opportunities.  But they found cynicism growing and the experience was pretty negative — not what they really wanted to achieve.  It also wasn’t connected to their core business of examining banks.

So, in 2005 they began to formalize their approach, and then, as is so often the case, a senior vp asked if new hires were being made aware of a case where a bank had failed in 2000.  That’s how it happens, isn’t it? A senior voice asks the right question.

Kathy & Tracy tell a good story — and that’s the approach they adopted with LL: they tell stories; they involved as many ppl as possible in interviews, with a facilitator to guide the process (using appreciative approach - yeah!), ask the questions & probe a bit; the interviews are recorded & the project managers set the context for the situation being discussed.  They not only talk about the problems encountered, but the solutions used - or what they wish they’d used –& then on-going follow-up and advice to future teams.

They also created some Balance Scorecard metrics.  That’s a lot! phew! Developing the process took them about 6 months & introduced the process at a department meeting to about 150 ppl with a senior vp endorsing it. The vp used the analogy of fire fighters — that they need to look at planning to prevent fires & how best to manage fires when they do break out.

This approach has been used for the past 3 yrs; they put the LL into the learning management system so they could track usage & embed these into existing training curriculum.  Now all new hires take the LL as part of their training when they start work. They are also tested on their understanding so that if their scores aren’t as expected someone sits with them to help increase understanding.  Their strategic objective is to accelerate the learning curve for new hires into bank examiner roles.

They are now engaging subject matter experts to help them create their “legacies”  - in some cases these are video-taped. And they are using km champions to identify situations to explore, with real examples to reinforce the concepts.  People remember the stories - don’t we all?

The other part to their LL is aligning with business imperatives; they faced a dilemma of more than twice the normal number of new examiners who had to go thru the 3 yr training program.  And, the bank had a high risk of extensive knowledge capital loss with many examiners leaving; 40% of their staff (much higher than other banks) had less than 5 yrs experience.

They developed an online simulation with all the main players — from the chief examiner as the coach, right through to the bank board members (all fictitious).  So the avatars talk to the learner, while the text runs on the side simultaneously.  It has built in decision paths, so as soon as the learner chooses, the coach can respond.  COOL.  And the learner can select a variety of coaching videos as they go along from REAL people, not avatars — but from those more experienced within the bank. COOL COOL.

This learning approach gives a wealth of experiences to the learners that may not come up in their real work during the first 3 years. They are also finding it not only leverages & reuses the knowledge in the bank, but increases retention because it is interesting & relevant for the learners. “Tell me how you handled an angry bank manager?” resonates for new hires — they want to hear other people’s experiences. The new hires on on the road 70-80% of their time, so they are trying to put some of this into podcasts. It’s not replacing the whole LL process, but leveraging it & enhancing it. What’s different about their approach?

- it’s embedded in exisiting business processes & usage is tracked throguh the LMS

- it puts real examples in real context for them - & it’s interesting for the learners - combines people who have “been there, done that” with avatars - story telling brings results

The content is in small pieces, so changes or edits can be made to small pieces & not the whole program. They use commercial products to do the simulation and for their LMS.

Darcy Lemon, Senior Proj Manager at American Productivity & Quality Centre is shared their findings on how to units of the US Army and Credit Suisse manage their lessons learned at KMWorld 2009.  She started by looking at the challenges many organizations have in managing lessons learned including:

- management really doesn’t support capturing or using lessons learned

- people don’t want to admit mistakes

- it’s extra work that no one uses again anyway

You know the list.  But she moved quickly beyond these challenges to describe how the US Army’s Center for Lessons Learned, and the Army’s ARDEC units, as well as Credit Suisse are successfully using their lessons learned.  This includes:

1. they clarify the strategic objective for the lessons learned initiative — articulating & getting buy-in into how this initiative advances organizational goals both near-term & long-term

2. they set up governance - wow! - clarifying the roles & skills for all those involved in capturing lessons learned; this was interesting after having heard Dave Snowden talk yesterday about an organization that has KM managers go sit with people for 15 mins/day to help them blog their insights & learnings — this organization has learned that ppl are much more willing to record their ideas & understanding if someone can help them write these up into a blog quickly.  Seems that this may apply to lessons learned too.  Just a bit more about what APQC found in their work with the Army & Credit Suisse, is that the best ppl to work on lessons learned are those who don’t know anything about the work processes - because they don’t overlay their assumptions or judgements. Interesting.

3. it’s critical that the lessons learned are built into an organization’s quality improvement work; I wonder if it’s also integrated into innovation functions?

4. & just as critical that LL is built into the work processes - especially project design

5. measures measures measures — measures, both process & business impact measures are important

She ended by putting up disjointed photos & asking ppl what they see: a jumble — & the metaphor is that the LL joins those disjointed bits of data/information into different images to display & demonstrate what’s working in some cases & what’s not.

Last but not least - communication.  Too often people don’t know LL are being captured, or how to even get to these, let alone how to incorporate them. It’s all about re-use & demonstrating process & organizational benefits to investing in LL & managing the related perceived risks.

Helene Blowers posted a wonderful note today about a social media strategy framework. Being a strategy junkie, I agree with Helene that Ross Dawson’s framework is excellent as it leads an organization from its priorities through governance (ye gads! someone actually considers governance early in a strategy!!) through to “listening” while engaging (there’s a concept — listening — to honestly hear what people are saying, or not saying…).

It also prompts me to explore the notion that many libraries are still rather ‘iffy’ about social media, particularly Facebook & Twitter, because they perceive these to be “social media” and somehow that just doesn’t “fit” for them — somehow “social media” makes them uncomfortable.  Stephen Abram & Helene are absolutely correct — libraries, particularly CEO’s or Directors, have to engage themselves in these media before developing their strategy.  But to engage means they have to first accept.  And some are lightyears from accepting.  A few weeks ago when I was working with a group on integrating social media into their processes and services, a senior librarian negatively retorted to me that these “things aren’t all good — there’s a real dark side to them.”  At which point I responded, “yep, there’s a dark side to cars when people hit and kill innocent people, too, yet you drive a car. So what’s your point?”

And then it hit me (the point, not the car), that libraries have to see Facebook & Twitter & other social media not as “social media” (discomfort), but rather as “connecting networks” (a bit more comfort) and  “non-traditional publishing platforms” (oh yeah…lots more comfort!).  That’s what they are, right? Look at the volume of content on Facebook & Twitter.  It’s unbelievable.  My connections on both sites “connect” me with more content than any library would have ever imagined.  When I positioned Facebook as a publishing platform, the pixels in eyes started to widen.

Libraries are - and want to be - gathering places for people to connect with content, with ideas, with knowledge, with experts, and with other people to learn new things, solve problems, explore issues and entertain themselves. If they begin to accept that sites like Facebook enlarge their capacity as that gathering place, both physically and virtually, to connect people with content, then they will move much faster along that continuum from acceptance to engagement.

Can you beleive that Google is now 11 years old?  Hard to remember the tools we were using 11 years ago to search and connect.  What do you think we’ll be using in terms of tools in 2020 (another 11 years hence)?

The HBR Management Tip of the Day today is from Marshall Goldsmith (author of What Got you Here Won’t Get You There — must reading) about succession planning - a hot topic in the information profession.  I’ve always referred to the need for succession “management”, but Goldsmith refers to succession “development”, & he’s right.  Managing an organization’s succession does have to be a whole process which must be managed, & the emphasis really is on people’s development to enable them to “succeed” in every sense of the word.

Here’s an inter-mingling of Goldsmith’s & our tips for succession development & management; much of our experience has been guided by Rothwell’s Effective Succession Planning.

1. Determine Future Requirements: Recognize that strategic planning, staff planning, & succession management are all inter-related & highly dependent; you can’t move forward (strategic plan) without the right capabilities, competencies (staff planning) & management (succession management). PLUS - how can you determine staffing & leadership needs Call it what it is: succession management or succession development - it doesn’t matter which, just don’t call it succession planning, since the focus shouldn’t be on the plan, it should be on how the organization is ensuring ongoing leadership, management, capabilities & success.

2. Commit: Senior management or the board must buy in to the overall process be supportive of it as on-going, not a one-time “here’s the slide deck” event.

3. Assess Current Requirements & Skills: As with anything, start with where you are - know what you have - a plan is all about moving from where you are to where you want to, or need to!, be.

4. Appraise Performance: Make sure people have agreed-to performance expectations & that they receive regular feedback about how they are doing to keep progressing.

5. Identify Potential: Now……here’s the kicker. Many organizations haven’t really defined what potential “is” — nor have they discussed career plans & perceived potential with employees.  If we want people to move into various positions, especially leadership positions (which, like it or not, is usually what succession management focuses on), then the organization has to be clear regarding how potential is assessed & that employees know this, and know what their current potential is assessed. Eww….. I’ve seen this be the trip-factor for senior management. But don’t let it be.  It’s a very valuable exercise for management.

6. Create & Implement the Development Program: Not just the training program - but a multi-faceted, realistic way in which people are going to be able to grow new skills, mindsets, approaches through experience — secondments? projects? “acting” positions?

7. Recruit, Hire, Place: Use the succession management and staff planning to go after the right kind of current & future talent that’s needed.

8. Evaluate: And know how you’re going to evaluate it when you start out — agree, at the start, on “what success will look like” for the succession management process, and then assess it to see what’s working & what, in the light of the strategic alignment needs to be tweaked.

9. Keep it simple & stay realistic: This is from Goldsmith - & he’s absolutely right.  Although the 8 steps outlined may seem daunting, they are pretty logical and basically simple.  And how else are you going to manage the management progression, keep & encourage talent, and ensure you have the right capabilities?

One last thing about succession management is, as I said above, it usually focuses on management positions.  Remember, though, that there are other non-management yet critical expert positions that need to be included; a gap in these positions is as crippling to your organization as any leadership role.

“Adopting technologies without a strategy results in wasted time & effort”.  How many times have you said this?  Check out KMWorld 2009 keynote speaker Charlene Li’s slides.   Some great tips.  Her theme, “the future of business requires a holistic approach to adopting and integrating emerging technologies” is the same message Rebecca and I use with our clients –  Organizations have to have a big detailed picture of where they are going before the strategies to get there can be put in place.  And that’s way before technology, people and other structures are put in place.

I love Charlene’s slide of 4 focus areas surrounding the client: enterprise strategy, customer strategy, leadership & management, innovation & practices.  Her tips, which I think apply more broadly than just tech planning:

* Leaders must let go of control but not relinquish command, create sandbox convenants to allow risk taking, creat a culture of sharing & model it

* organizations must connect to customers on their own terms, develop internal processes to connect with customers in real time, integrate the customer voice across the whole enterprise

* enterprises must allow all units to pilot new technologies & processes, design process scenarios around user roles, invest in innovation

* to innovate, organizations must fail fast & fail smart, inject fresh external thinking, enable safe places where mistakes and learning is encouraged.

I am sure you will enjoy her presentation on Wednesday November 18 in San Jose at KMWorld 2009. In the meantime, on the KMWorld 2009 conference blog yesterday I pointed to a podcast of Charlene Li. Check it out too!

If you are doing anything in the learning arena (either formal or informal learning - just helping people “get it” in terms of doing something or knowing something), be sure to follow Jane Hart’s E-learning Pick of the Day, and link to her other sites and blogs as well, including her homebase, Centre for Learning & Performance Technologies, and  Social Media in Learning.   Her August update of “Top Tools for Learning 2009″ lists the top 10: Twitter, Delicious, Google Reader, Google Docs, Slideshare, Wordpress, YouTube, Skype, Google Search and Audacity.  Fast up & coming, Hart says, is prezi - which we hope to try out in the next few weeks. We’ll let you know how it goes. Have any of you tried prezi yet? I’ve been experimenting a bit with it….embarrassing as it is, I get a bit whoozi with the screen moving around so much - but the possibilities are fantastic - and I’m sure this old powerpoint dog can learn some new tricks!