Technology and Organizations

I developed the term “Immersive Performance” while working with a Fortune 100 Tech company. They have over 3000 employees focused on combining personal expertise with information from the company business units in order to design better products and services for their clients. These employees use their organization’s world-class intranet, third-party applications, and electronic access to their peers to do this work. Their world is one of constant information search, knowledge development, and continuing education. Done well, it is like watching a conductor pull the best from musicians and their instruments.

Many organizations are beginning to work with “Embedded Learning” where learning is part of doing the work. With embedded learning, tools are easily at hand during performance to support learning when needed. (IBM calls this “On Demand Learning”- pdf link.) Embedded learning can combine formal learning (e.g., formally designed e-learning) or access to sources for informal learning (e.g., video-on-demand, intra or internet knowledge bases).

I think we can go steps beyond embedded learning by integrating learning with the rest of performance. In an ideal world, which I believe is technically possible today, knowledge workers can seamlessly (while staying immersed in their work) access the information they need from within their established workflow. This is a sociotechnical process (see earlier post on intertwining technology & organizational practices) in that people need to know what technologies are available to support their workflow, need to know what they do and don’t know about the task at hand; and they need to know how to react when they don’t know: learn formally (e.g., attend training), learn informally (e.g., find it on the Internet), or find someone else to help. Performance becomes a process conducted by the knowledge worker with their own knowledge, tools, and services available within and outside the firm.

Immersive performance is a different form of performance where the focus is on understanding what you know, what you need to learn, as well as “doing.” The required knowledge, skills, and abilities for immersive performance include:

• ability to judge what you do and don’t know
• knowledge of the tools and services available
• ability to make judgments about the best course of action for the situation
• access to a solid social network of experts

What’s left out in the above approach is an initial assessment of self-knowledge (do you really need to learn this, or do you already have an approach that will work?), an assessment of the available tools and processes (do you really need to learn this, or is there a system that will already do the job if you just turn in on), and an assessment of who is either better for the job or would be a perfect mentor to learning about the task (I do raise the issue in class of better team formation through figuring out who in the class knows what – but we generally still are focused on “do your own work”). I let myself off the hook in that my job at the university is to teach the individual, not to get the work of a particular organization done. However, within organizations, the focus should be on the above “Immersive Performance” approach. Organizational performance is not done within the boundaries of a single employee’s head. We need to move to supporting employees to be more effective within the open and evolving systems of their organizations and communities of practice.

In earlier posts I’ve discussed my colleagues’ and my work on designing social and technical systems for better performance (there we described it as weaving a fabric versus conducting a symphony). Think about your own organizations training, support, and/or on-boarding processes. I would appreciate examples of how firms are helping employees be better conductors, rather than soloists. Is it training about what tools and resources are available in the firm, who’s available in the firm with what skill set, performance appraisal that’s focused on building teams and processes rather than individual work, or something more creative?

My colleagues and I recently published an article making the following point (paraphrasing): Dealing with social and technological systems of organizations in concert, which was a critical part of sociotechnical systems theory in the 1950’s, is an approach that we need to rediscover because information technology has become inextricably intertwined with social relationships in weaving the fabric of organization.

That point describes my perspective and that which underlies each of the posts in this blog (like these examples). However, in talking with some readers, I realized I had never explicitly described the background for this lens. The basic idea is that implementing a new technology or organizational practice is effective only to the extent that practices and technologies are jointly considered as part of the overall design and implementation. Many change failures are the result of a “magic” or “silver bullet” approach where there is an assumption that simply adopting a new technology or practice will have a determined benefit (Markus and Benjamin provide an excellent overview) — For example, thinking that building a team portal for sharing documents and ideas will result in greater team collaboration. However, no silver bullet for integrating technology with organizational practice has yet to be discovered and without this integration is it unlikely that benefits will be realized. A team portal may have no benefit if the team isn’t involved in an overall evolution of practice at the same time as a new tool is designed and implemented. Sometimes it’s a team’s practice that needs to adjust with the opportunity to use a new technology tool. Sometimes it’s a new technology that needs to support a team’s new practice. Ideally, both are being considered at once.

The following are links to some of my key sources (my own work in this area is best represented in “Technology Features as Triggers for Sensemaking” and “Why New Technologies Fail: Overcoming the Invisibility of Implementation”).

Stephen Barley
Technology as an Occasion for Structuring: Evidence from Observations of CT Scanners and the social order of radiology departments

Bijker, Pinch, & Hughes
The Social Construction of Technological Systems

DeSanctis and Poole
Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory

Jasperson, Carter, & Zmud
A Comprehensive Conceptualization of the Post-Adoptive Behaviors Associated with IT-Enabled Work Systems

Wanda Orlikowski
The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations

Karl Weick
Technology as Equivoque: Sensemaking in New Technologies

Organization Science Special Issue: Information Technology and Organizational Form and Function

This post is more to stimulate comment and examples than to tell you something you don’t already know: It’s easier to ask for help if you’ve had a beer/lunch/glass of wine with someone. Likewise, you’re more likely to provide help if you’ve had that food or beverage experience. (Photo by statico)

The example I generally provide in class comes from a combination of experiences with world-class technology companies. These firms do a wonderful job of supporting their engineers, especially through communities of practice. In all my example cases, these communities have some face to face interaction – even though travel budgets are tight. In the latest “heydays” of the Silicon Valley these face to face events would also include on-site dinners… yes, with beer. The engineers would mingle, drink beer, and share stories about how they had resolved problems. All the participants were experts and these discussions were far ranging. Knowledge was shared from around the firms’ global settings.

Perhaps more important than the knowledge shared at the moment were the relationships that developed. Everyone left the session knowing more people than when they arrived. In some cases they might have known of the people they were talking to, but they weren’t always acquainted with them. When everyone went home is when the “beer effect” took place. An engineer would need help. All these organizations have ample technical tools for linking engineers that need help with those who are most likely to have the answer (portals, mailing lists, expert knowledge bases) – but often it’s an issue of getting the expert to respond. What the participants discovered is that it was a lot easier to get a response from someone they had met (i.e., had a beer with). The benefits were huge and the time-savings immense. The beer costs were relatively low.

Times changed. The communities of practice still meet, but at two of the firms the dinners are now informal events where the participants just link up with a few others and go out to dinner. The costs of the meals are still borne by the firms, but the firms are not controlling or supporting mingling among people who do not already know one another. The reports I get are that people go out to dinner with people who are similar to themselves (come from the same location, are in another group together). (This “birds of a feather flock together” effect is so prevalent it has its own term in academic- speak “homophily.”) As a result, people leave the sessions knowing a few more people than they did before, but not as many as they might have and apparently not with the same level of relationship. No beer effect, less ability to call and receive help when needed.

This result highlights a common theme in this blog – for technology systems to provide value in organizations they must be intertwined with human systems. The high-quality portals and knowledge management systems that these organizations provide have greater value the greater the human relationships. The formal communities of practice are a foundation to this process, but may not be enough given human nature. Broader human relationships will amplify the value of the technology and organizational practices. When the dinners were part of the larger group there was a greater likelihood that people would develop relationships with different colleagues – rather than solidifying those they already had — there might have been an empty place at a table, people might meet in the dinner line.

Organizers don’t need to have the big dinner with a flowing keg. Small, off-site dinners can work, but the groupings need to be proactively managed (another recurring theme in this blog (e.g., here and here).

What specific examples have you seen work well? This seems to be a situation for explicitly expanding social networks. Rob Cross describes a large meeting where the participants wore RFID name tags that glowed when people who the technology system thought should meet came close to one another. Sounds great, and I’d love to try it, but are there other approaches that are easier to implement?

I had the pleasure of working with folks from SRI, the US Army, PARC, and other interesting places yesterday. Our topic was Social Information Production. Much of the discussion focused on Communities of Practice (CoPs) & After Action Reviews (AAR).

CoPs are a set of people bound together through common interest and language with the goals of open communication, and exchange and retention of pertinent knowledge. They don’t have to have technology support, but John Sawyer and I have found that CoP technology tools can especially support the development of explicit knowledge related to the CoPs’ area. As I’ve discussed before, it’s the combination of technology and organizational practices that is often most powerful.

AARs have a simple set of questions to guide the review:
1. What did we set out to do?
2. What happened?
3. Why did it happen?
4. What are we going to do about it?

LTC Nate Allen, one of the two founders of the Army’s well-received CompanyCommander and PlatoonLeader CoPs (see his and LTC Tony Bugess’ book here), gave me some updates on their AAR process:

They are finding good value in looking at “close calls” versus bad outcomes. Close calls don’t get people as defensive as they would with a disaster — better learning environment.

They also now include another agenda item: What did we get away with? For example, the outcome was ok, but in hindsight it could have been a problem and should be considered in the review. I’m going to add this one to my class presentation on AARs. Overall, I like the idea of doing AARs as a matter of course – as part of a milestone process. Emotions may be less likely to cloud the process if it’s a standard tool and the approach is familiar.

I came away from our discussion with a lot to think about.

1. Key to the ideas of CoPs and AARs was that AARs have to be seen as a process, not an outcome. You don’t do an AAR to generate content (e.g., lessons learned) – though that can be a great outcome – you do an AAR to carefully reflect on what could be done better to help you plan for the future.

2. To the extent that part of the CoPs’ approach for learning is to integrate with AARs, the CoP can only be more powerful. The CoP can be a platform for the process and the outcomes. Facebook’s recent amazing valuation may as much about its growth as a platform, rather than its current capabilities as a “social watering hole.”
3. To the extent that we can use technology to support the AAR, it is more likely to be a living process (e.g., by tracking the workflow in the first place so the AAR can be evidence-based or by capturing the outcomes of the AAR so that the determined changes can be tracked and themselves evaluated).

Both CoPs and AARs are powerful in organizations and well worth the effort. The added power of one supporting the other is also well worth the effort of integration.

“Workers learn more in the coffee room than in the class room” — Jay Cross.

Jay Cross spent the last four years talking to managers, technology vendors, consultants, and researchers who support informal learning, as well as developing his own frameworks highlighting informal learning in business environments. His new book, Informal Learning provides access to his efforts and is full of stimulating ideas for getting the most out of critical knowledge in our organizations.

I had the pleasure of talking with Jay as he developed his book. I’ve also had the pleasure of working with others who believe just as strongly in the value of informal learning. Ted Cocheu and I developed this figure

based on work we were doing in a global Fotune 100 science/technology company. We illustrate that, depending on the learner’s current competence, formal and informal learning have different values. Think about the last time you had to sit through a formal class session on a topic where you were already had a good background. Now think about this situation and add the limitation that you don’t have access to your Blackberry or an open Internet connection. You were probably (1) bored, (2) asked questions that we’re ahead of the rest of the class – possibly disrupting the flow, and (3) spending a lot of time thinking about what a waste of time this was for you. If you’d had an internet connection you could have been digging deeper into the material and then you could have asked key questions of the presenter during the break. This second behavior is informal learning.

Novices need a structure/scaffold on which to build their base knowledge. Formal learning is ideal for this. Text books have chapters that build on one another, classroom sessions have lesson plans that flow from the basics to more advanced material. e-Learning presentations provide a little more autonomy, but still are built around presenting a particular kernel of knowledge.

As expertise grows, value is more likely to be gained from learning on the job, just-in-time learning (e.g., finding what you need on an intranet or the web, when you need it), collaborating with a community of practice, etc.

Choose your learning format, or that of people you are mentoring, to match the level of competence in the topic.