Technology and Organizations

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.

Over the last couple of weeks I’ve presented to three different technically sophisticated groups with extensive organizational experience. In all cases I was talking about strategies for virtual work – though the session was face to face. What was striking about these instances was that all but two of the participants (two total for all three groups) were taking notes on pad & paper, or on a copy of the handouts. In my MBA teaching, approximately 75% of the students are using their laptops to take notes. Why were these groups different? Is their learning result going to be better or worse as a result of how they took notes?

I explored the issue with all three groups. In all instances their surprised response was that they thought (or thought I would think) that they were being rude if they were working on their laptops. This is a beautiful instance of how sensemaking works – or doesn’t work – when you deal with technology and organizations. My colleagues and I have an article coming out focused on the intertwining of organization and technology features. We note that changes in how organizational activities occur given the rise of the Internet, and technology in organizations more broadly, “are not the result of information technologies per se, but in the combination of their features with organizational arrangements and practices that support their use.”

In my three example groups, given no information or tools to the contrary, they assumed that I was the presenter and that I would want their full attention. I did want their full attention on the topics, but not necessarily on me. If they take notes directly on their laptop I put a higher probability on their not losing their notes, and being able to find them when they are needed (by being able to use desktop search). I also believe that they could deepen their understanding by immediately checking on related websites I mention. There were also cases where I couldn’t remember a specific example, that had they been connected to the Internet, they could have easily found and shared with the rest of the group.

Thinking of two Fortune 100 companies I have experience with, I see two extremes for the use of laptops in face to face settings. At one organization, everyone is on-line, multi-tasking at all times. All you see from the presenter’s perspective is the top of their heads. At the other organization there is a strong norm to focus on the face to face interaction, with the laptop being an augmentation for taking notes, or getting specific, related information. I suspect, though I haven’t yet tested this hypothesis, that the second strategy is more effective.

In both the Fortune 100 cases, the technology is the same. The organizational norms are what are driving the different behaviors. Even non-users of the technologies participate in creating these norms. During a meeting last fall I was chided for “texting” when I should have been paying attention to the presenter. I was taking notes on the presenter’s comments on my smart phone. As I showed my notes to my concerned colleague, I asked him why he wasn’t taking notes at all.

These norms do not need to randomly evolve, as was the case in my first three examples. The norms could be specifically set to suit the circumstance, and then reassessed throughout the process. It’s also important for the presenter/facilitator to adjust to the addition of Internet support. For my classes I include specific discussion of how technology can be used in class. I call on the class to self-monitor and to share more and less effective strategies. In more ad hoc settings I now raise the issue as a point in the presentation. Given my most recent experiences, I am going to include a slide immediately following the agenda with the following:

These focal comments are based on the ideas that the features that trigger sensemaking in one direction or another are likely to be “concrete” or “core” versus “abstract” or “tangential”. (I have a learning module where this is discussed in more detail. Pad & paper are concrete – they can be seen and are generally understood to be tools of note taking – though just as with any technology they could be used for creating sudokus instead. Laptops are known to be tools of note taking, but are perhaps better known as tools of email and eBay. Without a specific action, the sensemaking for their appropriate use in a presentation is likely to be pad & paper – good; laptop – bad. By creating a specific discussion point at the beginning of the presentation I can both highlight the concrete note taking and search capabilities, as well as making the process itself more core to the session. The group can then self design the most effective approach. Individuals may or may not use their laptops, individuals may request that their teammates share their electronic notes. The overall approach is likely to vary over the course of the session, but hopefully in a way that supports the best learning mode for each person. (For more on learning - both formal and informal - see my earlier post.)

“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.

Todays’ Loose Wire (WSJ, Jeremy Wagstaff) raises issues of the value of “tagging.” This Web 2.0 process of labeling things (bookmarks, files, calendar entries etc.) is an “Active” form of input into the vast knowledge management system that is the web. However, as John Sawyer and I note in our article “Supporting technologies and organizational practices for the transfer of knowledge in virtual environments,” active systems aren’t likely to hold up — systems are much more likely to work if the input is passive — done automatically as part of the regular work. Question is whether we are wrong if you are dealing with all the people who participate in the web?

Tools that support a “passive” approach:

Tacit’s Active Net
Altus Learning Systems