A Compound of Alchymie

Tom Davenport on Knowledge Work

Picked up this link in David Gurteen's newsletter today to an interview with Tom Davenport by CIO Insight magazine.

"They [knowledge workers] don't like to be told what to do. They enjoy more autonomy than other workers. Much of their work is invisible and hard to measure, because it goes on inside their heads or outside the office." Tom Davenport

Seems to tie in quite well with some of my recent entries on knowledge work. Why the focus on knowledge work from Tom? Because he has written a new book on the subject, "Thinking for a Living: How to Get Better Performance and Results from Knowledge Workers" (Harvard Business School Press, July 2005).

"In my latest book, Thinking for a Living, I developed a unique classification system for segmenting knowledge workers into four major categories—transaction, integration, expert, and collaborative—and prioritizing which group or groups a company should target for intervention. I also outlined five customizable approaches for intervening in and improving knowledge work. " Tom Davenport

Sounds like Tom has cracked it - must get onto Amazon right away...and get on with my own book.

Knowledge Worker Handbook

I'm attending the fringe event at this year's Knowledge, Content and Collaboration (KCC) conference in Amsterdam (formerly KM Europe) and have through Knowledge Board submitted a couple of ideas for sessions. One is to run a knowledge business simulation with some of my colleagues at EKG, the other is to assist Piers Young (Templeton College, Oxford) with a session on developing the outline for a knowledge worker's handook. This ties in nicely with my current (but very slow moving) book project - effectively a guide for smartworkers - which in my view are simply knowledge workers who are trying to be more effective - 'working smarter not harder'. I'm looking forward to the fringe event already - promises t0 be a little different from the usual conference machine. See you there? I know some great places to eat in Amsterdam!

Knowledge Work and Process Work

I'm a knowledge worker: there is a high probability you are too. But what is knowledge work? How does it differ from other work? What do we call work that isn't knowledge work? I've been thinking about this a lot recently since it's a key aspect of my interest in what I call smartworking - effectively techniques and approaches that help knowledge workers be more effective. The old blue-collar and white-collar division of work is clearly outdated but are knowledge workers a sub-set of white collar workers? Are there any blue-collar knowledge workers? I've been using the term process workers to identify white-collar work that is process driven - basically if your work is driven by some machine like process, and you have little control over that process your autonomy is limited - and so therefore is your capacity to use your knowledge. The modern day call centre is probably a good place to see process work. Process work can be measured and managed by tracking activity but knowledge work can't - that's why measuring activity for knowledge workers (e.g. how much time they spend working on a report for example) is flawed. For knowledge work you need to measure outcomes. Throw away the timesheet - get your head around the output instead. The trouble is this can often be hard to do - especially as knowledge work is so qualitative.

Some types of work are difficult to categorise - what about nurses - clearly they are highly qualified and very knowledgeable but are they knowledge workers or process workers - or do they fall into some other category?

For me, one of the key aspects of knowledge work is self-management. OK, you may have a boss or a manager but they simply allocate tasks - it's up to you to manage when and how a task gets done, and to juggle conflicting demands upon your time (knowledge workers are always trying new approaches to time management). Of course we struggle to do this effectively - even after reading Covey's Seven Habits, which is why I enjoyed the following cartoon (from www.phdcomics.com) - click on it to see it full size (and readable):

Knowledge Work and Investors in People (IiP)

I’m interested in knowledge work as a subset of knowledge management.  Knowledge management implies a command and control model while knowledge work implies an approach that puts people (knowledge workers) at its core. On this theme there was an interesting piece in the Guardian on 13th November by Nick Pandya. It briefly covered the launch of the new ‘Investors in People’ (IiP) standard which aims to improve the role managers have in training and development and also to encourage employers to involve staff in the corporate decision-making process. Research, conducted recently amongst 700 senior managers on behalf of Investors in People, shows that 75% of senior managers believe effective development of employees will be vital to the future productivity of their organisations, but that only one in three actually put people development at the top of their list when faced with competing priorities, such as new technology, knowledge of competitors and research and development . But unless I'm missing something here all these so called competing priorities are actually people issues - it's just that from a conventional management viewpoint they don't appear to be - at least not directly.

The new IiP standard is criticised however by John Seddon of Vanguard Consulting, a consultant who has adapted the principles behind Toyota’s production system for service organisations. He says:

“The IiP standard is based on the flawed assumption that people make a difference [wait there’s more…]. The new standard amounts to no more than doing the wrong thing righter [sic]. The fact is 95% or more of performance issues are governed by the system, the way work is designed and managed – people can’t make a significant contribution if their system won’t let them.”

This is especially true of knowledge work. Today’s knowledge workers are frequently stifled by the restrictive environments in which they have to operate – and no amount of persuasion will make people share their knowledge when the work system is so badly flawed. IiP, new or old, essentially fiddles with the old world view of employees - what we need is a totally new approach to leveraging the potential of our greatest asset – our people. The potential rewards are enormous. There is an enormous latent ‘knowledge potential’ in our organisations – if we can look at work in new ways then we can unleash this potential and make businesses more productive and help people feel more valued. Hopefully IiP will eventually see this and then it really will deserve it's title.

ExLink: Investors in People
ExLink: Vanguard Consulting