Thoughts on Google Wave

Conversations over the weekend got me thinking about Google Wave and the confusion it has engendered. What's it for? How do I use it? Why is it any better than email? I don't understand...

I'm becoming more and more convinced Wave sits outside our current paradigm for doing stuff online. It's simply not something our current world-view can encompass - except for a few bright people at Google, of course!

An analogy that's sprung to mind is that of the car, in its early days. The first prototypes were considered impractical, of no real benefit - certainly not likely to replace horse-drawn carriages... People of the time couldn't think past their experience and couldn't see the potential of the new technology. Sound familar?

So I think Wave should be treated as what it is; a prototype. It won't fit everyone's needs, today. It may be of little practical use. Indeed, it may turn out to be a complete failure.

On the other hand, it may have the potential to completely change the way people communicate online - we just don't have the capability to predict what that will look like!

Corporate IT - Us vs Them?

This post is in response to a post from Euan Semple - go check it out first! I don't disagree with his main point - there's no doubt that many organisations are hindering their peoples' performance with an outdated attitude to new technologies. However, what I don't think gets nearly enough recognition is that not all individuals want to use social software or new technology, or care about why they should.

That's a pretty controversial statement amongst web 2.0 and social media folks. Why would anyone not want to have more control, more responsibility? Why would anyone not want to choose the ideal tools to get their work done? Simply because we're all different.

It's all too easy to forget that many people just want to go to work and do their job. They don't want to waste a day comparing browsers, or installing different Twitter clients. They certainly don't want to be responsible for re-imaging their PC when it's corrupted and virus infected!

The cultural expectation of most employees is that their employer provides them with technology that enables them to do their job - and the employer bears the responsibility for it working properly. At the moment, this entails restrictions on what the employee can do - sure, this might hurt productivity, and it makes us early adopters furious. But I honestly believe that for a majority of workers, they'd prefer stable and supported technology over the latest innovative tools.

So when considering the use of IT at work, the main point I'm trying to make is that it's not about the individual versus some monolithic, faceless corporate entity. It's about the attitudes, expectations and culture of the organisation's people. If we want a change in the use of technology in the workplace, we need to convince a majority of our colleagues why this will be a good thing!

How might we do this? Trends over time will help - although I don't agree that technology use is driven by whether you're a baby boomer, Gen X or Gen Y, there's little doubt that the constant flow of younger people into the workplace will drive cultural changes. There will also be change over time through ambition. Once people realise that social software isn't just a toy but a tool that can transform their performance - and hence, their prospects of reward - they will be much more enthusiastic!

Technology developments may help too. Again looking at current trends, there's lots of room for improvements in technology stability. Why are computers still so prone to failure? Specifically for the workplace, I think virtual machines could be a way forward. If made easy enough to use, why not provide a personal VM environment within which people could use social or personal productivity tools, whilst keeping the host system clean and stable?

To finish, then, I'd like to point out that us web 2.0, social technology evangelists are on the leading edge of this change. I think we tend to forget that! Early adopters will be frustrated during change - there's no avoiding that. This shouldn't stop us advocating use of social tools, far from it! But we should recognise that change may take years, or decades, to truly sink in. We should aim our efforts at the audience that matters - not some corporate entity but rather our colleagues and friends who remain dubious about the whole idea. Obviously the opinion of top management in any organisation does make a difference! But ultimately, the combined opinions, expectations and culture of the individuals making up that organisation have to be convinced before we can expect widespread change.

The much reported death of KM - my take...

Last week I attended David Gurteen's "Effective Knowledge Worker" workshop - a valuable and very thought provoking day! One point that came up in discussion was the "Is KM dead?" debate that seems to have been rattling around in the KM community and online for a while now. As usual never knowing when to leave alone, I thought I'd add my tuppence...

Much of this appears to have kicked off following an interview with Dave Snowden and Larry Prusak last year. Luis Suarez's post here has an excellent round-up of links and further discussion. I'm not going to attempt a comprehensive point-by-point argument here, but rather put forward some of my thoughts, particularly based on my own experience.

My first response to "KM is dead!" was to ask - "What do you mean by KM?" and indeed, this does seem to be the key to the debate. In general, those saying "Yes, KM is dead!" aren't doing KM any more, oh no. They're doing Social Media, or Knowledge Sharing, or something equally flavour-of-the-month - yay!

The other side - "No, KM's still alive" - tend to still call what they do Knowledge Management, like myself. It can't be dead, because then we'd be out of a job. Maybe your idea of KM is dead - not mine. Nuh-uh. Vive le KM!

What I'm getting at is that at some level this is all a squabble about terminology. Call it what you will, but we're all working towards the same end - improving the ability of people to be more productive, perform to a higher standard and make better decisions. We believe we can best do this through making changes in the way people develop and use knowledge.

An aside - I should make clear that this is about driving improved business results - we're not doing this to make people happier. Sometimes KM - and recently, social media - people seem to miss this point and assume empowering people, having open conversations etc. should be goals in themselves. Not so - they should all be in pursuit of higher performance. Blimey, I sound like Alan Sugar! However... it's no coincidence that happy, empowered people & high performing businesses go hand-in-glove. Aren't we lucky to be living in a day & age where we get a chance to have fun at work and be high-powered and successful? That's the idea, anyway...

Anyway - back to my main point. Whatever we're doing in this space, it is all about changing the ways people develop & use their knowledge. Is that knowledge tacit or explicit? Can it be held in a document? Can knowledge exist at all outside of people's heads? KM experts would happily argue all of these points - hence I propose we ignore them. Does it really matter? Some people love taxonomies and file systems, others won't touch anything formally managed and controlled, preferring instead informal networks and conversations. News! Both of these are KM, and in my opinion anyone claiming to be a Knowledge Manager should acknowledge this.

This is a key point in making useful progress from this discussion - people are messy and inconsistent, and any effective approach to improving knowledge work has to recognise this. IT and IM types can find this a horrific concept - people left to their own devices will inevitably produce a mess of stuff. But people are also pretty good at resolving ambiguity and sorting the useful from the dross - if they're empowered to do so.

The flip side of this, is that some situations, problems and types of people are best dealt with through formal processes, structures and management. Yes, all you social media, Web 2.0 hipsters - some people do actually like doing things in a structured, routine manner! Crazy, I know. Not my cup of tea, but as KM experts we need an approach that embraces all the many ways of doing things, rather than imposing any one solution.

So - what I guess I'm trying to say is that KM is not a consultancy methodology, or a programming language, or a scientific theory. I don't believe it can "die", or be discredited, or debunked. No - KM is simply an approach which recognises the importance of both individuals and knowledge, and develops a wide, varied and above all pragmatic set of practices that help improve knowledge working effectiveness.

I realise I've just fallen into my own trap and developed yet another definition of KM. Not what I set out to do, but never mind - I will plough on regardless.

Going off on a slightly different tack now - I will wrap up this post soon, I promise - I'd like to address another angle of the "KM is dead" argument - the impact of past failures. It seems to be suggested that as KM has "failed" in the past, it is tainted beyond recognition. Well, for a start I don't believe it has failed - KM has delivered notable successes. More importantly, if we value knowledge - and we do - then how can we fail to manage it?

I think it's relevant to compare to other management practices here. Risk Management. Safety Management. Financial Management. All of these have a range of tools & techniques. All have had spectacular failures. (Hello, credit crunch!) But nobody argues with their basic principles - I will minimise my risks, I will increase safety, I will run my business on a sound financial basis. Why not also - I will maximise value and performance through management of knowledge?

So I believe it's incumbent on us as KM experts to embrace past failures, learn from them and promote Knowledge Management as a holistic, pragmatic way of increasing performance. If the most effective way to do this in your organisation is through managing documents and file structures, great. If it's by setting up knowledge plans, communities of practice and so on - again, great. You may drive huge improvements by effecting cultural change, implementing social tools and empowering your people - excellent! But whatever you do, focus on the individuals, the knowledge, and how your actions help to improve their way of working. That is what KM is all about.