Comments on: Effective knowledge sharing

By: Harold Jarche » Learning to work smarter

Harold Jarche » Learning to work smarter — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 15:46:01 +0000

[...] Effective knowledge sharing is essential for all organizations today but the mainstream application of knowledge management, and I would include learning management, over the past few decades has got it all wrong. We have over-managed information because it’s easy and we’re still enamoured with information technology. However, the ubiquitous information surround may put a stop to this. As enterprises become more closely tied to the Web, the principle of “small pieces loosely joined” is permeating our industrial walls. More and more workers have their own sources of information and knowledge. [...]

By: Harold Jarche » On knowledge

Harold Jarche » On knowledge — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:54:13 +0000

[...] knowledge management: Codified knowledge (documents, lists, reports, best practices) is effective in organizations that [...]

By: Are You Obsolete or Mission Critical? | Above and Beyond KM

Are You Obsolete or Mission Critical? | Above and Beyond KM — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 04:05:30 +0000

[...] in response to this research, Harold Jarche has suggested that it’s past time that we moved beyond “central digital [...]

By: Harold Jarche » Social tools for networks

Harold Jarche » Social tools for networks — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 11:56:52 +0000

[...] Effective knowledge sharing is what many organizations do not do well, or as Lew Platt past-CEO of Hewlett-Packard said, “if only HP knew what HP knows, we would be three times more productive”. But HP will never know what the employees of HP know, so wouldn’t it be better to let the workers share what they know in the best way possible? That’s the key benefit of personal knowledge management, in my opinion. If each person can better manage knowledge creation and capture, then it becomes easier to share it. [...]

By: Jon Husband

Jon Husband — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 05:51:50 +0000

Would love to see workers “challenged” to attack problems with a bounty/bonus system that would identify “problems” and “reward” for solution; however, be non-prescriptive in terms of resolving a particular “issue.” The knowledge of how to go about it, with or without technology, has been around for a while. Example: William Halal, a professor of management (with a technology slant) at George Washington University, wrote a book in 1993 titled "Internal Markets - Bringing the Power of Free Enterprise Inside Your Organization". Of course, the Web as we know it today didn't really exist back then .. the browser format we know and love had not yet arrived, and uploading anything to share required understanding FTP, etc. I only got my first email account in 1994. Some day, no doubt, the walls of silos will crumble and dissolve (eroded by the link driven bits of electronic sand ?). But if you're holding your breath, best to bring along a recently filled scuba tank or some other way of lasting for a while, 'cuz a range of people like OD professionals, management theorists, and learning professionals have been hammering on the issue for quite some time.

By: Doug Symington

Doug Symington — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 03:04:37 +0000

Too many organizations are currently arranged to dissuade and prevent the sharing of information. Silos of practice–sometimes within units and departments themselves–too often prevent sharing of information, resources, and approaches that could otherwise be brought to bear on performance improvement pursuits.

Would love to see workers “challenged” to attack problems with a bounty/bonus system that would identify “problems” and “reward” for solution; however, be non-prescriptive in terms of resolving a particular “issue.” Also think that a “journeyperson/apprentice” dynamic an important aspect of informal learning opportunities. Mentor relationships–formal and informal by degrees–might be a way to promote and incorporate these learning opportunities into the culture of the organization.

By: Harold Jarche

Harold Jarche — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 20:32:50 +0000

The 80/20 research seems OK to me, but I’m not a professional researcher. For example, an OISE study of 1,500 adults found: “Approximately 70 percent of Canadians say that their most important job-related knowledge comes from other workers or learning on their own rather than employment-related courses.”

Will, I don’t quite follow your questions about modification. My approach to informal learning is 1) that it happens, 2) that most experienced workers know what’s best for their job context if they have been provided with correct and current information, and 3) that supporting informal learning so that some of it can be captured and shared is usually beneficial to individuals and the organization.

An HPT approach would be that formal training addresses a lack of skills & knowledge but there are other barriers to performance that training can’t help. Two of these are lack of information and lack of sufficient resources. I include job aids, communities of practice, journals, blogs and wikis in the possible suite of informal learning tools:

http://www.jarche.com/2006/09/analysis-for-informal-learning/

http://www.jarche.com/2006/07/informal-learning-and-performance-technology/

By: Jon Husband

Jon Husband — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 19:02:01 +0000

BUT here is the key thing which the 80-20 rule leaves out–EVEN if it is true–THE QUESTION IS: Not whether this large swath of informal learning is there, BUT (1) whether it is modifiable, (2) whether WE can actually modify it, (3) whether it is cost-effective to modify it, (4) AND whether modifying it produces benefits that outweigh the costs.

For me, in the workplace informal learning will almost always be guided (essentially by definition) by the mission and objectives people are working on (on Project X and Project Y and Project Z, or in the course of meeting daily accountabilities). People wonder about things relevant to what they are working on, they search for info and knowledge about what they are working on, they stumble upon and exchange useful info / knowledge, in the course of browsing, reading, thinking, chatting, exchanging.

I think (essentially, again by definition) that what people ‘upload’ informally then must be modified and modifiable as it comes into use. As to cost-effectiveness, it seems impossible to force people to focus all 480 minutes of an 8 hour day on defined tasks or problems, and it seems to me that what hey acquire / learn informally can’t easily be related to costs as it (the informal learning) is just a natural part of what people do when they are ingesting, processing (sometimes) outputting information and knowledge relevant to issues and problems set out in their work agenda.

As an example, I’m thinking that the development of the “rules of thumb” in many areas of work activity is usually arrived at through ‘informal’ learning, about works best … no ? Benefit, or burden ?

By: Will Thalheimer

Will Thalheimer — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 14:43:32 +0000

The research that has been cited for the 80-20 informal-formal is NOT, in my quick reading, very compelling. I say this despite finding that lots of what I’ve seen in organizations shows lots of informal-learning.

By: Harold Jarche

Harold Jarche — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 20:19:35 +0000

There’s lots missing from my diagram, Tony

It’s still a work in progress and doesn’t show how resources, such as social bookmarks, can be shared amongst PKM systems. The basic concept is that each person has a PLE/PKM that is unique, and that there is sharing & collaboration, but it’s mostly person to person.

I like Dave Pollard’s second diagram here:

http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/2009/04/10.html#a2362