Loss of knowledge within a company
This discussion is about the process and practice equilibrium that retains lost information.
What is information capturing? Not just business, our day-to-day activities are filled with lots of information. If not documented or used, this information is easily lost. This article explores a similar case of information loss when big companies work with workforces across the globe. It further explores how to capture this information from being lost. If the right information is identified and captured, it could save a lot of energy and money.
If you havenāt subscribed to Knowledge Shots yet, hereās your chance:
This discussion is crisp and isnāt explanatory. If you intend to read more descriptive writing on knowledge capture, check this HBR article. Over here, I have done my best to capture the best bits and turn them into a framework:
Managerās dilemma: Process vs Practice
When internet companies grew multiple folds in the 1990s, there was a search for a more efficient management process. Re-engineering, a top-down approach, was about enhancing and structuring the information flow and coordination processes within an organization. While knowledge management, a bottom-up approach, believes more in an improvisational and inventive approach to getting work done.
Top-down is going from generic to specific use-case. While bottom-up is going from specific to generic use-case.
Re-engineering is an āefficiency-focused processā. While knowledge management is an āeffectiveness-focused practiceā.
Equilibrium: In management, thereās a tug-war between process and practice. āProcessā has a pre-defined structure, itās routine, and the environment it is tested in is known. While āpracticeā is based on improvisation, spontaneousness and deals with unknown environments. A manager prefers to keep process and practice in equilibrium, sometimes by dividing the workforce into the process-driven and practice-driven (compartmentalizing ā some roles are practice, some process).
Watch them do: Thereās a difference between how a process is supposed to be done and how it is done in reality. Similarly, thereās a difference between what people think they do and what they actually do. Hence, asking an employee how they do X is a fallacy. The right thing is to watch them do X.
Knowledge stored in the companyās DNA: A lot of company knowledge is un-documented and preserved as an inventive spontaneous activity by employees. This knowledge is rarely identified. Those who observe can learn it. Example: Fixing a car, thereās a lot of unpredictability depending on car type, age, condition. Here the service person goes out of the documented process and improvises to repair the car.
The most important work happens at breakfast and plays: In the previous car repair example, what happens if the service person fails to find a solution even after improvisation? He or she goes to a breakfast aka tries to find the undocumented knowledge within local communities. The service person will subconsciously discuss this peculiar problem among colleagues over breakfast or play sessions. This knowledge sharing/capturing helps the service person repair the car after breakfast.
Bottom-up databases: The next question is how to spread the knowledge gained from practice? In this case, the āpracticeā has to rely on āprocessā (more collaborative among the two) to spread the knowledge from its local group to employees worldwide. This database has to be bottom-up, as in made by the ones who practice and not their managers. Example: Xerox made a Eureka database that promotes employees to update tips from their local group learning. This saved over $100 million for the company.
Have any perspectives to share? Feel free to drop a comment.
Like what you read? Consider subscribing to Knowledge Shots.
Thanks for reading!