The latest McKinsey Quarterly message to land in my in-box re-introduced me to Don Tapscott. By now those of us working in KM, knowledge services, and/or knowledge strategy have heard some of Tapscott’s insightful comments, and this latest contribution from McKinsey keeps the standard high.
Interviewed by McKinsey’s Rik Kirkland last September, this short video connects with the release of Tapscott’s new book, Radical Openness: Four Unexpected Principles for Success, which he wrote with Anthony D. Williams. In the interview, Tapscott’s comments push the boundaries of the e-mail-vs.-something-else conversation and Tapscott doesn’t let us off easy. He’s anxious for us to “get beyond” e-mail and he believes – for all the right reasons – that it is going to be “new social platforms that include an industrial-strength social network” that will enable us to put e-mail behind us, probably sooner than later.
I was impressed. Even when Tapscott got to talking about how KM has failed because of our supposed belief that “knowledge is a finite asset … and you manage it by containerizing it,” I was interested in what he had to say. But I also immediately disagreed, because when he speaks about rethinking knowledge management, Tapscott is encouraging us to move away from the containerization to what he refers to as “content collaboration.”
While I like what he says about having a “new collaborative suite” for handling content, I think the idea of collaboration really begins with the people – the knowledge workers – and not with the content. And that takes me back – not surprising to anyone who knows me – to knowledge services. Some of us have been working with knowledge services for the last decade or so, and knowledge services continues to make sense when KM, as such, is still not easy to handle for some people.
Those of us working with knowledge services define the concept as a broadening of the KM idea, as the convergence of information management, KM, and strategic learning, all coming together to enable better contextual decision-making, accelerated innovation, and improved research results. And it’s the strategic learning that brings us into a serious frame of mind with respect to collaboration. Strategic learning – as I’m often caught saying – is any learning that helps us do our work better. It’s the whole excellence in knowledge development and knowledge sharing package (what we like to call “KD/KS”) that lays the foundation for collaboration wherever (and whenever) anyone in the organization needs to know of, work with, and build on any knowledge that has been developed and which can be used to better position the organization for success.
So I’m not quite ready to agree that KM has failed, but I am pretty taken with Tapscott’s argument and anxious to see how content collaboration, combined with person-to-person collaboration, can get us closer to excellence in KD/KS.
It’s a good interview (if you’re a McKinsey subscriber you can view it directly here, or you can sign up at the McKinsey Quarterly site), heartily recommended. It will get the KM/knowledge services juices going!
Ben Keefe at the Special Libraries Association LinkedIn Group has this to say:
I agree with you. In fact, I don’t understand Tapscott’s argument at all. Any of the solutions he mentions require documentation of some sort, and documentation is a form of knowledge capture that “containerizes” knowledge.
Then he goes on to say, “You need to start with a group of young people that will adopt the technology and start to use it naturally, because it’s just like the air to them.”
No. That won’t always work. I know young people who are hopeless at technology and older people who are way more adept than I am. Plus, if young people are inexperienced with the industry in which they are operating, how do they find the crucial information and knowledge that they need to perform their duties, or create these extremely useful collaborative documents?
Taking issue with what people refer to as “knowledge capture” is not taking issue with all of the principles of “knowledge management.” Railing against email in favour of collaborative software has no bearing on an argument that knowledge management has failed. I dislike email too, but it’s a necessary evil in any organization. Collaboration is great internally, but for communication with clients and prospects, a common communication channel like email is absolutely necessary.
Guy responds:
Thanks, Ben, for that cogent and very well-articulated response.
Yes, I think Don has engaged in a little bit of oversimplification with respect to KM, which isn’t so new (and in fact it’s one of the reasons we have to move toward the more-inclusive concept of knowledge services). It’s not a hanging offense, and I think he has some very good and almost idealistic expectations about what we – as a society – can do with KD/KS (I share some of these ideas, by the way, which I’ll be writing about in another post in the next couple of weeks – I came away from viewing Don’s TED talked very touched by some of what he said).
But back to the reality of KM, knowledge services, and knowledge strategy in the workplace: Yeah, you and I – and many of our colleagues – are on the same track, Ben (for example I, too, am not willing to do the age-specific categorization that seems to attract so many of our KM movers and shakers).
Thanks for that good response. Very stimulating.
All the best,
Guy
Dear Guy,
While I agree with Don about email, I don’t agree with his ideas about content. Your statement “collaboration really begins with the people – the knowledge workers – and not with the content” is spot on. We can organize content all we want, but if the knowledge worker doesn’t buy into it or utilize it, it won’t matter how well organized it is.
Thanks for sharing.
Deb
Laura Pike-Seeley at the Special Libraries Association LinkedIn Group writes:
I enjoyed this video and I’m forwarding it to a colleague on our corporate communications team. Mr. Tapscott says something along the lines of “if you build it, they will come.” As anyone who has tried to move away from company-wide emails to intranet- or social media-based communication will tell you, it’s not quite that easy. There’s resistance to change, the problem of inertia, and the learning curve to contend with. Tapscott says that getting younger people on board is a good start, which like both of you, I disagree with. The youngest employees may not be the most tech savvy to begin with. Furthermore, they are more likely to be at the bottom of the organization, and are probably not as invested in general. He goes on to say something that makes much more sense- top management and executives have to endorse the technology and lead the charge in its use. If you know you will get timely information and quick responses from your VP using an internal social media platform, that’s how you will communicate with them.
Kate Hedstrom at the SLA Bay Region Chapter LinkedIn Group writes:
This is really interesting. We’re finding that you need to figure out which collaboration and communication method your audience is most comfortable with; many of the people we deal with now are under 30 and they don’t read their e-mail regularly–they prefer to communicate and collaborate via Twitter or other social media. It’s a huge change from how we’ve been working, and a change that’s come about in just the past year or so.
By Kate Hedstrom
Kevin Adams in the Special Libraries Association LinkedIn Group writes:
While I think that KM has failed in some ways, I think Mr Tapscott has misrepresented the idea of KM within a company. I think his representation of knowledge capture or ” containerizing” knowledge is incorrect. If we could capture an employee’s knowledge it would not be to stick in a computer and forget it, it would be so that people could build on that knowledge by having access to it and thus it would become the infinite resource he talks about. Building a knowledge bank is one way companies can prevent the re-invention of the wheel concept that Larry Prusak talked about back in the 80’s.
I agree with Ben and Laura on the issue of the build it and they will come concept. The organisation I work for has built, in a very small way, some of the collaborative tools that he describes yet the uptake has been very slow. One thing I will agree with Mr Tapscott is that if you do provide these tools then senior management must endorse them and also use them, otherwise they will wither or only be used by a few people within the organization.
The discussion continues at the Special Libraries Association LinkedIn Group site, and I’ve tried to capture some of the comments here:
From Ben Keefe • I think I have a much broader view of KM than maybe what is meant in this discussion. I don’t understand how KM can fail as a concept. I can understand that individual KM functions in particular companies have failed, but I doubt that it means that KM as a concept has failed.
Coming at it from a librarian’s perspective, I see KM as an umbrella term for a bunch of different functions. Maybe that is the reason I have difficulty with Mr. Tapscott’s reasoning. If KM fails, to my mind, that means that a lot of the constituent functions have failed, and most of those have a much longer history than KM (records management, for example).
From Isabelle Delaunois
I also agree with Guy, collaboration starts with the people, not the content. The content starts in people’s head after all. And yes, young ones are more likely to feel more at ease with social technologies as they grew up with them, but collaboration is not a question of age, rather a question of personality. The people who will collaborate spontaneously are passionate, and willing to share what they know and learn by interacting with others. These are the people who will champion any tools that will make it easier for them to collaborate. The tools are not necessarily IT technologies, sometimes putting in place the right environment is more effective than any IT tools.
To come back to the main subject, emails vs social media – I am convinced that social media do more for knowledge sharing and re-use than emails – my motto is “if your email is addressed to more than 3 people, and the content could be put on a notice board in the corridor, then use an internal social platform (or external if the content can be totally public).
From Bill Drew
I disagree with separating email from social media. Email is social media and the way modern social media is implemented can actually bring the different channels together. So called social media on intranets can “talk” to email and vice-versa. Allow people to choose what works for them. I use Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and other social media. Virtually all of them send me updates or notice of updates in my email. I can then interact via my email with them or directly if I so desire. Email is the original computerized social media and is not going to go away any time soon.
Guy says:
Thanks, all, for these useful comments. Good food for thought here. Obviously we’re on to a topic that affects all of us in the knowledge services workplace, and I’m learning a lot from what you have to say. Much appreciated.
I agree that KM and collaboration starts and ends with people. I also think you need to be sensitive to your company’s culture for how to best communicate and recognize that email and social media have varying degrees of acceptance and you need to sort out which form of communication works best with your company clients for what type of message. You are dealing H to H, human to human. I have a hard time with generalities since we deal with individuals.
R. David Weaver at the Special Libraries Association LinkedIn Group writes:
There is an obvious place for email. In this “age” we live in there is always an effort to make an information tool do all jobs at all times. Viva the difference. Email is as Bill indicates a form of the “Social Media” family and has its own valuable characteristics and thus its place. I think the fake battle between social media and email is just that a waste of time. A carefully designed email routing list, with “valuable content” is just or more effective especially in medicine and science.
Bill Drew at the Special Libraries Association LinkedIn Group writes:
I would be skeptical of anything with such a title,Radical Openness: Four Unexpected Principles for Success. Anyone claiming they have the keys to success sound like those selling books on TV on how they made a million dollars selling books on tv.
Ben Keefe writes on the Special Libraries Association LinkedIn Group site:
This discussion is timely considering SLA has just announced this course:
http://www.sla.org/content/learn/certificates/kmcert/kmcertificateprogram/KM2012/KMKS104.cfm
Guy responds: Yes it is, Ben, and thanks for pointing that out. And full disclosure: even though SMR has a strategic alliance with SLA for delivering the six KMKS courses in the program (including the up-coming course), I didn’t think about that when I saw Tapscott’s interview video. Perhaps social media was just on my mind and I didn’t realize it. Appreciate your making the connection.
My view is more on the approach Mr. Tapscott has taken to present his point / case against emails.
I am surprised that while making a case for collaborative suites in place of emails he finds the need to trounce KM or announce its end.
While talking of collaboration and referring to Knowledge Management as an exercise which containerizes and one that puts knowledge in a box ( what he means I presume a technological tool ) one would think that that he is against limiting collaboration to technological boundaries.
But then on the other hand he denounces personal meetings and pitches collaborative suites i.e using technology as a collaborative platform.
So is he then making a case for technological platforms when he pushes for collaborative suites? Well do not many KM platforms provide collaborative space already? Which in effect proves that KM does not containerize.
Collaboration is what KM does and is aimed at; it gets people to connect and collaborate through various means and that is the essence of entire KM strategy and implementation to have it up and about and make it run.
Also can or should collaboration take place only through technology? Meetings are yes a waste of time but then there are sure fire productive personal interactions designed as part of KM strategy. So why are meetings (personal interactions) being denounced?!! Meetings or such personal interactions are a part of collaboration process and I would say pretty much vital otherwise everyone should just sit at desk at home or in the park and not go to the office at all and use collaborative suites.
Also if collaborative suites should replace emails and when and IF that happens, people would be then collaborating on technological platforms which already happens and it is very much a part of KM process.
The various media he refers to are often touted and now even more so as KM tools. Social Media is increasingly referred to as also used by many organizations as part of KM process. And connecting people through these does take place.
So then KM is already taking care of collaborative space by connecting people both personally and through technology as also perhaps reducing email usage. Which being Mr Tapscott’s ultimate aim.
What comes through is that Mr. Tapscott is pretty much all over the place or just taking us all over the place needlessly, in his quest to get rid of emails.
Thanks to Hemangi R. Vyas for that thoughtful response.
I’m interested in many points raised in the comment, and especially the perspective. I don’t think we agree that “all” meetings are a “waste of time” (can I presume that Vyas is being a little metaphorical here?) but we are in agreement about the value of collaboration.
In fact, I’m often – when speaking about the definition of knowledge services (the convergence of information management, knowledge management, and strategic learning) – confronted with questions about the strategic learning “piece” of the definition. And I respond that it’s simply collaboration, anything we learn – or teach – that helps us or others do our work better.
And all those terms are open to interpretation relating specifically to the environment in which we are working.
Good comments on this post, and delighted to seeing the conversation continuing.
By ‘meetings are a waste of time’ I was referring to Mr. Tapscott’s views on meetings in context of his making a case for collaborative suites in place of meetings. Which alluded – if i did understand correctly – the wasted time meetings resulted in, which otherwise could be saved by use of collaborative suites.
It is certainly not a view that i hold. In fact I made a case for meetings by saying it really depends on the definite agenda and designed for purpose personal interactions whose value remains vital in collaboration. Perhaps replacing ‘are’ with ‘can be’ would have been appropriate. However i hope the point would be understood in the context and not taken as making a generalization.
Thanks
– Hemangi
Of course. That’s what I thought (which is why my response was carefully worded – I knew you knew what you were talking about!
One of Tapscott’s comments really resonated with me: “People that have an interest in the old ways of working, people that dominate face-to-face meetings and like that a lot, for example—they don’t want to move toward some other kind of platform where it’s more of a meritocracy, rather than a personality thing.”
I see this often with people avoiding email in order to force a confrontation – one which they know they can win by manipulation and brute force. This is not an effective way to work and has negative long term impacts to team motivation, cohesion, and overall morale.
Let’s hope more people get onboard with the “new ways” of working and pursue efficiencies enabled by technology. Correspondingly, I agree that email’s days are numbered. This may present another struggle though, where people resist adopting new approaches to communication and collaboration.