George Siemens has an interesting post about adoption of tools for knowledge workers. (Thanks Dina for this). He says that:
One of the most consistent headaches elearning and knowledge management programs encounter is an inability to reach the full potential of an initiative or new tool (blogs, wikis, collaborative spaces).
The problem can almost be reduced to a formula/rule (principle of actual use):
Each tool/initiative achieves actual use in relation to potential, based on: the nature of tool, the environment of use, and the people using the tool/initiative.* Nature of tool � How complicated is it? How different is it from how work is being done now? Complexity is proportional to adoption and intended task.
* People � Is the targeted user willing to adopt and explore new processes? Will it save time? Will it result in increased productivity? Will it help them better do their work? Will it improve their sense of competence (or will it reduce competence due to frustrations)?
* Environment of use � Does the tool/initiative solve real problems for the end user? (or only management)? Do people have to alter their work habits to use the tool? Can they do their job without it (if they can, most won�t adopt it)?”
I really like this people, tool, context idea, but I think there’s a question that needs to be asked before any of the (good) questions above can be sensibly answered. And that is: where, on a scale running from information to meaning, do these tools get used?
Now Phil Wolff has been having a think about how to get executives blogging, prompted by Robert Scoble. One of his suggestions goes as follows:
Here’s a new role: beat journalist. Be the Dan Gillmor of the Microsoft marketing veeps, a development programme, of M&A. Get on their calendars for 10-15 minutes a week, ask routine and provocative questions, transcribe and post to internal blogs. Canvas internal blognets for related posts and tie the threads together. Blogs as reportage.
“Are we getting closer?” he asks. For me, that’s a definite yes. Moderators – here beat journalists – are key.
KM systems, ontologies, semantic webs and the like all have the ability (real or potential) to automate much of the drudge associated with “knowledge tasks”. They’re good at what you might call the boring links.
But in most knowledge systems there are two types of humans with two types of work. End-users (humans in the very badly drawn diagram below!) and moderators. These human agents may be editors, club secretaries, Phil’s beat journalists, even DJ’s. And they excel at the interesting links. There is still a huge difference between going to Amazon for a book, and going to a specialised bookshop where the owner knows his stuff. And where they stand in relation to information and in relation to meaning is different.
I’m not sure this diagram is going to help, but, as I see it,before you can ask any of George’s questions, you need to decide where in their organisation’s knowledge system they work. That’s to say, you need to decide whether the tool is for helping moderators, or end-users (humans). And to do that, you need to establish what it deals with: information or meaning.
Ahem. Tea-time.