Does Knowledge Transfer Enhance Process?

Many of the clients I work with think of themselves as 'process driven'. Of course that term has as many definitions as there are organizations. The concept of 'having a process' can go from thinking that maybe there is an ordered, step wise approach to doing something and perhaps we should think about that to having processes so rigid that improvement and innovation are squeezed out of it like juice from an orange.

Most companies live somewhere in between.

Processes are derived for a purpose, they are created to answer a need. Whether they answer that need well is another story. My questions come from asking: "for the sake of what?" What is the need the processes seek to address? I want to know that before I want to know the process, and that is the knowledge I want to discover, explore and transfer.

It is when we are at the core of the issue that we make the difference. And, it is when people understand why they are doing what they do, what the impact of their actions are, that they feel both bought in and informed enough to do true process improvement. Humans are not meant to do tasks just because they are written down and signed off by the management. They are meant to be 'sensemaking' creatures who use their experience, their understanding, their intellect to make sense of the world. If you want the best from them, show them how they can contribute, help them understand where they fit in the big scheme of the system they are working on, give them context and a sense of impact and the permission to think. Not to change the system randomly, but to make good suggestions based on full knowledge.

All of those things are knowledge transfer opportunities which enhance the process, the people, the technology and the culture. Continuous improvement lies in that fertile ground.

Varied viewpoints frame expertise

The deeply held knowledge we have accummulated over time through experience is what we use to make sense of the world and to make good decisions time and again. That knowledge is hard won and many people think it is also hard to transfer. I had a conversation about this today, and I thought it might be interesting to share my experience in why people find transferring deeply held knowledge so difficult.

For one thing, there is a lot of it. For another, it is not all created equal -- it is not all of equal value. Why transfer what is not useful or needed? If you have long term experience and expertise which you want to share with others, you will understand what I mean.

There is experiential knowledge which helps you determine what factors are important in making decisions, identifies your current context, how that context influences your decisions, and how to make sense of what you are about to do. If you had to tell me exactly how you made your decisions and what part of that was most useful to be transferred, it would prove to be quite challenging.

But what if I asked those around you, those influenced by your decision or resulting activity, what they thought was most unique about the knowledge you held and what they turned to you for? Wouldn't that help you determine what knowledge was priority for you to transfer? One view of a subject, issue or challenge is only one view. It can not help but be skewed. How do you know if that view is correct? Or useful? Checking with others helps to frame the knowledge most useful and important. And if knowledge is not useful, why bother?

There is enough information floating around to overwhelm all of us. We need to transfer what is most important, not forgetting the contextual aspects, but to consider what would impact the most if lost. We need to make knowledge transfer as simple and useful as possible. What are your viewpoints?