Designing knowledge work
- Peter Drucker, 1949 “[When it comes to improving the productivity of knowledge work] we are in the year 2000 roughly where we were in the year 1900 in terms of the productivity of manual work.”
- Peter Drucker, 2000
| articles: community toolkit: |
Because knowledge is different from any other “material,” improving knowledge work processes is vastly different from other kinds of process improvement, even back office information processing. Knowledge work processes, like research, engineering, sales, market analysis, are typically non-linear, iterative, interdependent with other processes, and often invisible, even to the person performing them. For example, the focus of knowledge workers’ ongoing attention is often one of the most important elements in effectiveness. Dr. McDermott’s approach to knowledge work process design is built on a deep understanding of process design, knowledge work, real best practices, and the social (as well as technical) dimensions of sharing knowledge.
| Improving Knowledge Work | |
 |
|
|
Whole System
Working with a team of people from your organization, Dr. McDermott takes a whole system approach to work process improvement. This means we designs knowledge work processes in a way that considers both process effectiveness and peoples’ needs, links to other processes, the organization structure and culture, and, of course, customer and stakeholder expectations. 5 keys to knowledge work process improvement Because knowledge work processes are different from other kinds of work, improving them involves attending to 5 areas key areas. As with other types of knowledge work, these are interdependent areas that require ongoing attention, not process steps:
Any knowledge work process is driven by two considerations;
Most work processes occur in time, so they have some linearity. But in knowledge work, what makes the most difference is often what the knowledge worker pays attention to throughout the process. We map work processes, but not excruciatingly so. Then we distinguish between routine and non-routine aspects of the work and identify the right level of process specificity for each. Routine work can usually benefit from more detailed mapping than non-routine work. Through a rigorous analysis, we identify the areas that need focused attention. Then we identify ways to improve the overall process flow so it both exceeds customer (and stakeholder) expectations and contributes to the knowledge strategy. The most powerful way to map a work process is not just to interview practitioners, but talk with them at each step of the process and identify the issues they face, relationship they use, information they use, help they seek, knowledge they find and insights they generate throughout the process. By focusing on the period before, during and after completion of the process, we can understand the aim of the work, how it is executed and what practitioners learned in reflecting on it. The flow of knowledge and artifacts Knowledge work processes rely a great deal on knowledge outside the process itself. They also produce knowledge that is not directly applicable to the next steps in the process but is useful to other knowledge workers. Once we have mapped the knowledge work process and key focal areas, we identify the flow of knowledge through the process using a knowledge input and output table. As we do this, we identify the artifacts that sometimes hold, sometimes simply signify the knowledge used, transformed or created. In this analysis it is important, of course, to avoid creating documentation requirements that are seen as useless to the knowledge workers. Interdependencies, human connections and other systems Knowledge work processes are usually interdependent with other work processes so changes often affect neighboring processes. This could be as simple as the format of data or as complex as getting the right insights to others in the organization. In addition, knowledge workers frequently have close connections with others. Those connections are the rails along which knowledge flows. Other systems, such as reward, career development, measurement, and information technology can inhibit or support knowledge work processes. Aligning these systems, where possible, supports the change. So process interdependencies, human connections, and related systems are also part of a knowledge work improvement plan. The real practices under the “best practices” By the time a best practice is documented, it is often so abstract that the real activity that makes it effective is lost. Through a deep discussion of the practice (sometimes observation) we identify what activities practitioners actually perform that make a difference. Whenever possible, we compare this to poorer performing practitioners to see how best practitioners operate differently. As a result of this analysis, we are able to identify the real activities that underlie best practices. They are usually not more detailed linear process steps but a combination of issues they pay attention to, relationships, ongoing routines, and approaches to actions and others. And they usually involve more than a single practitioner. Change A common formula for failure is to develop a great set of ideas and then try to sell them to managers and staff. Any successful change effort needs to understand that changing knowledge work processes involves changing people’s work habits. Since knowledge work processes cannot be organized, managed or controlled by the placement of machinery or desks, change relies greatly on the knowledge workers’ buy-in. By engaging managers, supervisors, practitioners and other stakeholders from the beginning, we are able to take their concerns into account from the beginning. By creating a back and forth “approval process” with key stakeholders, we get their insights as we go and open the way for final approval. By understanding the “real” activities involved in the process, we gain credibility in practitioners’ eyes. But changing work habits involves more than input; it involves a combination of intention, attention, routine and reward. By addressing the emotional dimensions of changing work practices, the relationship realignment it requires, and the personal dimension of sharing and using other’s knowledge, we develop work processes that can actually be implemented and shared. |
| Approach | |
| |
|
|
|
Typically we work with a small team, a cross-section of
professionals who represent different aspects of the process and know it well.
We often convene a larger group at several points in the design process to get
their insights, ideas and buy-in. Following are the steps for that small team,
although, like other knowledge work processes, it is less linear than this
step-by-step process would appear. Throughout this analysis and design we pay
attention to the six focal areas described above.
Preparation
|
| Collaboration | |
| |
|
|
|
While Dr. McDermott can lead this design, it is much more powerful if one or more people from the company work together with him, collaboratively conducting interviews, analyzing results and making recommendations for improvement.
712 Allen Drive, Longmont, Colorado 80503 USA phone/fax 303-545-6030 e-mail Richard@McDermottConsulting.com |