Month: December 2011

exception handling is complex work

by

How is work different in a networked economy? We know that a lot of traditional work is constantly getting automated, from bank tellers, to lawyers to stock brokers. We also know that any work that can be outsourced will go to the place of cheapest labour, wherever that may be. The main reason behind this is the inter-connectivity of the Internet. I can easily find freelancers or software as a service to take care of my more routine tasks. Organizations do this all the time.

Known Problems

Let’s look at a knowledge worker and how things can get done in such an interconnected environment. Any situation can first be looked at from the perspective of, is this a known problem or not? If it’s known, then the answer can be looked up or the correct person found to deal with it. That answer may have been automated or even outsourced.

Known problems require access to the right information to solve them. This information can be mapped, and frameworks such as knowledge management (KM) help us to map it. We can also create tools, especially electronic performance support systems (EPSS) to do work and not have to learn all the background knowledge in order to accomplish the task. This is how simple and complicated knowledge continuously gets automated.

Exceptions

But if it’s a new problem or an exception, then the knowledge worker has to deal with it in a unique way. This is why we hire knowledge workers, to deal with exceptions. Complex, new problems need tacit knowledge to solve them. Exception-handling is becoming more important in the networked workplace. While the system handles the routine stuff, people, usually working together, deal with the exceptions. Exceptions require collaborative approaches to solve.

Once an exception is dealt with, it is no longer new. It is now known. As exceptions get addressed, some or all of the solution can get automated, and so the process evolves.

The challenge for organizational design is to make it easy to move new problems into the knowable space. This is where three principles of net work come into play:

  1. Transparency
  2. Narration of Work [AKA working out loud]
  3. Distribution of power

We cannot know what is known unless the organization, and the entire business ecosystem are transparent. We need to be able find things fast, which is the main benefit of using social media: increasing speed of access to knowledge. Social media enable us to be transparent in our work but transparency is not enough. Each knowledge worker must also narrate his or her own work. For example, just adding finished reports to a knowledge base does not help others understand how that report was developed. This is where activity streams and micro-blogging have helped organizational learning. We see the flow of sense-making in small bits that over time become a flow and later patterns emerge. We humans are very good at pattern recognition.

Exception handling is complex work, which requires passion, creativity and initiative. These cannot be commoditized. This is where the main value of the networked business is created. It’s a constantly moving sweet spot. Today’s complex work is tomorrow’s merely complicated or even simple work. But with complex work, failure has to be tolerated, as there are no best practices for exceptions (that’s why they’re called exceptions). Narrating work also means taking ownership of mistakes. Transparency helps the organization learn from mistakes.

Finally, power in the organization must be distributed. Distributed power enables faster reaction time so those closest to the situation can take action. In complex situations there is no time to write a detailed assessment. Those best able to address the situation have marinated in it for some time. They couldn’t sufficiently explain it to someone removed from the problem if they wanted to anyway. This shared power is enabled by trust. Power in knowledge-based organizations must be distributed in order to nurture trust. “One of the big challenges for companies is that unlike information or data flows, knowledge does not flow easily – as it relies on long-term trust-based relationships.” —John Hagel

Power-sharing and transparency enable work to move out to the edges and away from the comfortable, complicated work that has been the corporate mainstay for decades.  There’s nothing left in the safe inner rings anyway, as it’s being automated and outsourced.

The high-value work today is in facing complexity, not in addressing problems that have already been solved and for which a formulaic or standardized response has been developed. One challenge for organizations is getting people to realize that what they already know has increasingly diminishing value. How to solve problems together is becoming the real business advantage.
new known

The Hyper-social Organization – Review

by

The main premise of The Hyper-social Organization is that social media, connectivity, and always-on technology are enabling what humans do naturally — be very social.

The authors on knowledge management:

Of course, one of the big challenges for companies is that, unlike information or data, knowledge does not flow easily, as it relies on long-term trust-based relationships. Indeed, data and information are facts that describe a situation and can be generated by machines, whereas knowledge consists of truths, beliefs, methods, solutions, ideas and other elements that are created by humans and shared among people who trust one another. So one of the keys to success in this new economic reality is to move from a transactional world to a long-term trust-based world.

I have to like these questions the authors ask organizational leaders:

How good are you at engaging your detractors? How much of a “perpetual beta” culture do you have in your company? Do you consider your customer service department to be a cost center, or something more?

On the value of marketing materials:

McKinsey estimates that two-thirds of all buying decision-focused conversations do not involve anyone from the company. In a separate study, IDC estimated that only 20 percent of all content developed by the typical marketing department is actually used by the sales organization. What we can extrapolate from this information is that the content developed by most marketing departments is used in less than 7 percent of all buying decisions.

The most interesting part of the book is the Hyper-Sociality Index, based on four pillars:

Tribes vs Segments — “In a hyper-social environment you need to reach the tribes whose members influence one another – not the market segments that can be targeted with direct mail and ad campaigns”

Human-centricity vs Company-centricity — “… the shift in attention to the human elements of your business can help to improve product development, marketing, sales, talent management, knowledge management, and customer service.”

Networks vs Channels — “Data and information flow through channels, whereas networks allow knowledge to flow.”

Social Messiness vs Process and Hierarchy — “SEAMS: sensing, engaging, activating, measuring, storytelling” [Note: this does not align with the Cynefin framework that advocates a Probe — Sense — Respond approach to complexity, so I think SEAMS lacks the flexibility necessary in complex environments.]

The authors pose a similar question I have been asking for years as well, “Will traditional hierarchical organizations, with multiple levels of management between the tribes and corporate decision makers, enjoy any sort of advantage in a hyper-social future?”

Finally, here are 8 characteristics of hyper-social leaders:

  1. Behave like humans, not faceless entities
  2. Ditch the rule books and embrace values
  3. Live their values
  4. Trust people and create trusted environments
  5. Embrace transparency
  6. Embrace diversity
  7. Never compromise on quality
  8. Let go of control

If these concepts are new to you, I would recommend this book. I noticed that John Hagel is often quoted in this book, so you may want to pick up his latest book as well, or instead — The Power of Pull

Jobs, work and technology

by

Here are some of the observations and insights that were shared on Twitter this past week.

Irving Wladawsky-Berger: Jobs in the Age of Watson – via @raesmaa [automated & outsourced]

These non-routine cognitive tasks are beyond the scope of computer substitution for the foreseeable future.  However, one can design sophisticated tools to significantly expand what people can accomplish when performing these activities.  For example, CAD systems have enabled engineers to develop far more complex products than they could have done otherwise.  Social networking tools make it easier for people to communicate and collaborate with colleagues over wide distances and thus improve the collective intelligence of the team.   And, systems like Watson will be extensively used to help experts deal with highly complex problems in areas like medicine, finance and national security.

‘The Age of the Superfluous Worker‘ – the challenge of thinking outside the box – via @CharlesJennings

Meanwhile, new ways of increasing surplus labor have appeared. One is the continued outsourcing of jobs to low-wage countries; the other is the continuing computerization and mechanization of manufacturing and of services not requiring hands-on human contact. Continuing increases in worker productivity add yet more to the surplus. So does the unwillingness of employers to even consider hiring people who have been unemployed for a long time.

@umairh – Seven problems a recovery won’t fix – via @cburell

Pointlessness. Here’s a statistic that ought to set your hair on fire: somewhere between 50 and 75% of “employees” are “disengaged” (depending on whose numbers you want to buy): they don’t care much, if at all, about the work they do. But can you blame them? Perhaps they don’t care not just because the work they do feels pointless, but because, in human terms, it mostly is. Designing new bottles for deodorants or energy drinks or finding a new loophole in the law isn’t exactly helping design, craft, build, or maintain the Sistine Chapel. Yet it’s what roughly about 75% of us do every weary day of our drab working lives. Forget the numbers and just ask yourself: if you were to walk into any corporation, would you find faces brimming over with deep fulfillment and authentic delight–or stonily asking themselves, “If it wasn’t for the accursed paycheck, would I really let imprison myself in this dungeon of the human soul?”

Seth’s Blog: Without a diverse talent pool, any society [company] will do a poor job of solving the problems that inevitably arise:

Diversity of talents and interests is central to innovation because new things are so often mixtures of old things. By rewarding only one kind of talent, colleges suppress diversity of talent and thereby reduce innovation.

Social media: An Epidemic of Insignificance – by @JayDeragon

Everywhere we turn in every form of media we are surrounded with this thing called social media. Facebook dominates magazine covers, stories, broadcast and our mobile devices “tweet” with content from ” twits”.  The human network is more consumed with reading and watching “the latest and greatest” than they are about improving real relationships. Social technology is creating the effect of “social heads in the sand” by believing popular and influential” are more important than the meaningful and significant.