In this article, Kate Simpson, national director of knowledge management at Bennett Jones LLP, discusses new techniques for managing tacit knowledge. Simpson defines tacit knowledge as the personal experiences and deliberate practice by individuals built up over their 10,000 hours on the knowledge ladder of expertise. Knowledge managers have debated the best ways in which to extract tacit knowledge and convert it into recorded, explicit, knowledge for decades. Simpson discusses three new techniques that could be used for this conversion:
- Guided Practice: practice over the course of 10,000 hours is what creates experts… Deliberate or guided practice requires reflection and commitment to improvement as well as with an expert who can provide performance feedback throughout the learning process.
- Guided Observation: to understand what someone actually does you must observe. There is a notorious gap between what people say they do and what they actually do.
- Guided Experimentation: developing simulations allow lawyers to practice what they have learned and to test theories and experiment with different approaches (presumably, this approach could be modified for different environments).
This article by Naomi Schaefer Riley discusses email addiction amongst workers. I think most of us are aware of this phenomenon: The feeling that we must check our work email in the evenings, on weekends, and even on our holidays. We compulsively check our email several times a day, which can have a negative effect on our productivity. You can’t sit in any meeting without seeing at least half of the members checking their email. We are being told increasingly that most of us do not multitask well. I was a conference last week, where most of the audience during a plenary presentation had their necks down as they worked on their mobile devices; I doubt most of them were taking notes related to what they were hearing. It struck me as rude, in fact, that so few people were giving the speaker their full attention.
Riley mentions a French law passed recently that gives employees “the right to disconnect.” Companies with more than 50 employees must allow workers to go home in the evenings or on weekends without having to check in electronically. I’m not sure why companies with fewer employees were not included in this law, as this means that these employees would not enjoy the same privileges. While my email practices are not protected by law, sadly, I adopted my own policy over the past two years of not checking my work email after 6:00 pm, on weekends, and on holidays (I use an away message). Many people I know say that they check emails during their holidays because they want to avoid a full inbox when they return to work. I have disciplined myself not to do so. My away message makes it clear that I will not read my email when I am on holidays, so I find that many people do not send me a lot of emails while I am away. Further, from past experience, I know that once I read work emails during my holidays, I feel obliged to answer them, which means my relaxed state often goes out the window. I have learned that setting boundaries around my time is a sign of self-respect, and allows me to have a healthier perspective on work and life priorities. I would like to think that there is more to my life than my job, regardless of how much I love it.
In this article, Robert Seiner talks about the difference between the states of data anarchy and governance. Seiner points to the large amounts of personal data that each of us generates, often without being aware of doing so, and the state of anarchy in which this data exists. This state of affairs exists similarly for business data. Seiner distinguishes between data anarchy and data governance as follows:
- There is no clearly defined formal accountability for the definition, production, and use of data.
- There is no one responsible for overseeing subject matters of data as a cross-business asset.
- There is no formal process for escalating data issues to a strategic level that makes decisions.
- There are irresponsible investments and management of high profile data-related projects.
- There are inefficient/ineffective processes associated with leveraging data for decision-making.
- People that handle data are uncertain of the rules associated with sensitive data.
- People that [sic] define, produce, and use data are held formally accountable for following the documented and communicated rules associated with defining, producing and using the data.
- There are people that have the responsibility for managing data across business areas, business functions, and major data integration projects.
- There is formal accountability for following an agreed upon process to escalate data issues to the appropriate level of the organization.
- Investments and high-profile data integration projects are strongly vetted with an intent focus on the data requirements of the organization.
- Business and technical processes associated with managing data are formalized, and people are held accountable for following the processes.
- People that [sic] handle the data are well-versed and audited in following the rules associated with protecting sensitive data.
Seiner suggests that many organizations are in a state of data anarchy: The truth is that many organizations know what they want but they don’t know how to get it. Organizations must move from data anarchy to data governance if they want to get the most value out of their data. It’s all in the data.