IngeniousPeoplesKnowledge

We are happy and proud to launch our new Facilitation Handbook. The title “Knowledge Sharing for Change – Designing and Facilitating Learning Processes with a Transformative Impact” embodies our credo that underlies our work and in particular the events we design and facilitate: that the ultimate goal must be to bring about transformation of some sort, however that learning (in particular peer-to-peer learning) and knowledge sharing are key to such change.

The Handbook explains our own, particular approach to change processes, that builds on the idea of looking at social groups and institutions as complex systems. It contains various sections: starting with a brief general outline of how we believe we can deal with complex systems in a change context, it then draws practical conclusions on designing and delivering change events (such as workshops, meetings, conferences, …) – in particular in terms of the architecture of such events; it then creates an overview over methods and tools which allow to select and assemble them into a meaningful order that directs the event towards results.

What initally had triggered off the writing of this Handbook was the need to have some sort of “training script” for our facilitation and change trainings. We since have successfully held our first training events and are very happy about how people received and appreciated this tool. If you’re interested to learn more about possibilities and maybe a tailor-made training for your context/organisation, please touch base!

If this Handbook is useful to you, then we are very pleased. We welcome any comments, ideas, also for improvement! Please don’t hesitate to contact us!

Catherine & Marc

To download, click on the cover above or visit our “Resources & Downloads” section, where you find it under “General”

Time and again, we come back to the question of how to create a knowledge sharing culture. One of the constantly recurring points is: we need to stimulte people by building KM into the performance management frameworks, we need to provide all sorts of incentives.

Well, maybe we – once more – have been on the wrong track. Watch this – and think again…

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_pink_on_motivation.html

“We would like to dethrone measurement from its godly position, to reveal the false god it has been. We want instead to offer measurement a new job – that of helpful servant.” (M. Wheatley and M. Kellner-Rogers)

Measuring for accountability examines “what”, the products, the “things” and assumes that knowledge is a package that can be counted. Measuring for learning makes sense of the “how”, the process rather than the product, and the relations between things. Measuring is not a bad thing in and of itself, the problem emerges when measurement is used for the wrong things. Measuring is good at accounting for what we have done against what we planned and thus should be used for gauging input and outputs. However, one cannot attribute impact to input because of the complexity and therefore measuring impact is almost impossible. Measuring for accountability does not appreciate what is of greatest value and in a knowledge management environment this is likely to be a catalytic conversation or a new idea for innovation.

Within the scientific domain, “measurement reduces and standardises. In order to make sense of complex systems and processes, measurement first uses models and frameworks to reduce them to manageable segments” (Taylor, J. and Soal, S. (2003) Measurement in development practice. CRDA: South Africa, p.4). This is contrary to I-P-K’s approach which encourages complexity by inviting it into one room.

Measurement for learning can be used to improve development practice by creating a picture of what we want to achieve and once the activity is complete by taking time to reflect on why it did not go as planned or why it did not turn out as intended. This reflection and learning should be incorporated into future planning to improve practice. If this does not happen, there is no behaviour change and the project continues as it has been. This cannot for work for any development initiative. Measuring for learning can help ensure that the changes you make to your practice will make you a more effective organisation.

(Text by Margaret Jack, I-P-K)

Considering a knowledge management/ sharing strategy for your institution? You are embarking on an exciting journey that may profoundly transform your organisation. Well, in fact I feel it has to do that – and accordingly you must be ready to engage in such a transformative experience – if KM/S should be more than just an attribute. Unfortunately I have seen many organisations, which travel down the KM road because everybody else is, because this is what one needs to do and have, because donors and partners expect it. I have seen strategies that are not even worth the paper they are written on: because they have been imposed on the organisation, because nobody has real ownership, because the organisation is not profoundly convinced about the value and necessity, let alone is it ready to truly change the way it works.

Yet, there is another way, but it demands that the organisation really commits to the process and is ready to change structures and processes, but in particular values and power relations; that it dedicates some considerable resources in terms of time, energy, staff and finances – initially it is a true investment into the future. I have never ever seen some real quick fixes and quick returns that were worth the effort – but I have seen long-term changes, that have been truly rich. This means clearly that KM/S will only bear fruit after several years of consistent and convincing practice – I believe there is not one single case that proves otherwise.

Today, after all these years, I am convinced, that KM/S can have value if it involves systemic change, that includes the whole system, where all the staff is fundamental part not only in the execution, but already in the co-creation of the way forward. At its core, KM/S is a change of attitude, and that can’t be imposed to people, nor can you “sell” it to them. Consultation and seeking buy-in is not enough, it leads to inefficiency, lacking impact, lacking sustainability, disappointment. Therefore, I would choose a highly participatory, transformative process, involving all the staff to already create a strategy – not just consulting them on their needs and ideas. With some effort, such processes can be conducted very efficiently and in relatively short time, but they request the consent of the top-management to go some unconventional roads and to trust their staff. Best of all this way starts of by practicing what KM/S preaches. There is nothing more convincing than starting KM/S in a truly lived KM/S way.

KM/S must serve the purpose of empowering people in their workplace, in creating space and freedom to discover what matters to them and how they can engage, connect and build meaningful relationships to share and improve. It is about working with the whole system, to explore it together with people and understand how to improve it. There is not much value in constructing, tightly manage, control and monitor – these approaches from the “control & command paradigm” are inefficient and with little effect and impact, and much to often even detrimental, demotivating and disengaging. Just as an illustration: today we are rapidly moving away from the idea of “good/ best practices” when dealing with complex systems or situations. They are an attempt to control and standardise processes, remnants of the old, but outdated understanding of how we can achieve efficiency and effectiveness. Today we dismiss this kind of thinking, because we have learnt, that the underlying assumptions are fundamentally wrong. Knowledge is not a “thing”, which we can “capture” and transfer from one place or person to another (a “knowledge product” is an oxymoron, a paradox itself), but it is rather a process in constant transformation. If we want to have meaningful impact, we must find ways to respect this and do justice to the complex nature of our work.

After many years of practice I don’t see much value in trying to convince people. The way is to start living and applying certain practices and through alternative ways of working evoke the curiosity, desire and vision of people to go for more. In some of the most convincing cases, staff was even not really aware that they did practice a KM/S way of working, however they did notice that things changed – and they liked it. That is for me a truly promising way to go.

Sometimes, we get the feedback, that some recommendations, a paper or presentation that we do, are a bit “theoretical”. Well, that’s exactly what we are striving for: to substantiate our findings and recommendations with a conceptual framework (which by its nature is always theoretical). It’s our conviction, that many development initiatives, plans and reports are ineffective, headless and without meaning, precisely because of the lack of a conceptual/ theoretical basis. You may know, as Kurt Lewin (the father of Action Research) said, there is nothing more practical than a good theory! So we put particular emphasis and effort on overcoming this weakness – and consequently we are happy if people comment that we have successfully done so!

However, it is clear, that this may never result in simple “cookbook recipes” on what to do and how to go about a particular thing. In development work, when the complexity of situations and tasks are is too high, simple action plans and recommendations don’t work (you may know that the last space shuttle crash was partly due to ignoring the complexity of the situation, among others through bullet lists (–> PowerPoint), reductionist thinking and the like). If we would give simple recommendations in our reports, presentations etc., they would rely too much on particular moments, occurings and views. Therefore, on the opposite, we try to provide a framework, which goes beyond a particular moment or perspective. This however requires that everybody engages with it, plunges into it, puts efforts in understanding, sense-making and translating – and eventually that everybody takes ownership and responsibility for the steps to take, that conclude. There is no other way.

I-P-K has recently been asked to assess a Knowledge Management Project. The initial e-mail exchange with our client (who sketched some of the fundamental difficulties they encountered in their project) prompted me to think about what’s wrong so often? Haven’t we figure things out quite nicely?

The reason is, that quite a few of our assumptions that we build on are simply wrong, in several ways:

1. Knowledge is not a product that can be generated and then disseminated and applied. Knowledge is a process, and it must be dealt with as such. This must take into account the true nature and complexity, and either we understand and respect it appropriately or we will not move forward. Mechanistic models of Knowledge Sharing have not worked in a single case.
2. Most of the KM initiatives are supply-driven – they generate knowledge and then try to “sell” it. Almost any initiative or project on paper declares the opposite, ie. wants to be demand-driven, but just writing this into a project document is obviously not good enough. Becoming demand-driven takes a real change in approach – and the willingness of donors and implementers to shift their thinking.
3. If change and transformation in a complex situation (living system) is the purpose, then once the knowledge has been “generated”, it’s too late to carry it out and expect it to become absorbed and active. We must seriously and thoroughly acknowledge what change management, complexity science and whole system work teach us: that knowledge must not be generated by scientists and experts in isolation, but it must be co-generated by all members of a system; we can’t devise the generation process and the transformation/ action process, they must be one and the same, an integral flow.
4. This implies that those who eventually are to take an active role must be part of the generation from the first minute. We must get to a new, higher level of participation and move away from the expert culture where some tell others what the right thing is.
5. In these contexts there is no such thing as “good practices” – in our complex social/ living systems, that has been probably one of the most obstructive dead-end roads. Only situation-specific, generic solutions, created in this participatory way, can lead to change.
6. It is a delusion to think that we can measure knowledge and knowledge processes – and with it is as a matter of principle to make clear cause-effect attributions in this area.