toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Thanks a lot Albert. And looking forward to knowing more about the framework you put.
Meanwhile I am still struggling to give the HR an exact number of hours per year for each KM activity, and struggling more in trying to convince them to at least go by work days not working hours. Honestly the point is not only about the calculation, but it is more about explaining the reason behind time taken in many activities which can not be " reducible into documentation" as you said it.
From: "Albert Simard albert.simard@... [sikmleaders]" <sikmleaders@...>
Sent: Wednesday, 8 November 2017, 19:05
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: Calculating KM employees' productivity
The challenge, as I see it, is that HR must be able to demonstrate that everyone is treated exactly the same and by the book. There are not inconsequential legal iplications for failing to do so. And the laws are sufficiently complicaged that it requires specialists to know them. This, in turn, requires that everythiong that HR does must be reducible to documentation. There must be forms with everything spelled out, starting with recruiting posters, through position descriptions and performance evaluations to termination procedures. Even the vocabulary is carefully controlled.
I learned this the hard way when I once rated an employee whose productivity was less than half of the project average one notch below "fully satisfactory." The amount of effort and paperwork related to that individual that ensued during the following year was simply not worth the effort.
HR is not (and cannot be) well suited to addresing behavioural or social isues which are at the heart of what KM needs to function sucessfully. Behaviors such as sharing and collaboration are softer and fuzzier and much more dificult to document and measure. All-important positive or negative atitudes are difficult to quantify. "You know it when you see it" won't stand up in court! You can document that someone participated in an activity but not so much whether they helped or hindered the work of a group.
This is why I contend that desirable KM behavior rests squarely in the realm of leadership and culture - not HR. Does this mean that we should give up trying to enhance KM behaviour? Absoltely not! But taking action requires that we first understand relationships between KM, social context, and social interaction. To that end, I recently put together a framework that integratres the three processes in a way that enbles idenfying key issues and appropriate management actions. Although it is only a start, it is a step forward.