A Comprehensive "21st Century Organization Science" #name


Neil Olonoff
 

I can envision a future, holistic organization science curriculum that brings all the pieces of the puzzle together in a grand synthesis.

As a starting point: what would this future organization science be called? 

Neil Olonoff 


Simard, Albert <albert.simard@...>
 

Neil –

 

I don’t know what one would call such a science (other than “organizational science”), although most of your topics involve a social element, in contrast to contemporary management science which focuses on structure and work processes.  I’m thinking that social or socio- might have to be part.  Sounds like my current challenge of integrating structured and unstructured approaches into one knowledge services architecture. 

 

Meanwhile, I’ll pick up on your term “smart” organization.  I’ll start with a description of a smart organization compiled from a discussion in this group a couple of years ago.

 

A knowledge organization is not a collection of smart individuals.  It is collectively smart at an enterprise level.  This implies corporate-scale equivalents of what it means for an individual to be smart.  A smart organization is:

 

  • knowledgeable and competent in core areas,
  • alert and responsive to environmental stimuli,
  • astute in its perception and judgement of its environment,
  • capable of quickly learning and adapting to change,
  • proficient at recalling past experience from memory,
  • clever in finding innovative solutions to old problems,
  • imaginative at relating seemingly disparate things,
  • skilled at analysis, synthesis, and reasoning,
  • resourceful at accomplishing objectives with existing resources, and
  • articulate in explaining its positions.

 

These attributes provide a check list of the capabilities of a smart organization.  Each should be possessed in some measure, to an extent based on the specific business needs of the organization.  The knowledge services best practices provides a guide for enhancing these attributes.

 

Al Simard


Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Neil,

My view is that Knowledge Management practitioners should consider all of the components you list as within their remit, ie KM should also concern itself with Org Development, Teamwork, Coaching, Interpersonal Communications, & Meeting Management.

Therefore, finding a new name for the above would also be replacing the term "Knowledge Management" with something else. The term is quite capable of being all-inclusive; the problem lies more in KM's often-noted image and reputation problem.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Director & Principal Consultant
knowquestion Pty Ltd
E: sb@knowquestion.com.au
M: 0401 829 096
====================================

On 6/03/2013 4:16 AM, Neil Olonoff wrote:
*<http://www.linkedin.com/groups?viewMemberFeed=&gid=1824723&memberID=10338086&goback=%2Egmp_1824723>
*


Stan, and all:


I posted this question to the Federal KM Initiative LinkedIn
group, and, since I respect this group, would like to have your
reactions:


*/Can we create an enlightened "21st Century Organization Science"
that includes Knowledge Management, Org Development, Teamwork,
Coaching, Interpersonal Communications, & Meeting Management? /*

In my opinion knowledge management, though broad, is just one piece of
the "smart work" puzzle. In other words, it is not a silver bullet or
panacea. After all, if all the platform and infrastructure pieces are in
place, but there is no trust, information will not flow. Similarly,
teamwork, coaching, etc., listed above are "necessary but not
sufficient" to achieve a truly "smart" organization. Not surprising,
since organizations are not designed to be good at teaming and knowledge
sharing. They are designed to be efficient at 1) allowing management
visibility into actions 2) permitting upward reporting, and 3) similar
"scientific management" concerns. Brains at the top, worker bees at bottom.

I can envision a future, holistic organization science curriculum that
brings all the pieces of the puzzle together in a grand synthesis.

As a starting point: what would this future organization science be called?

Neil Olonoff


Simard, Albert <albert.simard@...>
 

I totally agree, Stephen.

Al Simard


gordonvalawebb <gvalawebb@...>
 

I agree heartily that the question that faces large, complex, organizations is how to be "smart" - and that this requires an inter-disciplinary approach - in my view a design-based approach rooted in integrative thinking and starting from a wicked problem perspective.

I just posted a slide deck on why our organizations are not smart and what you can do about it. To see it go to the homepage of my website: http://www.dynamicadaptation.com/ . There is other info there in my blog and under the resources tab (including a recorded webinar on the topic).

As to what to call this science? and practice? I'm not sure; how about organizational management (for really it is about how best to manage organizations).

Gordon

--- In sikmleaders@..., Neil Olonoff wrote:
>
> *
> <http://www.linkedin.com/groups?viewMemberFeed=&gid=1824723&memberID=10338086&goback=%2Egmp_1824723>
> *
> Stan, and all:
> I posted this question to the Federal KM Initiative LinkedIn group, and,
> since I respect this group, would like to have your reactions:
> *Can we create an enlightened "21st Century Organization Science" that
> includes Knowledge Management, Org Development, Teamwork, Coaching,
> Interpersonal Communications, & Meeting Management? *
>
> In my opinion knowledge management, though broad, is just one piece of the
> "smart work" puzzle. In other words, it is not a silver bullet or panacea.
> After all, if all the platform and infrastructure pieces are in place, but
> there is no trust, information will not flow. Similarly, teamwork,
> coaching, etc., listed above are "necessary but not sufficient" to achieve
> a truly "smart" organization. Not surprising, since organizations are not
> designed to be good at teaming and knowledge sharing. They are designed to
> be efficient at 1) allowing management visibility into actions 2)
> permitting upward reporting, and 3) similar "scientific management"
> concerns. Brains at the top, worker bees at bottom.
> I can envision a future, holistic organization science curriculum that
> brings all the pieces of the puzzle together in a grand synthesis.
>
> As a starting point: what would this future organization science be
> called?
>
> Neil Olonoff
>