Workflow support of triage and sensemaking to ensure collected knowledge is reused #question #knowledge-reuse


Stan Garfield
 

I received this question in response to my latest blog post on workflow process. How would you respond?

>Wondering about the process of maintaining (prioritizing) captured knowledge. For example, with each project manager submitting a lessons learned summary for each project, how does the workflow support triage and sensemaking to ensure collected knowledge is put to best use?


Nick Milton
 

Workflow would generally entail forwarding each lesson to the relevant community or subject matter expert, so their body of knowledge could be updated

 

Nick Milton

 

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Stan Garfield
Sent: 29 August 2021 12:09
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: [SIKM] Workflow support of triage and sensemaking to ensure collected knowledge is reused #question #knowledge-reuse

 

I received this question in response to my latest blog post on workflow process. How would you respond?

>Wondering about the process of maintaining (prioritizing) captured knowledge. For example, with each project manager submitting a lessons learned summary for each project, how does the workflow support triage and sensemaking to ensure collected knowledge is put to best use?


Retha Prinsloo
 

Alas, knowledge isn't automatically re-used, e.g. when pushed to potential users thereof. I've heard these lament before: "I gave input to the lessons learnt, but management doesn't listen." or "We have lots of lessons learnt but no-one ever looks at it because they have to wade through a lot of info that is irrelevant to their requirements."

I guess synthesis and repackaging is required to make the lessons more 'consumable'. And then it has to be 'marketed' via both push & pull activities, e.g. a bite-sized comment on a channel like a Yammer group that links to the *full page or document, updated FAQs, etc. (*I'm always careful of full duplication on different channels as version control becomes a nightmare, hence recommending to link back to the 'one version of the truth' item).


Valdis Krebs
 

Hi Stan,

Unfortunately "WHAT knowledge" was learned/utilized is never sufficient.  The future will always be in a different context than the past/present. WHAT without WHO will not be that useful, nor actually utilized.  It is key to know the WHO(s) were involved/key so that a sense-making conversation can be had to adapt the previous context/learning to the current project/needs.  Have seen WHAT+WHO combo work out for many clients.

Valdis

Valdis Krebs
Orgnet, LLC
http://orgnet.com/about.html
valdis@...


 

Good observations Retha

 

This may be a longer share than you expected.  I would suggest that knowledge can be viewable from a “use” and “flow” perspective . .. that it can be both fluid and “objective” with context providing “subjectivity for its use/reuse.”    Searching for Knowledge (information + experience), Finding K, Accessing K, Downloading K, and reusing in the context in which you need it is a function of the value you believe it provides in its ability to solve your problem or challenge, or to help one make a better decision.  

 

As you mention below Retha, the ability to characterize for reuse, to distill lessons learned (sense making) and to characterize these learnings in the context of those who would use/be using it is essential to making that K more consumable, by being more context relevant to that seeker/user.  Knowledge must provide expected value to the seeker/user for it to be relevant, at that time or in the future. So it can change for many reasons (expired, updated, et al) .  Relevance is value which is why I view KM as a process of continuous renewal.

 

Just one more view to consider.

 

PS if you are interested I can also share some insights on the “Friction of Knowledge Transfer” facing knowledge users.

 

Best

 

Bill

 

 

  

 

Learn more about the solutions and value we provide at www.workingknowledge-csp.com

 

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Retha Prinsloo via groups.io
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 07:40
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Workflow support of triage and sensemaking to ensure collected knowledge is reused #question #knowledge-reuse

 

Alas, knowledge isn't automatically re-used, e.g. when pushed to potential users thereof. I've heard these lament before: "I gave input to the lessons learnt, but management doesn't listen." or "We have lots of lessons learnt but no-one ever looks at it because they have to wade through a lot of info that is irrelevant to their requirements."

I guess synthesis and repackaging is required to make the lessons more 'consumable'. And then it has to be 'marketed' via both push & pull activities, e.g. a bite-sized comment on a channel like a Yammer group that links to the *full page or document, updated FAQs, etc. (*I'm always careful of full duplication on different channels as version control becomes a nightmare, hence recommending to link back to the 'one version of the truth' item).


Robert M. Taylor
 

Nick's answer was great. At an organisation I worked in we set up such a system. I can't say I thought it was the very best option but it was the feasible option that the culture was open to. As part of their winding-up process projects could escalate items of different kinds (problems, solutions, requests, suggestions etc) through a simple online form which also asked a subject to be selected which then triggered which owners' list the item would be added to (e.g. HR, Finance etc) and who would be email pinged about it (the members of those teams). Further fields meant those items could be tracked by status, dates and notes added to see what the outcome was. The aim was to make sure that lessons ("lessons") didn't just end up in a list somewhere but would be assessed by the right parties for whether a change needed to be made in company processes, rules, standards, support etc as a result. The strength or weakness of these kinds of processes always depends on whether the organisation really "does process" and most do not. If they have quality assurance then you can also try to add assurance to make sure the process gets followed. These different groups needed to convene regularly to review, decide and action the items raised and this can be patchy and too much for the KMer to track it all if they don't. In one successful instance, the head of delivery took a lateral view across all the reports from all the projects that had run into some major problem, and concluded, from looking at all these cases, that they were all fatally doomed to failure due to common problems from their very start. This led to a large campaign to implement specific standards at project inception to avert these problems and the occurrence of 'red' projects declined markedly in the following year. But the point is that this group really 'got' process and there was a strong assurance process to ensure process changes were effective. This isn't always the case. So it's not just mechanical workflow but the habit and culture of seeing these things thru.


Andrew Farnsworth
 

This was my original question to Stan, and I really appreciate all the thoughtful answers. This thread raises more questions though!!

In a smaller organization that had implemented process management, would the process manager/regulator be a suitable stand-in for a Community/SME/Knowledge Manager? I'm imagining this regulator to be the person holding the process reigns, with the autonomy to make changes in the way the work is done. They would have the ability to triage lessons learned / issues raised throughout the course of the work, assess the relevance/importance, forward to regulators of dependent processes, etc.

Is AI any use yet in this regard? I imagine the automated merge of a new lesson learned with an existing body of knowledge based on set rules and reviewed by some assigned person.


Dennis Thomas
 

Hello Stan and Andrew,

I like the complexity of both questions because they go right to the heart of the KM challenge: "how does the workflow support triage and sensemaking to ensure collected knowledge is put to best use?  Would the process manager/regulator be a suitable stand-in for a Community/SME/Knowledge Manager?

Stan, your use of the term triage means that you are thinking about an ad hoc, in-the-moment, sorting of knowledge content to find lessons-learn knowledge. This means grouping content, as others have suggested, into rational categories related to workflows (here’s the situation, here’s the problem, here’s the solution), and being able to find and access that knowledge many times over, and hopefully, in multiple languages.  

I am working on this problem now related to a patient triage assessment analysis tool that can answer the question for 77 triage potentialities.  It starts with the statement:  “I don’t feel well.”   This problem has two components.  First, I see the programming challenge as requiring a NO CODE solution so operations people and KM’ers can use common language and Controlled Vocabularies with a mouse to both find what they need and submit new lessons-learned and modifications of existing content..  And, secondly, it should require only a KM - oriented person, or a basic systems administrator to manage. 

So far, it works.   Though having gone through the process, "I don’t feel very well.”  So you ask, “do I have a fever over 100º?   “No.”  

The next question is, how is such a system integrated into workflow(s).  I have the solution for that as well, but would rather not mention anything until our programming staff has our version 3.0 tool ready for market - September 2021 they tell me?  

Dennis L. Thomas
IQStrategix
(810) 662-5199

Leveraging Organizational Knowledge 


On August 31, 2021 at 8:54:17 AM, Andrew Farnsworth (agfarnsworth@...) wrote:

how does the workflow support triage and sensemaking to ensure collected knowledge is put to best use?


Retha Prinsloo
 

Hi Bill,

I like the concept of info + experience as it can hopefully connect the potential user with the person/s who experienced and learnt from a situation.

We built a large knowledge portal a few years ago & recognized that the author or person who uploaded the documents or links to videos, were not necessarily the subject matter expert (SME). We thus created options to add the names of SMEs, both external persons or company names as well as employees' names. It was a solution built on MS SharePoint, so the status indicator made it easy for someone accessing the portal to click & reach out to an SME via an instant message or one of the other contact mechanism in the directory. The search indexing also indexed the metadata so searching for an SME name would retrieve content that did not necessarily include the person's name, but that was associated with the SME.

Please share some insights on the “Friction of Knowledge Transfer” facing knowledge users. I think all of us on this forum can learn from it.

Appreciated
Retha


 

Hey Retha!

 

Thank you for your interest in this.  Your perspective appreciated.

 

Quick Summary: Increasing context in knowledge transfer increases the opportunity for better understanding, application, and use/reuse.  For example, (top) F2F is very effective at communicating high level concepts and complexity, like between an SME/knowledge seeker whereas (bottom) search/find/repository access for a knowledge seeker could likely be less effective because the context of the learned lesson or insight might not be readily apparent nor understand. Interactive knowledge repositories, for example, with rich and varied content bridges the gap between F2F and repository challenges for real time collaboration and knowledge sharing particularly if sources of knowledge provided are detailed for follow up. This does not cover all scenarios but the concepts have proven valuable to clients over the years in demonstrating value creation from (one’s own) knowledge.

 

Glad to discuss this further if you wish. 

 

Bill

 

 

  

 

Learn more about the solutions and value we provide at www.workingknowledge-csp.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Retha Prinsloo via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, September 1, 2021 04:31
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Workflow support of triage and sensemaking to ensure collected knowledge is reused #question #knowledge-reuse

 

Hi Bill,

I like the concept of info + experience as it can hopefully connect the potential user with the person/s who experienced and learnt from a situation.

We built a large knowledge portal a few years ago & recognized that the author or person who uploaded the documents or links to videos, were not necessarily the subject matter expert (SME). We thus created options to add the names of SMEs, both external persons or company names as well as employees' names. It was a solution built on MS SharePoint, so the status indicator made it easy for someone accessing the portal to click & reach out to an SME via an instant message or one of the other contact mechanism in the directory. The search indexing also indexed the metadata so searching for an SME name would retrieve content that did not necessarily include the person's name, but that was associated with the SME.

Please share some insights on the “Friction of Knowledge Transfer” facing knowledge users. I think all of us on this forum can learn from it.

Appreciated
Retha


Raquel Balceiro
 

Hi, Stan,

At Petrobras, we are always concerned about how to perpetuate knowledge in engineering processes and projects, mainly. Once we collected knowledge in workshops where we gathered the workforce involved in that project or process, these knowledge items received treatment and were analyzed by a team that made combinations with the knowledge contained in the organization's knowledge bases.


Since the Subject Matter Experts evaluated that this knowledge should be disseminated, they were either rewritten in the form of Lessons Learned and Points of Attention, and became available to teams from other projects, or they were incorporated into procedures, checklists, in our Management Manual, or in the Anomaly Management systems, in such a way that we avoid redundancies, but, at the same time, we could improve organizational practices with good local practices.


Subsequently, through the Community of Practices, employees began to send their Lessons Learned, Good Practices and Points of Attention to a specific SME, identified through a previous taxonomy. Thus, as the knowledge items were submitted, they were immediately evaluated and incorporated, if applicable, not requiring a workshop to collect them.


When contributions decreased, knowledge management teams started an interview process to collect these knowledge items, so that the knowledge generated in a project or process was not restricted among the collaborators involved.


Regards,


Raquel Balceiro

Petrobras


Em dom., 29 de ago. de 2021 às 08:08, Stan Garfield <stangarfield@...> escreveu:

I received this question in response to my latest blog post on workflow process. How would you respond?

>Wondering about the process of maintaining (prioritizing) captured knowledge. For example, with each project manager submitting a lessons learned summary for each project, how does the workflow support triage and sensemaking to ensure collected knowledge is put to best use?