Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Tacit knowledge elicitation_and_transfer_140315

In spirit of learning, here are slides where John Hovell (BAE) & I (Columbia) compare Knowledge Continuity (embodying knowledge for succession) and Knowledge Jam (codifying knowledge for innovation).

Tacit knowledge elicitation_and_transfer_140315

  1. 1. Tacit Knowledge Elicitation and Transfer Dimensions for selecting and understanding the different approaches Draft for discussion Revised 3/15/14 Kate Pugh, Columbia University and AlignConsulting Sharing Hidden Know-How (Jossey-Bass, 2011) John Hovell, STRATactical Making It Real: Sustainable Knowledge Management (ACPI 2013) 1Tacit Knowledge Elicitation and Transfer
  2. 2. What’s elusive about tacit knowledge and what should we pay attention to? • One of the great management ideas of the last twenty years has been to make use of the knowledge that our organization has already learned, rather than having each new team or person learn those lessons for themselves. • Managers in all types of organizations express that failure in their everyday language: “We reinvent the wheel!” or “We seem to have to keep learning that same lesson over and over.” • There are three main issues: – We have blind spots (we don’t know who know whom, who knows what, and who does what) – We have mismatches (even when we elicit knowledge, it’s not useful to the receivers) – We have jails (knowledge elicited doesn’t go anywhere – it sits on hard drives, doc stores or in people’s heads) 2Tacit Knowledge Elicitation and Transfer Image thanks to Parcel/Collison “Learning to Fly”
  3. 3. What’s elusive about tacit knowledge and what should we pay attention to? (cont’d) • The answer lies in having systematic processes. We need to: – Identify and get out tacit knowledge – Get knowledge into circulation -- putting knowledge to work • Context and purpose matter. In the following slides we talk selecting or designing an elicitation based on context: – Where does the knowledge reside? – Who’s eager to get it? – Do we understand the actual job to be done? (is it the right knowledge?) – Where does it need to go in the organization’s (or the customer’s) work? And, in what form? – How does the environment or political structure support the process? 3Tacit Knowledge Elicitation and Transfer
  4. 4. Bird’s Eye View of the Tacit Knowledge Elicitation Approaches (Using the simplest dimensions, how are the methods different?) 4Tacit Knowledge Elicitation and Transfer
  5. 5. Bird’s Eye View: Comparing Knowledge Capture-Transfer Methods Facilitation (is the elicitation facilitated?) Conversation (is it “many to many”) Translation (is knowledge get put to work in the process?) Search/Alerts Clipping services Decision-support systems After Action Review Wiki-thon Yam Jams Mentoring Discussion Forums Story telling Reporting Interview Appreciative Inquiry Knowledge Harvesting Community of Practice Master Class Retrospect Knowledge Jam, Knowledge Continuity Peer Assist 5 Instructional Design (not in graphic) Individual Journaling or Procedure Writing IBM Innovation Jam™ Tacit Knowledge Elicitation and Transfer
  6. 6. Nine Polarities for comparing knowledge elicitation approaches (Let’s go deeper. What are all of the choices?) 6Tacit Knowledge Elicitation and Transfer
  7. 7. What are our choices when we select a knowledge elicitation approach? Polarity This polarity sparks the question: 1. Group of originators/experts v. indiv. originator/expert Does the knowledge reside in the collective minds or in the individual expert? 2. Conversation (group of receivers/brokers) v. interview v. individual's diary Is the knowledge elicited as a group conversation (e.g., between originators and brokers or seekers), an interview, or just an individual doing a diary. 3. Scaffolded v. free form Is there a structure, such as an outline, or rubric for thinking about the content, or is there more spontaneity in the flow of the elicitation? 4. Facilitated v. self-facilitated by the group Is there a facilitator who is managing the process , and more importantly, the elicitation event? 5. Synchronous v. asynchronous Is knowledge emerging in real-time, e.g., through a conversation, or asynchronously, e.g., through an online discussion and discussion posts? 6. Translated v. elicited only Does the process include a formal step to translate the knowledge directly into an outcome? (Note: this is likely to correlate with #2 “Conversation,” as brokers will have a drive to move toward output. 7. Codified v. embodied Is the knowledge codified, e.g., in a word document or process flow that is the property of the collective, or is it embodied in the learners (e.g., “Nextperts’) or listeners? (In the latter sense, the listeners may do a private codification.) 8. Measured/bus. value v. ended at capture Is there an explicit step to measure the outcome of the knowledge in its next incarnation after the elicitation? 9. Sponsored and planned v. Unsponsored/Spontaneous Is the whole event planned and sponsored with the clear line to leadership, or is it more spontaneously initiated by the team? 7Tacit Knowledge Elicitation and Transfer
  8. 8. Use polarities to describe tacit knowledge elicitation and transfer Group of originators/experts Indiv. originator/expert Conversation (group of receivers/brokers) interview Individual's diary Scaffolded Free form Facilitated Self-facilitated by the group Synchronous Asynchronous Translated Elicit only Codified Embodied Measured/bus. value Ended at capture Sponsored and planned Unsponsored/Spontaneous 8
  9. 9. Knowledge Jam and Knowledge Continuity: Similar processes with different goals • Knowledge Jam and Knowledge Continuity are very similar in that they are collaborative processes for eliciting knowledge. • Knowledge is – “Codified for innovation” in Knowledge Jam – “Embodied for succession” in Knowledge Continuity • Ownership / audience targeting: – Knowledge Jam is motivated by issues around markets or cost objectives. (Thus, it is often driven by people worried about business unit or functional performance). – Knowledge Continuity is generally more motivated by issues around human capital disappearing (Thus, it is often driven by people worried about succession) Tacit Knowledge Elicitation and Transfer 9
  10. 10. Read about Knowledge Elicitation (Just some helpful references) 10Tacit Knowledge Elicitation and Transfer
  11. 11. Read About Knowledge Elicitation Sharing Hidden Know-How Book, by Katrina Pugh (Jossey-Bass, April 2011) 11Tacit Knowledge Elicitation and Transfer Making it Real: Sustaining KM Book, Edited by Annie Green (ACPI 2013)
  12. 12. Additional Reading Books • Sharing Hidden Know-How Book (Jossey-Bass, April 2011) • Making it Real: Sustaining KM Book (ACPI, 2013) Blogs • We Know More Than We Can Say (Blog by Nancy Dixon, 2013) Articles • “Don’t Just Capture Knowledge – Put It to Work,” Katrina Pugh and Nancy M. Dixon, Harvard Business Review, May 2008. (This is one page and it is free) • "Sharing Hidden Know-How," (Journal of Digital Media Management, Vol 1. No. 1, 49-54, May, 2012). • “Knowledge Jam: Three Disciplines to Beat the Merger Performance Odds,” Ivey Business Journal, July/August, 2011. • Jamming with the Institute for Healthcare Improvement “ (NASA Ask Magazine, Winter, 2011) • Quick overviews for facilitators : – Facilitator as catalyst for innovation. (Training Magazine, 2011) – Talk Trumps Text for Harvesting Hidden Know-How (IT Performance Improvement) 12Tacit Knowledge Elicitation and Transfer

    Be the first to comment

    Login to see the comments

  • webgirlcw

    Jul. 20, 2014
  • FarahDengahPMP

    Aug. 1, 2014
  • sujithnirupamal

    Oct. 27, 2014
  • RonPeters7

    Apr. 8, 2016

In spirit of learning, here are slides where John Hovell (BAE) & I (Columbia) compare Knowledge Continuity (embodying knowledge for succession) and Knowledge Jam (codifying knowledge for innovation).


Total views


On Slideshare


From embeds


Number of embeds