Last
week I was given the task by one of my work colleagues of helping her
create a new community of practice. I can't divulge the precise topic
of the community, but let's suppose it was "food poisoning". The task
was to get all of the people in Canada (a couple of hundred) whose job
it is to capture and report instances of this, to share information,
practices and challenges, so they can collaborate effectively.
Currently there is no overall national authority for what this
community does, so the objective is to get these people to self-manage
the community in a coordinated way. This is of necessity a voluntary
process – no one can mandate participation in the community because it
falls under a host of different jurisdictions, and there is no
hierarchy.
The current 'information behaviour' of the group is largely ad hoc.
Each person does what their job description and the local ordinances
and regional laws dictate. There is some peer-to-peer sharing but it
tends to be local, among people who already know each other well, and
it is done almost exclusively by e-mail. A complicating factor is that
divulging personal information to others is a criminal offence, so
there is a good reason not to
share information. Most of the people in this 'community' do not know
each other. There is considerable overlap in jurisdictional authority
and responsibilities.
Why would anyone care about creating a
community where none exists? Well, in the "food poisoning" example, if
there had been such information sharing, the tragic poisoning of
thousands of dogs and cats by Menu Foods, Nestle Purina, Del Monte,
Hills and others
might have been averted. And it's estimated that every year one out of
four people in affluent nations contracts at least one case of food
poisoning. Much of the meat we eat is contaminated with salmonella and
other toxic bacteria that thrive in the miserable conditions farmed
animals live in. And poisoning of the food supply is high on the list
of terrorism risks. So since prevention of food poisoning is, alas, not
an option, the task becomes identifying, among the hundreds of millions
of cases of food poisoning every year, the ones that will kill or
permanently sicken the most people if a recall is not instituted
quickly. It's needle in a haystack work. Important work. My colleague's prospective community of practice's work is equally important.
Suppose
we were to set up a database, a wiki, a group blog, an RSS aggregator
page, a discussion forum and other tools to allow my colleague's couple
of hundred potential community members to share knowledge and
collaborate. Would any of them use these tools? Would these tools
replace the current ad hoc
e-mail groups and peer-to-peer phone calls that are currently used for
this purpose? Would prospective users be turned off by the substantial
security front-end needed to protect confidential information? By the
unfamiliarity of wikis and blogs? By the boring yet complicated user
interface of commercial databases? And how would we deal with the fact
some people want information pushed to them (in e-mails etc.) and others prefer to go and get it from a designated site they can pull it from when they're ready?
Last year, riffing off an article by Dave Snowden, I identified
a set of four necessary preconditions for organizational innovation. By
analogy, I think they can be generalized into four necessary
preconditions for any sort of organizational behaviour change, including information behaviour change:
- a need or scarcity
- a sense of urgency
- a perspective shift (that suggests the current way of doing things is inadequate, and another way is possible)
- a capacity for change
The first two preconditions go together, and Dave Snowden calls them starvation (internal motivation) and pressure (external motivation). You need people to want to change before they will. It is very difficult to create
this sense of urgency, and those who try to do so usually find the
sense of urgency they have momentarily created disappears as soon as
they turn their backs. Generally that sense of urgency needs to be
created by some real event. We do what we must, and there is no time
left over in most of our lives for nice-to-do's.
In my
colleague's particular case there is a need, but there is no sense of
urgency. In other words, there is some personal 'starvation' but no
real pressure.
How about a perspective shift? My sense is that
new technologies, as enjoyable and intriguing as many of them are, do
not constitute a perspective shift, a significantly better way of doing
what they are doing now. They might get prospective community members
to visit once or twice out of curiosity, but (just as most new websites
and community spaces never get much traction) simply offering new
information-sharing tools is unlikely to bring about any sustained
information behaviour change.
Do the potential participants have
the capacity for change? Are they willing to trust each other, to share
peer-to-peer with people they don't know, to pay attention to people
who have no say in their performance evaluation? In my colleague's
case, unlike most groups I am familiar with, I think the answer is yes.
Her cohorts are professionals who are largely self-driven, and I think
they have great capacity for self-organization and self-management, if
the other three preconditions could be met.
But my suggestion to
my colleague is that, with only two of the four preconditions (#1 and
#4) met, her best bet is to work on #3, and then put something in place
that is ready when precondition #2 gets met by some major "food
poisoning" crisis.
How do you create a perspective shift? I think the best approach is to create a story.
This was how Steve Denning got the World Bank to see the value of a
major investment in knowledge management – he told a (true) story about
how sharing information between aid workers in two distant struggling
nations saved lives. My colleague needs to find a story about how
sharing information about "food poisoning" openly, promptly and
extensively has "saved lives". By telling and retelling that story,
putting together the tools and processes for her community to enable
them to share what they know more effectively, and then waiting
patiently for the crisis that will create the missing sense of urgency,
the community will, when it's ready, be born and flourish. Until then, I think she should keep her expectations low.
What
do you think? Am I too jaundiced about people's propensity for change?
Are there other preconditions for information behaviour change that
I've missed, or can some of the four I've identified be
short-circuited? What's the most successful sustained community of practice you've been involved with, and what has been the secret of its success?
|
MADE IN CANADA
trust your
instincts 
