Peer Assist – There Is Nothing Like It

As part of my consulting work for the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, I have been bringing people together to do Peer Assists. Here below is a version of what I just posted on an internal FAO blog on Peer Assist, to tell people about it, and create conditions for them to reflect on whether they can use Peer Assist in their work.

Peer Assists: Can they be useful?

In organisations that are bureaucratic, hierarchical, silo-ed and with little trust, it can be common to be faced with a problem and to not know whom to turn to for advice and solutions. It can also be common to know whom to turn to yet find it difficult or impossible to approach them. Not fun, right?

In such situations, Peer Assists are a simple way via which to reach out to others we need the advice of. Peer Assists can break down organisational barriers creating conditions for what we know to be accessed by those who need it and when. Peer Assists can be useful, yes!

Peer Assists: What are they, really?

Some of you would already know about Peer Assists: Peer Assist is a knowledge sharing technique which can be used within and across organisations, groups and teams. Central to a Peer Assist is that a peer (i.e., a colleague, a team-mate, a friend) is faced with a problem to which she/he can not find a solution. (Sounds familiar …?) This is why a Peer Assist is organised during which a group of assisters (ideally not more than 8-10) brainstorm perspectives and solutions to the problem of their peer. Simple, right? Yes, it certainly is not rocket science, just common good sense. Then why not do more Peer Assists …? Here is how:

Peer Assists: How to do them?

• Do you have a problem that seems unsolvable? Do not despair. First, articulate your problem clearly. The more specific you are, the better.
• Discuss the problem with your peers and/or your informal network. Be practical in whom you approach. Explain that you need to find people who may have perspectives and/or could be able to offer solutions to the problem. Is it about putting together an intranet for your department? Or is it about creating a newsletter for your network? Or is it about training your staff in and/or sensitizing your managers to a particular skill/approach?
• Search for people (in other departments, and partner organisations) who may have tried something similar (be it successfully, or not). Use your judgement yet also heavily lean on your intuition in who would be a good assister for your to consult. Be proactive, ask for help, and listen.
• Once you have found and approached your assisters, find a facilitator for the Peer Assist. (It is important that this is not you!) Anyone who has had experience facilitating and/or is a good facilitator can facilitate the peer-assist. They would just need to be familiar with the process. One key thing for them to know is give all assisters a voice during the peer-assist discussion. (A good description of the process is given by this short video:www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObmQyW3EiiE
• Bring everyone (yourself, assisters, facilitator) together at a particular time. Do not allocate more than two hours for the exercise (maximum time for people to stay focused and contribute).
• Do the Peer Assist: At this point, the facilitator will take over from you. She/he will ask you to explain your problem, after which she/he will enable a discussion take place among you and the assisters on how to possibly approach and solve the problem. If all goes well, you will get a lot of practical ideas and suggestions, energised by the fact that all assisters have been discussing their approaches and perspectives not only with you, but also among themselves.
• Ok, you’ve done it! Now implement the ideas and suggestions that are best for your case.

Peer Assists: Examples? 

Here are a few examples of Peer Assist being used at the Food and Agriculture Organisation:

1. In May 2008, a group of colleagues from FAO assisted the Right to Food team in whether and how to organise an e-conference prior to the Right to Food conference.
2. In October 2008, a group of colleagues from FAO, FAO RAP, ILO, CGIAR, and external consultants, assisted colleagues in the FAO Trinidad and Tobago regional office on how to go about organising a knowledge fair.
3. In November 2008, a group of colleagues from FAO assisted the EasyPol team on how to market the EasyPol service to interested users.
4. In January 2009, a group of colleagues from and outside of FAO assisted the Cashmere Forum team on how to go about enabling and sustaining a geographically distributed knowledge community. This happened during the Share Fair: http://sharefair2009.blogspot.com/search/label/peer-assist

Peer Assists: More information

A concise yet full description of Peer Assist can be found on the ks toolkit wiki, here: http://www.kstoolkit.org/Peer+Assists

 

Now go Peer-Assisting/Peer-Assisteeing!!

Avatar Anxiety …? And Ways to Overcome It!

Somebody just brought an interesting article to my attention: ”Sharing is Creepy” by Nicolas Carr. In a nutshell, in it Nicolas discusses the supposedly soon-to-be-recognised psychiatric syndrome ”avatar anxiety”, or the anxiety that sometimes people may experience if they:

- either refrain from behaving online under the form of twittering, posting information on their online profiles, and engaging in online discussions, or

- they overtly and abundantly engage in such online behaviours.

http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2009/01/sharing_is_cree.php

Apparently, the fact that online behaviour is somewhat removed from the self and so does not let its genuine expression leads some people to experience anxiety to quite extreme degrees.  In my opinion, this is not because there is something wrong with those people but rather because of the set-up in which they live or have created for themselves.

Twittering, posting on online profiles like Facebook and LinkedIn, sharing photos and engaging in online discussions can greatly optimise how we live life yet are not life, our life, ultimately. What motivates online behaviours of any sort is the desire to be with, communicate with, share things with people per se, in other words, desire to see and get to know people. In this sense being online can optimise our being ourselves, yet it can not be our being ourselves. 

Online communication is limited in how much it can convey. Online communication only makes sense in the context of other forms of communication as the latter gives us references and clues with regards to how things stand between us and other people. The latter forms of communication tell us how much to give away and how much to not give away when we communicate online. I guess this may be something to not loose sight of when engaging in online behaviours.

In other words, ”avatar anxiety” has a solution called ‘’seeing the big picture”.

 

Enabling Organisational Learning Through Knowledge Sharing

… or Why it is Good to First Lay the Egg(s), then Let the Hen(s) ”Happen” …

… Or Start with the Seeds, then Let the Plants Grow …

Eggs and Hens are funny things. As the saying goes (”Who comes first, the chicken (or hen), or the egg?”), we do not quite know which one is first. This is probably because there is no first, or last, in the circle (or cycle) of life. All goes into everything else and then comes right out of it.

Yet, there is a certain sequence in terms of some entities preceding others, and others following on them. This sequence is not exactly time-bound as all the entities that are part of a particular circle can be experienced simultaneously at any one time as they are then. Still, they can be influenced, too, which would affect the ones after and before them, and the whole circle (or cycle), and thus the integrated experience of that cycle, at any one time.

You are probably wondering, what is all that about? Well, as I’ve already mentioned in the title of this post, it is about Organisational Learning and Knowledge Sharing, in fact, about enabling, or just influencing, the former through the latter. We can think of knowledge sharing as eggs laid in the organisation (strategically, or not so much). We can also think of it as seeds that you plant here and there, strategically, or not so much. Then the result would be chickens, some of which may be hens which would lay more eggs. To follow the other allegory, the result would be plants which would yield yet more seeds. The chickens, hens, or plants can be seen as the dynamics of learning. To think of organisations, then they can be seen as the dynamics of organisational learning.

There will always be eggs, and seeds which yield chickens and plants. Sometimes, though, we can enable, or just influence the sort of eggs, or the type of seeds, and thus enable, or just influence, the chickens and plants. In the same way, through knowledge sharing, we can enable, or just influence, organisational learning.

Why enabling, or just influencing? Because Organisational Learning, and learning, per se, can not be prescribed, only conditions for it to truly unfold (as it would) can be created. … In other words, you can not tell people to learn. Everything which goes in and out in learning, in this case through people, you can not prescribe. Yet you can create conditions for it, you can enable certain set-ups, bring in components you can bring, then see what happens. Belief in what can happen is useful too, as is steering the course of the process according with your belief. In this though, you should be open to experiencing the process of collective knowing. Unless you do this, you would be switched off from the collective learning process.

Perhaps this helps to understand:

And this:

(It is better to try to imagine what is seen, rather than just seeing it. Try.)

(And, in any case, these are just approximations.)

Because the cycles we are talking about here are not exactly, or not only, biological, then any such can also be enabled through the chickens, hens, and seeds. My argument here is that, for an effective organisational learning cycle, and a bigger dynamic system (i.e., complex adaptive system), to come into place, it is necessary to start with the eggs and then let the chickens and hens ”happen”. Or, start with the seeds and then let the plants grow. Should you start with the hens, or the plants, a cycle would be enabled, for sure, yet I would question whether this would be an effective organisational learning cycle (as explained above). Why? Because you would be diverging from what enables a complex adaptive system.

For example, imagine an organisation needs to define its strategic direction for the next five years. I guess it can do this in one of two ways:

1. It will put together a strategy from within the Office of the Executive Director, and then put this on the corporate website.

2. It will state the need for defining a strategic direction. Then it will organise a few workshops, run a few surveys, create conditions for people to talk to each other about this in the context of everything else, try to train people in complexity using the issue at hand. On the overall, it will enable a collective conversation, constantly facilitating that process. In result, the strategic direction will emerge collectively. Various lines of business (or divisions and units, thinking of the more rigid public sector formats) will continue working in this very discursive mode. It may never be written, yet it may not have to be. The organisation will continuously know its strategic direction and work accordingly.

I let you choose which one you prefer.

In the cycle of organisations, somebody is always sharing something with somebody else, and so somebody always gets to learn about something. You can not quite learn something unless somebody has shared something with you, i.e., some information, some announcement, some training, some gossip, some experience. Still, what is being shared, and among whom, has a great importance for what is being learnt, on what scale, and with what potential impact for the work of the organisation. Sharing creates conditions for people to construct their own learning, as individuals and as organisation. Once again, learning needs to take place in this, i.e., enabled, not enforced.

More on how exactly this can happen, i.e., what would be the more concrete descriptors of knowledge sharing, and of organisational learning, in later posts.

To side-track a little bit, following the ’egg -> chickens/seeds -> plants’ model, chickens will not always be hens, and plants will not ever be of one and the same type. This makes for an incredibly complex organisational learning picture. Yet, as it all things that live, this one’s bound to be that way, too, if it were to be that.

Knowledge Share Fair 2009: What Worked Well, and Why

I had the good fortune to participate in the organisation and ”delivery”  of a Knowledge Share Fair jointly organised by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the World Food Programme (WFP), the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and Bioversity International. The Share Fair took place on Jan 20 – 22 2009 in the FAO HQ in Rome. The purpose of it, as I understand it, is two fold:

1. Create conditions for the people in the participating organisations to see what others are doing within their own organisation and also across the organisations. In this way, people would see linkages between their own work and that of others, and, if they are so willing, build on shared visions and eliminate duplications.

2. Show those who were at the Fair how different knowledge sharing methods, and tools, can be applied to the work that they do. These methods (like chat shows, peer-assists, after action reviews, fishbowls, etc.), and tools (like blogs, discussion forums, RSS, wikis, etc.), if they are used, introduce more of a dynamic set up to how people work. They encourage thinking together, discussion, and dialogue. They also encourage lateral thinking, collaboration, networking and leadership. (All of which are prerequisites for innovation.)

Interestingly, the purpose behind the Share Fair was not in any way more specific.  It was all about: ”We create the conditions for you to construct your own meanings.”

Throughout the weeks approaching the Fair, we were in a big heat preparing it:

- We went through 160 or so cases people at the participating organisations had submitted in order to share with others at the Fair. Based on this we combined the cases in an agenda. These cases were projects and ideas having something to do with knowledge sharing, according to how the person, or group of persons who is behind the case, understands knowledge sharing.

- The domains and cross-cuts of domains from where the projects and ideas came were incredibly various which we could nevertheless group under eight general Share Fair themes. Looking at these shows what the sharing of knowledge, as a concept, was being referred to in the cases we received. Sometimes this would be down to databases and information systems. In other cases, this would be down to development of institutions and partnerships. In yet other cases, this would be down to empowering local communities. We extracted those themes in order to make easier the communication of the rich content that underlied the Fair.

- We created a brochure summarising key information about the Fair which was sorted by theme.

- A key aspect to the Fair was FACILITATION. We invited a team of experienced facilitators to help with the flow of the Fair in order to achieve on the purpose I explain above.

- We worked on the logistics of organising the Fair on the FAO premises, in terms of planning and setting up the Fair space layout (booths, information points, registration, bar, cosy corners). We also booked meetings rooms and assigned sessions to each.

- We recruited, trained and coached more than 40 volunteers to help with the running of the Fair throughout its three days.

As I guess you can see, all of the above were quite a task that a group of key people and the Share Fair Steering Committee had to meet. Did we succeed? I think we did:

What worked well?
- at least 700 people participated in the Fair, in the end;
- all sessions were full with the sessions that introduced to and trained people on how to use knowledge sharing tools being the most popular;
- some people made useful connections by going to sessions that interest them and/or seeing people at the bar;
- some people have discovered that others in different divisions and/or organisations are working on very similar projects!
- people have now asked for more Share Fairs;
- some people have got feedback on their work and projects which has helped to put them on a better track;
- some people have decided they could run their events, and meetings, differently from mere conferences and/or power point presentations;
- in addition to the planned agenda, there were sessions that were planned ”on the spot” as part of an open space, thus encouraging sharing and learning from the bottom-up even beyond what we had planned.

Why did it work well?
- The team spirit that we had was incredibly good. Everyone took leadership in what they did. Volunteers, Facilitators, Steering Committee: all did a very good job.
- The facilitation which was a key aspect to the event was excellent. For the most part, we had very good facilitators who, through their style, approach, and curiosity, helped to push people to talk and do things differently and pull perspectives and opinions out of them that they may have not otherwise thought to share.
- Those who participated in the Fair were incredibly positive and open about what they know, in addition to enjoying the experience! They were curious, constructive and critical and willing to emerge themselves in different way of working that is more fun.
- The leadership of all organisations endorsed the Fair and encouraged all their staff to actively engage and participate, explaining this is both work, and fun (and so better work!).

And … concluding hopes!
I am happy I have been part of organising the Share Fair. This is because I think it was planned and happened as it should have, i.e., it was not top-down and/or orchestrated, just enabled.
For it to truly have worked, it should also go towards achieving the following:

- Show the organisations a path of continuous learning and, importantly, innovation.  Encourage people to start walking that path.

- Enable a ‘’shift” in how the participating organisations do business, a shift  following on which they are better equipped with skills and approaches helping them do what they do better and be more relevant.

- Understand that individuals, and their interests, are of increasing importance to the business of any organisation. The way in which organisational systems can support the evolution of individuals’ interests is by having organisational systems that are organic, like communities of practice.

- Flatten hierarchies and communication structures.

- Encourage facilitatory leadership (coming from the top) and distributed leadership (coming from the bottom, and everywhere!).

- Bring about culture systems that support knowledge sharing and organisational learning.

- Change the focus from ”command and control” to ”initiative and innovation”.

- Encourage the collective building of a business case for knowledge sharing, and networking.

- Change the focus of monitoring and evaluation from outputs and outcomes to processes and structures.

With all that being said … what’s next?
Follow-up!

ROI on Knowledge Management

A discussion on how to demonstrate ROI on knoweldge management has just started on LinkedIn. The discussion is taking place within one of my LinkedIn groups, ”KM Experts”. You can find it here if you are also a member of ”KM Experts”:

http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&gid=47726&discussionID=20983&commentID=21237&goback=.hom

 

The discussion is interesting, and so is the topic. Here is what I’ve just posted:

 

”To really demonstrate ROI on KM, you would have to be strategic about KM and what is being achieved through the KM methods and tools one is bringing about in the organisation. Why KM? … Once the answer to this question is clear, you can design all sorts of measures and tools (such as the ones suggested by Celso and Patrick) through the results of which to link KM to financial performance. My argument is that the strategy/strategic vision behind KM is what will determine the metrics and more importantly what you will measure using them.

 

The problem with ROI is that it is a quantitative measure which means it is very specific. The nature of KM, though, does not lend itself to specific measures. You can not measure KM, per se, using quantitative measures. KM, by its nature, and for it to work, is broad, multiple, rich, and transformative – not just about sharing documents!! In this way, linking KM to ROI in a direct fashion, in order to evaluate the success of the KM programmes, is, according to me, impossible. You should not be trying to do this. It will divert your attention from what you should be looking at, really.

 

Still, what you can do is 1. measure KM in a qualitative way, 2. then second-measure some of the qualitative outputs in a quantitative way and link those to ROI. Off course, any ROI on KM estimate you would ever have would only be an indication, at the particular time, of how successful the KM is!! The real and true benefits of KM strategies and approaches span across at least a few years! If well done, these would be increasing with the advancement of the years. ”

 

How to Talk about Knowledge Management

I recently read an excellent paper by Mark Schenk, Shawn Callahan and Andrew Rixon. You can access it here.

What is good about this paper is that it is just sweet and punchy. It goes straight at the heart of what is knowledge, and knowledge management. It does this by, paradoxically, not explaining knowledge and knowledge management, and not trying to. It simply draws the picture many organisations face with regards to what referrents (such as data, databases, and the like, as well as culture, whatever people understand by this) they can use in order to enable the sharing of knowledge and catalyse its management by the organisation.

The paper pinpoints the fact that knowledge, and knowledge management, are hard to pin down and, in such a way, can not really be managed. It also pinpoints the fact that data and tools are a lot less important to knowledge and learning in organisations, in sharp contrast to organisational culture.

The thing is that, unless the organisational culture is right for knowledge, sharing and learning, nothing else will be right in order for an organisation to be a knowledge-based, and a learning, organisation. And, because of the characteristics of knowledge, it is not possible to enable a culture of sharing, and learning, and hence knowledge management, unless you recognise that knowledge is fluid, that the major part of knowledge processes is about tacit knowledge, and that you can not really capture, and codify it …

This brings me to the thought I read somewhere, by somebody (I am very sorry to not remember where and who) concerning the need to refer to knowledge leadership instead of knowledge management. I would agree with this completely, simply because, in order to be a good knowledge manager, one does need to posses a lot of the ’’soft skills”  usually attribited to good leaders and not necessarily good managers. As we know, management and leadership are far from one and the same (Kotter) from the point of view of skill, knowledge and intuition, despite that, in good organisations, these complement each other in a reinforcing interplay.

Here is how the authors of the paper explain this:

Increased understanding of organisational culture, using approaches such as narrative techniques (see our website at www.anecdote.com.au for details), social network analysis, open space technology and other participative approaches which help the organisation to become self-aware, is important in creating an environment that enables more value to be extracted from knowledge and information resources.

 

Some favourite quotes:

”Knowledge is that relatively intangible resource within every individual. The very intangibility of knowledge works against its effective use in many organisations because it does not lend itself to the process-focused and reductionist approaches of industrialage companies.”

“You can’t do knowledge management until you accept that you can’t manage knowledge”.

”Efficiency encourages codification; effectiveness encourages lower levels of codification and greater flexibility. The more you attempt to codify and capture knowledge as information, the more you reduce flexibility, the more you fossilise it.”

 

“trust is the bandwidth of knowledge sharing”