How a Memory Palace Fuels the Elevator Speech

My apologies for the mixed metaphor in the title, but I’m pressed for time these days.  I certainly need to improve my blogging frequency, monthly just does not cut it with me.

My 'Other' Memory Palace

My 'Other' Memory Palace

We recently began to settle on a strategy story line at our little shop, to capture our approach to improving life options for children of color and poverty through education transformation.  Even that is a mouthful, but it gets harder.  Ready?  We aim to:

Accelerate achievement for these children through system redesign in order to realize a personalized learning experience for each child.  We will pursue this by working in a network of selected districts established under umbrella ‘innovation zones,’ connected by a common information services platform.  We will deliver frameworks for innovation in education and specific tools that have proven effective – recognizing a spirit of both experimentation and measurement.  We will work to establish lasting networks for sustained innovation across the educational system, improving the probabilities that innovation will lead to systemic transformation.  We don’t want to lock in our 21st century understanding of learning – we are currently locked into a 19th century approach and have learned the hard lesson of stagnant markets for education.

Whatever you think of the paragraph above (and how many floors would that elevator ride take to explain?), I am able to recite it at will because the pieces live in my childhood home on Long Island.

Allow me to elucidate.

Borrowing from Matteo Ricci and reaching back to 1596, I first rely on the accidental blueprint in my head regarding the home in which I spent my first 16 years (and then a few additional years, but that is a story for a different blog).  As I first heard and talked through our strategy, I walked through my home and placed artifacts or built structures to remind me of the elements.

Walking in my front door, I head first upstairs – in the bathroom I have placed a speedometer to reflect Acceleration.  We were a family of six, with one and one-half baths.  Acceleration was something often requested of the inhabitant.  Walking to the back bedroom, I find Personalization because my sister once painted the walls a hideous blue that refuses to leave my memory.  Walking back up the hall, I stop at the bedroom I used as a teenager.  Here is where I used to exit the home using the window, sliding down the garage roof for post-curfew appointments.  Of course, this reflects System Redesign.  In the smaller front bedroom, I placed imaginary scaffolding to reflect how much I wanted to rebuild the room when sleeping there as a small child.  Hence, Frameworks.  In the fourth bedroom are many boxes containing – the Tools.  The man of the house had been packed up and moved out when I was 11 years old, hence the packing crates with tools.

Walking downstairs, I sidle past the System Architects sitting on my couch – my sisters’ boyfriends who curried favor by fixing things around the house – to the dining room which long featured a “swamp cooler” for “air conditioning.”  Here I imagine the humidity and flora, including the Cocoon (innovation zone).  In the kitchen, where my mother spent weekends perfecting her sauce in a large kettle (every home on Long Island understands the Italian sauce that lasted all week), I find the Information Services Platform.  Here I pause for a bite of most excellent sausage (Laws), as most of my conversations begin with the new role of the Federal government in education and the opportunities this provides for our endeavors.

So there is my Memory Palace.  Hardly a palace to my recollection, but it’s an internalized physical space through which I can wander and survey the elements of our strategy. My childhood home is filled currently with the elements for education system transformation.

Where is your Memory Palace, and what do you keep there?

Posted in KM History, Personal, Strategy | 1 Comment

COBRA – Do Better, Jack!

We interrupt this blog for a cautionary and personal tale regarding health care insurance in the U.S. – specifically the predatory practices by at least one player deep within the system. This will be a long tale, and I apologize in advance for the length. The summary: If you lost your job and are using the ARRA subsidies to help pay COBRA premiums, be diligent about canceling this coverage once you are employed again. When I say diligent, I mean do not trust anyone involved in the process – be careful, and get everything in writing.

200906300858.jpgBackground: in the U.S., you pay a small portion of the actual health care insurance premium while your employer pays the lion’s share each month. The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, or COBRA, provides you with the opportunity to remain a part of your employer’s group health plan following termination of employment – but you must pay the entire premium. This unwelcome shock to your finances can come at the worst time, as a laid-off employee can find themselves paying three times what they’re used to paying at precisely the moment they lose their source of income.

Earlier this year, Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 – part of these provisions included a subsidy for partial COBRA health care premiums if you have been laid off from your job. The idea is to “restore” the employer’s share of the premium for up to nine months’ coverage. With so many losing their jobs since October of 2008, this is a welcome lift. I should mention that the previous employer does get hit with additional costs, as they are billed for their share of the premium for a terminated employee. Employers and employees must opt-in to the ARRA program.

My previous health coverage ended in February, whereupon I secured COBRA and began paying ADP my premiums as directed. Since I started paying the before ARRA took effect, I paid full-price. The ARRA subsidies were then applied to future premiums…and herein lies the tale.

I accepted full-time employment at my new job on 1 June. The following is a timeline written after an otherwise wasted day, in hopes this will help others from wasting theirs:

5/14 – Send email - first notice to ADP of intent to cancel coverage, as I’ve accepted full-time employment. Asked procedures to cancel and how to get refund of premiums paid.

5/15 – Bride calls CSR #1, who says ” Just send or fax us a letter saying you want to cancel coverage, and you’re all set!”

6/4 – Letter faxed as per instructions.

6/10 CSR #2 – Tells me I needed to have faxed information as of 5/31 to get it cancelled for June. Nevertheless, she promised cancellation as of 6/1.

6/24 CSR #3 – Apparently, someone overruled CSR #2 and I have to pay for June anyway. More worrisome, I’m on track to pay July as well. For some reason, my account status is Active. CSR #3 announces a cancellation as of 6/30, and issues a refund for July and August premiums. I vow to get June back somehow, since any collection of COBRA subsidy under ARRA while employed could lead to a penalty – basically, ADP is compelling me to defraud the U.S. Government by applying an ARRA subsidy against COBRA premiums for any date after 1 June!

6/30 ADP responds to my 5/14 email. Announces July has been paid. If I want to avoid paying August, I am invited to dance this dance once more. Amazingly, they admit to having my request for cancellation – but want it again. I’ve bolded salient portions below and masked dollar figures – I have not fixed the broken English:

“We have reviewed your account as per the request below. Our heartiest Congratulation to you for your new Job! The account is paid in full through 07/31/2009 and we have a credit of $xxx.xx in the account. In reference to your email regarding early cobra termination, we have received a written request on 06/04/2009 to cancel coverage effective 06/01/2009.

“Please be informed that you would need to post mark the letter by the last day of the previous month for the changes effective from the 1st day of the next month (that is, by 05/31/2009 for the plan changes effective from 06/01/2009).Since we received the request on 06/04/2009, we are unable to terminate the coverage and we have already forwarded the premium amount to the insurance carrier.

“However, if you wish to cancel cobra coverage effective 08/01/2009, you would need to send us a plan termination request letter via mail or fax, stating the effective date from when you would like to cancel cobra coverage, along with the account number in the letter and the letter needs to be signed by yourself and your spouse. You would need to post mark the letter by the last day of the previous month for the changes effective from the 1st day of the next month (that is, by 07/31/2009 for the plan changes effective from 08/01/2009).”

In English: Start over, and get it done today or we’re stealing your August premium as well.

6/30 (8:00 am) Called CSR #4 and asked for supervisor. Bride standing over me now, weapons at the ready.

6/30 Poobah #1 is horrified. “Not proud of my company today,” says she. She promises to fix all, but first has to talk with previous CSRs, then would call back “this morning.” Never heard from her again.

6/30 (1:00 pm) Called CSR #5. Claims Poobah #1 made it a priority case, and they’ll be back to me “tomorrow.” (Interestingly, he says he has a note in the case file that Poobah #1 called me to convey this information already. Nice.) Problem: tomorrow is 7/1, at which point, they can then charge for me for August since they didn’t hear from my by 6/30 – according to the email. Not accepting this answer, as the only written correspondence indicates the need to re-submit paperwork by 6/30. “Sir, I am trying to help you.” This is where I utter the phrase, several times, ”Do better, Jack!”

6/30 (1:30 pm) Transferred to Poobah #2. He assures me the research department will review the June issue and resolve in 48 hours. He is confident July and August will be refunded. I now refuse to hang up the phone until he sends me an email to this effect. He tells me this is not possible, he can only email people within ADP.”Do better, Jack.” He tells me to respond to the morning’s email and he will reply with the info. Ten minutes later, he claims technical difficulties have prevented the email from going out, and can I give him 24 hours to send it again? Yes, he really said that. “No. Do better, Jack.” He implores me to grant him more time, as he is messaging his supervisor, Uber Poobah #1. I ask to speak to that person, but – you guessed it – that is simply not possible. They will not come to the phone. I have reached the pinnacle of ADP Customer Service: all decisions occur above Poobah #2, where men and women labor in a client-free workplace.

By 2 pm, I have an email saying July and August will be refunded. Still wrestling over June, but mercifully, I let Poobah #1 hang up the phone.

My concern is not with my refund – I am employed and have the resources to eventually resolve this matter. And I will let the government know I did not intentionally defraud them out of a June premium subsidized with ARRA funds. My concern is those who cannot make their own hours and spend a day with ADP. What is happening to the hourly employee, (who, for example, may have received this end of month email after business hours today)?

What is happening to those who cannot spend hours on the phone with a call center?

What is happening to those who were supposed to be helped by ARRA? If they are still unemployed, they are still receiving health care coverage. But if they resume employment – they are likely being drained of their premium refund by ADP. ADP’s choice was to apply the ARRA funds to future premiums rather than refund the money and bill me. This decision ensured their fees for several months, as their efficient CSRs effectively stonewalled me for a full six weeks. The less persistent may give up – and these souls will then find themselves charged a 10% fee and told to return the subsidy for health coverage they tried to cancel.

To ADP, and I suppose United (see previous) or any business struggling to survive today, I guess the message is simple: Do Better, Jack.

Posted in Personal | 8 Comments

Virgin America: Humans at the Center

While she is not nearly this old, the Bride learned to drive on a Model A pickup truck. The experience was centered around the magic of personal locomotion – the human was a bit of an afterthought as the engineering of these first mass-produced automobiles focused instead on harnessing the challenging technology of the day. 200906261016.jpg She regales me with her memories: set the choke, engage the spark, and other terms lost to history. The automatic transmission, the electric starter, power windows and cup holders had not yet been invented. Today, buying a car with a manual transmission is within the interest of the hobbyist, but for most of us who are buying transportation rather than a car – the latter is the domain of a fading breed. The need to accommodate the human to early technology has passed, we can now tailor the experience to our comfort and convenience.

Back in the 1970s, I had the occasion to listen to one of the first Sony Walkman devices to enter the U.S. The sound was remarkable, I knew I was experiencing history. Of course, if you moved the portable device, the cassette tape would warble and distort the sound. No matter, the engineering needed to produce this remarkable sound hadn’t yet caught up to the iPod experience. I accepted the limitations of motion because the innovation of the sound experience was worth the inconvenience.

What is your focus when you purchase transportation services – are you buying the car or the ride? For air travel – my real point – are you buying the airline or the flight? For years I supported United, I knew the airline industry was a difficult yet essential industry, and I believed that loyal customers were core to the health of the industry. I earned “elite” status, and was able to book exit row seats and the occasional upgrade to human-sized seats and actual service. I have been a United “member” since 1991.

What I missed was the dynamics of the market – so long as someone is willing to pay to fly, someone else will provide the service. United is an important employer, but it is apparent their system of service delivery places accommodation of the human as a last priority. Recently, I began to listen as fellow travelers told me of airlines such as Virgin America, Jet Blue, etc, who considered the user experience in their design of the cabin, the services, etc.

For me, today, this stops here. This far, no further! (Hoping you can hear Patrick Stewart as you read that.)

I write this while aboard my first Virgin America flight. I am less than an hour into the flight, but it feels like it’s only been 10 minutes or so. The simple reason, I am not focused on the airline, the aircraft, or the fact that I’m strapped in and hurtling through the air at 30,000 feet. I am not deprived of all sensory input so that I may focus on the flying experience. Instead, my senses and mind are engaged – not enduring the broadcast of a single movie choice that changes every two weeks, but enjoying options from on-demand television and video as well as in-flight Internet access. Rather than treating my weekly cross-continent commute as a time of sensory deprivation, I am connected and engaged.

Some quick comparisons, written now two hours into a five hour flight. I don’t think I need to wait for landing to finish this blog, though:

United

Virgin

“We welcome our Global Services, 1K members, and First Class on the red carpet to board first. Seating area 1 will board using the blue carpet, but only after Premier Executive members board, also using the blue carpet. It’s simple, people!”

“Hi, John. Welcome aboard, please enjoy your flight.”

Pre-flight safety video eminently ignorable and hasn’t changed. Kindly bearded gentleman in the video likely retired in 1980s.

Pre-flight video speaks to you as an adult, uses clever cartoons to engage you. Bonus, Richard Branson avatar makes inappropriate reference to Mile-High Club.

In-flight entertainment system is initiated once “cruising altitude is reached.” I secretly palm the iPhone, listening furtively to avoid takeoff noise.

Seat-back video available as you board and throughout. No need for subversive behavior.

In-flight entertainment (on most flights) consists of central video, occasionally obscured. Broadcast model – one movie fits all. The movie and tired TV reruns cycle twice per month.

In-flight entertainment matches home experience – satellite television and on-demand movies. I don’t need to stock iTunes with past seasons of Rescue Me to endure the flight.

Seat audio often inaudible or broken (personal experience, IAD-SFO route). As a treat, you are invited to listen to the air traffic conversations between the pilot and tower. If you want to know what’s on each channel, you consult the printed guide. Otherwise, you pound the arrow keys as you cycle through the audio channels.

Seat audio high quality, simply select the genre from the touchscreen, no need to know the channel, or cycle up through bad rap, cheesy DJs or stale comedy to get to your selection.

Drink cart wheeled up the aisle occasionally, reminiscent of prison book cart experience you see in old movies. You may ring your call button to order out of cycle, taking chances with flight crew attitude.

Thirsty? Order drink from the menu, and they bring it to you. An innovation for air travel, a regular practice at every restaurant since the beginning of time.

Wifi available in the Red Carpet Club, conveniently located in many airports – subscription price varies based on Elite level, would cost me $400/year. Not terribly relevant to the in-flight experience, but needed for comparison in the column to your right.

Wifi available on-board the aircraft. Less than $10 per flight, or $50/month for frequent fliers.

Laptop power a rumor, and special adaptors possibly needed (never seen on IAD-SFO route)

Power outlet in every seat, no adaptor needed.

The prices are comparable. Would I rather stay with United, in hopes that I get upgraded more often to an in-flight experience that is better than the folks back in steerage? Or move to an airline that engages and connects every passenger? Where every seat is at least tolerable? My travel agent is concerned that I will not maintain “status” with a global airline, but I am choosing instead to help grow an airline that places the human experience first. We face tough choices each day, and the occasional heart-rending decision path. This simply is not one of them. Congratulations, Virgin America – my 200,000 miles (plus) per year are yours.

————-

Photo used without permission from http://www.firsttofly.org/Information/Homework/wright_photos.htm

Posted in Personal | 4 Comments

For Sale: One Frequent Flier

iStock_000007134685Small.jpg

"Modern" airline seating

I read the other day about how airlines are having trouble capturing and keeping business travelers. Airline travel represents even more of a buyer’s market than in previous years, according to media reports. Being a Premier Executive flyer on United (a lofty title until you consider the titles “above” me, and I’m still not permitted to use that coveted ‘red carpet’), I thought I would call United and discuss my upcoming business. I observe that while I am a Premier Executive, I almost never get upgraded in cross-country flights. There are simply higher classes of frequent flier who get in line ahead of me. Now, I think this is completely fair – the people who are flying 100,000 miles a year are entitled to ‘dibs’ on seats and service that respect the human condition. However, if this is a buyer’s market, perhaps it is time to review the relationship. This review is also based on some new personal circumstances discussed below.

What do I get as a Premier Executive?

1) The regular economy seats in United provide a profoundly inhumane experience, but are required in order to create an additional class: Economy Plus. You cannot have Economy Plus without Economy. One must provide steerage class seating in order to prod you into an impulse buy, hoping to avoid lower limb thrombosis. As a Premier Executive, I can reserve Economy Plus seats for no cost and in advance. Check!

iStock_000000826234Small.jpg

Buttock View Section

2) While I cannot use the Red Carpet entry (reserved for 1st, business class, Global Services, 1K members), I get to board ahead of Seating Area 1 (think on that for a second: every flight has reasonable people confused that the number one on their ticket does not mean they board first). Why does this matter? Because of the consistently “limited overhead storage” that leads to some unfortunates being forced to check their carry-on luggage – adding 20 minutes to their flight experience on the receiving end in some cases. I don’t have that problem, because I can board first and get my bag into the overhead nearest my seat; a luxury when exiting the aircraft. Check!

So the benefit of being a Premier Executive amounts to this: I get to avoid the miserable flying experience of the people behind me both on line and on the plane. My experience is still mediocre, with no laptop power, no on-demand video, no internet access, uncomfortable armrests, etc. But at least I’m better off than those people back by the lavatories (given the ratio of lavatories to passengers, I call this the Buttock View Section).

Now, I have a new employment situation that will find me on an airplane virtually every week. Since airlines were eager to get business traveler dollars, and I have a lot of business coming up over the next few years, I thought I would engage my current vendor. I offered a modest proposal: Since I would be a higher class flier in a matter of months at my current rate of travel (1k), why not grant me the status now to ensure I continue to procure the services of United for these next few years? Yes, this is unfair to the existing 1K members, and therefore perhaps untenable, but I thought having an idea would help the United rep get creative in her attempt to keep my business. Even if advancing me to 1K early is not “aligned with United policy,” what ideas would she offer to keep my business?

I will spare you the extended phone call, I’m certain you can recreate the experience for yourselves and be fairly accurate. Bottom line: the entire conversation was about their policy. The poor lass was left telling me how important I was to United, while offering absolutely no reason for me to continue buying her product offering. I mentioned the in-flight experience as compared to other airlines – on-demand video on JetBlue and Virgin America, Internet access on Virgin America – and her only response was to talk up the Internet access in the Red Carpet Club. (Two problems there: These clubs are all on the GROUND and membership would cost me over $300/year.)

iStock_000004910126Small.jpg

Personal Preference

My advice to the United Airlines Owners (employees) is this: We have come a long way since Henry Ford was able to offer any color of car, so long as it was black. If you continue to engage your customers by simply repeating your “policy,” and ignoring customer-centric approaches to business, you will lose. You are about to lose me. Does that matter?

For my new job, I commute from DC to San Francisco. If I flew every week, that would be 251,576 miles per year. If every other week, the miles would be 125,788. Currently, I’m flying every week – a pace that will continue for at least the next six months. Yes, I will be a 1K member in a few months – but United’s failure to consider loyalty strategies that are based on something other than schadenfreude regarding my unfortunate fellow travelers is a potentially fatal flaw.

For all other airlines: Does anyone out there need a frequent flier? I have approximately 200k miles per year for the winning conversation. You may reach me in the comments section below.

Posted in Personal | 5 Comments

Standing on the Toes of Giants

iStock_000005457059Small.jpg

I first heard the reference, “standing on the shoulders of giants,” from a colleague at RAND, (one of the three “Daves” who taught me so much), whose gentle humility and formidable intellect led me to believe he had created the phrase. Later, I came to realize this is a common phrase used to describe the core business model for academe and science – we learn from the inquiry that went before us in order to reach higher. I ruin the phrase here with some trepidation. However, it communicates well my personal angst as I observe thought experiments which appear to lack an awareness of the science that has gone before.

First though, a story.

A former colleague and friend, (not a Dave) whose company I miss greatly, was saved from certain death by the recognition-primed decision ability of his emergency room physician. Stranded for three days on a mountainside following a blizzard, my friend had severe frostbite affecting his hands, feet and face. The physician, before any other decision, immediately began treating my friend with antibiotics, even though there were no overt signs of infection. The good doctor had experience with a fast-moving and deadly opportunistic infection syndrome that targets frostbite victims. Because of the severity of his wounds, my friend was down to hours of life had this infection not been treated.

The physician acted on metaphor, saving a life. My friend lost part of his nose, all his toes, and the sense of touch in several fingers (I hope he forgives the title of this post, and accompanying photo, now that I think of it). He endured nine root canals in one day, and months of rehabilitation. However, he is alive, and gets about without prosthetics, thanks to the physician’s reliance on recognition-primed decision making.

Regarding my reference above,
Gary Klein defines the Recognition-Primed Decision model thus
: “[it] fuses two processes: the way decision makers size up the situation to decide which course of action makes sense, and the way they evaluate to evaluation that course of action by imagining it.” (p.24)

Klein, in a his ground-breaking work regarding decision-making, shares the findings from a decade doing field research: decisions are not made according to classic methods of rational choice theory, but closer to Simon’s satisficing model. Rather than using deductive logical thinking, analysis of probabilities, and statistical methods; we actually employ intuition, mental stimulation, metaphor and storytelling.

  • Intuition: size up a situation quickly
  • Mental stimulation: imagine how a course of action might be carried out
  • Metaphor: draw on our experience by suggesting parallels between the current situation and something else we have come across.
  • Storytelling: consolidate our experiences to make them available in the future, either to ourselves or to others.

Why is all this relevant to me today?

My recent reference to the death of Knowledge Management (KM) in the Defense Department appears to have sparked some reaction – most of it aimed at this silly pundit who fails to realize either the successful KM at the grassroots level, or the need for consolidation of intent at the highest levels in order to ensure the success of KM throughout the Department.

One interesting email chain consisting of 63+ voices (most of them silent, I’m not that provocative after all) supplies most of my information regarding the negative response. (I have received welcome words of encouragement as well, omitted here for brevity.) For the most part, folks feel I unfairly declared KM dead in a most unhelpful manner and at a most inopportune moment – and am utterly mistaken. The fact that so many professionals are working in the field, trying to advance the principles of KM in the Department, surely proves me wrong. In addition, how can an effort to gain status, standing, and funding for KM efforts at a higher level be attacked as misguided? Should not we applaud such efforts, rather than snipe from the sideline? If I only understood how things work in DoD, I would realize that without some visibility and senior leader buy-in for KM programs, the whole exercise would never gain traction in an enduring fashion.

Given a precept for KM, i.e., the overall value is to enable better decision-making and actions, I submit we should gauge the likely relevance and utility of KM efforts against the ability to effect better decisions – in the context of what we know from research into naturalistic decision-making inquiry.

Some excellent points are made by Bill Kaplan in comments to my original post, and by some justifiably emotional voices on the email chain I referenced earlier: Grassroots efforts do exist and thrive, but they have failed to scale across the Department or to effect the lasting change for which we all hope. Intellipedia has the promise to transform our notion regarding finished intelligence – but a thoughtful professional in the IC went out of her way to inform me that even this effort still faces effective organizational antibodies.

(As an aside, this conversation with the IC professional occurred in an atmosphere of deeply shared context and using a high degree of trust built over past conversations – with a woman I have never met or spoken with outside the Twitter communications “channel.” Perhaps one idea for DoD KM lies in advising Information Security professionals to open up closed social media channels?)

My other examples (AFKN, etc.) likewise have not transformed the Department, but have enjoyed limited diffusion, failing to achieve the elusive “network effect” that might lead to transformation.

Without some high air cover, even Intellipedia, this jewel of federal social media and distributed cognition, could face marginalization or cancellation. Were it not for some managers who “get it,” grassroots efforts appear doomed to provide lasting success. How could I argue against the very efforts that are trying to scale and sustain the grassroots? My quick answer: because they will fail, for lack of learning from what works. Bill Kaplan, again, provides context from a practitioner view – read his comment to learn more. In addition to this practitioner view, the science (Klein, others) is clear regarding the naturalistic decision making processes that should be targeted if we are to improve decisions.

Therefore: what KM methods best prepare us for better decisions? What is the role of portals and repositories if we rely on the experiential knowledge that fuels intuition? Of what use is a workforce “trained” in KM if we learn by experience and through the collection of fragmented narrative? What on Earth do “common KM metrics” mean to situational context that is extremely local?

The central question, perhaps, is one of innovation. KM professionals have grasped a view of methods and principles that must fuel innovation in the ways we decide, act, and operate. The trick now is to scale iterative innovation (grassroots initiatives) and enable disruptive innovation (changes to business models resulting from these grassroot “beautiful exceptions”). (Apologies to my new colleagues, who taught me this excellent phrase in the context of educational innovation.)

KM may be dead, or not, in DoD, but debating that is not all that useful. Instead, why not consider how to scale successes and transform operations; based on what the very much alive KM professionals have accomplished so far in DoD and across the federal and private sectors. And in doing so, why not learn from examples where innovative ideas and methods have transformed industries and social endeavors? Two examples of private sector innovation include:

  1. Lockheed Martin’s “skunkworks,” a division that operated free of any corporate process or overhead in order to incubate a radically new business model.
  2. Charles Schwab’s embrace of online trading within a subsidiary that featured an entirely new sales staff with different compensation schedules – again to incubate a new business model. Clayton Christensen favorably compares this to Merrill Lynch (remember them?), who tried to incorporate, in a literal use of that term, online trading into their existing business model – to mixed results.

Where has innovation ever been realized through centralized training programs, common metrics and standards, or a maturity model? Let’s return to first principles – consider the inquiry that has gone before, and consider also the knowledge needs of that young person on that mountain far away. Disclaimer: As with so many of you, and likely of those among the 63+, one of those young people is family to me. I dearly wish to see him succeed – and to embrace him again someday.

Posted in KM History, National Security | Tagged | 1 Comment

Papa’s Got a Brand New Gig

library.jpgAfter 27 years in the national security business, more or less, I have accepted a position to work something far more tractable: the U.S. education system. My new business card says I am the Director for Knowledge and Innovation at the Stupski Foundation: a private, operating foundation in San Francisco whose mission is to improve life options for children of color and poverty. The foundation does so by helping education leaders accelerate academic achievement so that all students graduate with the knowledge, skills, and aspirations that will enable them to thrive in college, career and life.

What follows is my personal observation following an extremely short time with the Foundation – and is certainly subject to change as I learn more about this exciting new challenge (I was kidding, this problem is quite a few postal zones away from tractable). When I write on behalf of the Foundation, I will be doing it somewhere other than on this blog site. These musings here will always represent the addled mind of yours truly.

Specifically, we take the following approach: Until we address the systemic breakdown in the educational “system,” we cannot have enduring change for the children that are our focus. Core to these systemic issues is the failure to innovate. Good ideas are not transferred across the system to other districts or other states. Districts forget core understandings about “what works” when the leadership changes. Innovation helps an industry adapt to change and survive (right, Detroit?). Where is the innovation in education? Where is the research and development (and distribution) that characterizes the innovation engines in other sectors?

At this early date, this is how I understand my new job. Help an extraordinarily talented team by bringing KM principles to bear in building out the R&D capacity for U.S. education. Partner with states, school districts, research firms, technology companies, philanthropic institutions, and an increasingly vital federal Department – developing ways to conduct multi-disciplinary investigations in order to spread “what works” to the most under-served in our educational system. There are great opportunities in methods and technologies, a willingness to invest in meaningful change, and an unprecedented need to develop a ready workforce suited to the emerging global economy.

This is an exceptional and humbling opportunity, I am most fortunate to be presented this chance to serve. It should be quite a ride, and I’m hopeful my friends and casual readers will be there to enjoy it with me. Oh, and if you have any ideas in this area, this is no time to be shy.

Posted in Personal | 9 Comments

The Day DoD KM Died

Yesterday, I was most privileged to sit in on a session with some of the senior folk in DoD Knowledge Management (KM). The setup encouraged an intimate conversation among these government leaders, with twice more their number sitting and observing (a well-placed gag rule limited conversation to the table people only). Each Service was represented, as well as select Commands and activities. Disclaimer 1: While the meeting was invitation only, the findings/preliminary decisions were discussed in open panel sessions later in the day.200904291229.jpg

It was here I was privileged and sobered to witness the death of Knowledge Management in DoD.

The gathered expressed an interest in coordinating their efforts for greater effect. These are honest, hard working professionals who, unfortunately, ended up embracing approaches and models that have failed repeatedly, and have helped sound the death knell for large-scale KM programs across industry.

In the audience, at least one of us was eager to hear of the most pressing challenges for KM in DoD. I imagined the issues would include improving the work of the warfighter, increasingly faced with knowledge-intensive tasks in rapidly changing environments. Or perhaps they are frustrated by the lack of coordination with security and information officers.

Of course, they are. But addressing these directly would require a more passive role for KM. Perhaps solutions would include quietly raising the information transfer dial tone, to enable the warfighter to discern signals in a noisy environment; applying KM principles to colleagues and workflows within and among HR, IT, strategy, and operations; or embracing social media strategies, pilots, and deployments to enable ambient feedback and unanticipated participation across the DoD workforce, etc.

These notional ideas involve embedding KM ideas into existing organizational frameworks and work lives. None of these would focus first on the establishment of a central KM function; with standards, vetted processes, certifications, and a KM workforce with specific competencies. Indeed, Stephen Bounds recently crafted a white paper that describes the futility of “un-targeted” KM programs in reducing knowledge failures. More troubling, these programs fail to identify the knowledge failures that carry the largest risk.

After all, KM successes are targeted initiatives: such as Air Force Knowledge Now, where 15,000 communities of practice self-organize across the USAF, providing the ability to discover expertise in the field or even revolutionize approaches to work among teams such as the ones currently training the Iraqi Air Force. Or like CompanyCommand, where army platoon leaders self-organized so they could share online issues of immediate interest in the war zone. Or like the adaptive processes that are currently being worked in Afghanistan. Or Intellipedia, initially a guerrilla deployment of a collaborative authoring capability that is questioning, and may one day transform, the notion of “finished intelligence” for the U.S. Intelligence Community.

What do these successes have in common? They were grassroots efforts, emerging from the workforce. Each came under fierce attack from the established information and knowledge leaders. Perhaps these KM leaders would find new and imaginative ways to get out of the way of the noble warfighters, to allow for more frequent successes, and clear the path for more of these targeted successes.

Instead, the gentlemen in this room converged on the need to convene as an enduring working group, with an initial agenda as follows:

- Establish a higher reporting relationship for Chief Knowledge Officers (CKO). The fear is that unless the CKO is located high enough in the food chain, KM programs will not receive funding. There was also some discussion about peer interactions among the leadership – sadly, the focus was on organizational charts and reporting chains of command, rather than process or methods of value exchange among CIO, CKO, Personnel, Training, Operations, etc.

- Establish a certificate program for KM at an accredited school affiliated with DoD. Participants were careful not to cast this as a certification program, which would imply a certifying body and other rigor – a fool’s errand in KM. Rather, this is envisioned as a graduate-level certificate for KM in the DoD. Where I would hope to see the teaching and mentoring of KM “competencies,” however defined, across all of DoD; these gentlemen instead focused on developing a KM workforce unto itself.

- Develop common KM metrics across programs. There is some frustration with answering the “value question,” and agreement on the need for predictive and quantitative metrics that will finally justify and codify the work of KM. They agree on the notional value of narrative, but there was precious little discussion regarding the assessment of individual narratives against KM value proposition – what makes a “good” story?

- Embrace a KM organizational maturity model. The analog discussed was the CMM program for software development (reference: Software Engineering Institute). Pursuing this analogy, I was struck by the fact that the most promising software methods of the day (XP/Agile, etc.) emerged not from any SEI effort, but rather outside the hallowed halls of CMM-certified organizations. This is natural: maturity models are not designed to foster innovation or creativity – relatively messy endeavors when one is seeking standards and efficiency. Instead, these maturity models presume stages, indicators, and a relatively static representation of what an “mature” organization looks like in terms of software development, project management, and perhaps soon for DoD: Knowledge Management.

Thanks to this central focus on an “un-targeted program,” DoD KM is dead. And federal KM, coalition KM, indeed whole-of-government coordination is today much harder. Or at least it was not made any easier following these deliberations.

The first and last conversation involved a plea to define knowlege management. As Confucius taught; “first, define your terms.” The fundamental first step for any discipline or even conversation might involve a clear agreement to terms, and this, apparently, has yet to occur within DoD KM. Disclaimer 2: One participant referred to the 31-page section on KM in the recently released (full) report from the Project on National Security Reform as a reasonable starting point to get them past the question of KM definitions. On behalf of my hard-working team from the PNSR KM Working Group, I am delighted our work is proving useful to the field.

With a focus on KM structures that will fall eventually of their own weight, the grassroots are left to their own devices, as they have been all along. KM is not the job of these gentlemen. It is incumbent upon all of DoD to find ways to solve their problems locally, as they always have been, with a leadership across IM/IT whose job is to balance the security of the information space with the need to get out of the warfighter’s way. It is everyone’s responsibility to share information, to grow their combined knowledge and competence, and to help the Department advance, thrive and prevail. 200904291102.jpg

The focus should not be on the KM troops or the CKO. DoD has arrived at the notion that KM is essential, and has moved therefore to secure the position of KM across the Department. This, sadly, removes the focus from what works, and from the warfighter. A focus on a large KM program, careers, etc, is to focus on a structural fix to a behavioral and technology problem. Worse than not fixing it, these structures work against the very types of initiatives that succeed on the ground.

There are others working quietly to raise the dial tone, others working outside this room. There will always be “heroes of the revolution” who will seed social media and open up access to knowledge despite the barriers. There remain ways to get around rigid processes that do not add value to the mission. And, while not betraying confidences, not everyone at this table agreed to the monolithic approach for KM. So there may be hope yet.

One final thought. Every single person given a voice, and a seat at this august table, was a middle-aged or older, white, man. [Update, I am not trying to imply that race matters in this conversation, I'm trying to focus on the need for diverse voices in a field that relies so heavily on behaviors and persuasion.  Apologies for any who were distracted.]

This matters.

In theory, diverse voices help sustain the health of a complex organizational system. In practice, it was jarring to hear not a single young voice from the Generation these men are trying to assist. I couldn’t help but wonder how these deliberations would have sounded on the ear of someone serving today in a Joint Operations Cell, or on a high mountain somewhere far from Washington, DC.

Posted in KM History, National Security | 20 Comments

Harnessing the Cognitive Cloud

The geniuses at MIT are at it again, and are busy developing technology that will make the term “cloud cognition” immediately obvious.  

What if you could learn the time by looking at your wrist?  What if you could pick up a book in a store and see the latest Amazon rating and comments displayed on the cover?  What if you looked at your airline boarding pass, and saw the latest delay and gate information displayed on it?

What if every surface was your personal screen, displaying information about objects and people in your view?

What if?

For more information, check out the group formerly known as “ambient intelligence” here.

Posted in Cloud Cognition | Leave a comment

The United States’ New CIO: Metrics that Matter

empty-process

President Obama today announced the selection of Mr. Vivek Kundra to be the nation’s Chief Information Officer. Back in January of 2009, I had the honor of touring Vivek Kundra’s operation while he was the Chief Technology Officer for Washington, D.C.  Several things struck me about the arrangements – a small cubicle farm in the center of the room, with interactive screens on the walls depicting various real-time data about technology projects.  In the corner office, a briefing room where managers, stakeholders, and contractors would gather to determine the fate of poorly performing projects.  The cubicle farm contained his “market” (technology) analysts, who constantly monitored the health of the technology projects under the purview of the CTO office.

This itself was impressive, but what struck me most was his definition of “poorly performing.”

When he arrived in the position, he was handed thick paper reports that indicated the progress for each project against classic PMBOK metrics.  These are the lifeblood for information technology system integrators, based on a deep belief that adhering to efficient and learned processes will result in the best client value.  Systems engineering steps are carefully detailed and documented, and Mr. Kundra was invited to review these paper volumes as the tool for overseeing a multi-million dollar IT portfolio.

I need to be careful here, lest I appear  dubious concerning the value offered by the Software Engineering Institute, Project Management Institute, etc.  Not withstanding these noble and enduring “best practice” endeavors, Mr. Kundra made a critical decision that, in my opinion, made all the difference.  Rather than tracking his contractors’ fealty to accepted practice, he developed metrics that reflected client value.  These included high-level schedule metrics, as would be expected, but also such things as micro-polling to determine stakeholder ‘happiness.’  

I have noticed in some commercial firms the tendency to believe adhering to “industry practices” is akin to “delivering value.”  Often, I would see projects that made the internal process group happy – but which were failures in the client’s eyes.  Alternatively, some of the projects that were highly rated by the client were often those that failed to have a completed checklist of some sort – a failure that would earn it high-level negative attention.  Project managers were left wondering why they spent hours documenting processes that were not related to client value or happiness.  

bullseye

Kundra’s D.C. team established a manageable set of tracking metrics and displayed them on the interactive screens.  At any given time, you could see how various projects were faring – and drill down to the data elements that provided the “score.”  In addition, his staff developed RSS feeds regarding online content/news relevant to these projects, and this became Mr. Kundra’s morning newspaper.

With a focus on client value, and an awareness of various perspectives, Mr. Kundra was able to increase visibility and improve management of an elusive concept in the world of IT:  solutions that work.  He did this, I am convinced, by throwing the book away.  By not allowing his office to get distracted tracking processes, but instead focusing on outcome metrics – metrics that matter.

Posted in Governance, Strategy | 1 Comment

Breaking Cliques with Enterprise Micro-Blogging

old-tvPublic service announcement:  On June 12, 2009 broadcast analog television signals in the U.S. will cease as the spectrum is repurposed and television signals go all digital.  This poses a major disruption to some people.  

The rest of us are flabbergasted, nay,  gobsmacked to learn that this poses a major disruption to some people.  Who are these people who aren’t using cable/satellite feeds?  Nevertheless, these folk will require assistance to successfully make the switch from analog to digital.  We need to be gentle with the late adopters, and aware of the less-advantaged.

Likewise, some people require assistance to understand the advent of social media.  This morning I was alerted to a most unfortunate example.

In “the case against enterprise micro-blogging” we find the following:

As a consistent Twitter user, I’ve the found the service to be a valuable marketing tool as well as an entertaining pastime for my friends and I to shoot one-liners at each other.

Off the bat, this gentleman uses Twitter for marketing and jokes.   For some reason, he then decides to try it among his team of five, one can only guess he needed to market them and tell better jokes.

My recent short-lived experience showed me that enterprise micro-blogging provides minimal benefits to the organization. If our group had been much larger and we wanted to do some kind of short announcements, it might prove useful, though hardly compelling.

So large teams communicate through “some kind of short announcements?”  That’s the value seen beyond marketing and jokes?  What if you wanted to pose a question and didn’t know who may have the answer?

When it comes to business, you don’t want to read between the lines as you do in your personal Twitter-verse. Even with enterprise email overload, and a never ending-supply of documents flying back and forth, at least you have the ability to state and substantiate a point.

And here we have it.   If the purpose of communication in the enterprise is to “state and substantiate a point,” yes, I expect micro-blogging will not be your weapon of choice.  However, if you want to be able to get a sense about what your colleagues are facing, if you want to open a stream of awareness across your team for a relatively low transaction cost, if you want to enable swarm intelligence in your enterprise – you may want to disregard the “advice” in this gentleman’s article.  You will notice the comments to the CNET piece are fairly scathing.

A clique of young people ostracize another youth

I managed a small team for a mid-sized firm for eight years.  Beginning in 2000, I enforced the use of instant messaging (IM) and e-mail across the team as we grew from three to (at one point) twenty-two souls.  When I had a question to pose, I selected from among my list and began chatting.  As I did, I learned which people were available and responsive and began to – unconsciously and unfortunately – call upon them more often.  The people who were perhaps not as attentive to my insistent IMs were not called on as much as others.  

While we did also engage in chat rooms (and actual rooms) on occasion, I never successfuly got the entire team to engage on IM once we exceeded five or so members.  Instead of analyzing this, I fell back on the natural tendency towards hierarchy and power laws within social networks and unwittingly began to alienate the people I was treating as “lesser” members.  In doing this, I missed out on business value and the opportunity to enable contributions from across my team on an equal basis.  Much later, I heard casual comments to a “clique” within my team, but by then I had already shaped behaviors by my communications style.  Who knows what contributions were missed, as team members declined to volunteer their knowledge?

Using micro-blogging, I am learning to appreciate fragments and ideas from across thousands of voices.  If I had micro-blogging for my team back then, I may have posed questions and listened to the “small cloud” rather than calling on the “best and brightest.”  In doing so, I may have led an even more successful team as we would have been able to make use of all the voices to address the team’s challenges and opportunities.  I still have a smaller network of people I engage on a more frequent basis, but I can hear also and talk with people on the fringe of my network.  More importantly, I can hear people who are simply talking about things about which I care who are not remotely in my network/culture/continent.  

Even for smaller teams, we move from point-to-point communications, which (sometimes arrogantly) presupposes you know who has “the answer,” to discovery.  In fact, presuming you know who has your answer can be very limiting.  Likewise, presuming you know precisely the right question to ask in all circumstances helps you to thwart serendipity.  Have you memorized the resumes of your colleagues?  Do you know how to unlock all the potentially useful information that flows across their interpersonal networks?  

Social media, quite simply, is opening my mind to new tactics for team management.  To consign it to the dustbin because you cannot control the message  is extraordinarily short-sighted, and misses the value proposition of social media, inside and outside the “enterprise.”

Posted in Social Media | 9 Comments

Powered by Web Design Company Plugins