Welcome to Week 8!

This week we continue our interest in leadership and consulting. So far, we've taken a look at productivity and credibility. We used a TIC discussion of "work" to drive increased self-reflection and awareness; we want to make sure we're the real deal before we start going around trying to influence others.

This week, we look at qualitative assessments applied to your/an organization. This assessment should certainly be part of your special project submission.

A word of caution: this is the first week where we focus on something external to ourselves. In previous weeks, the "I" was central, this week however we're shifting to the external environment. Please don't lose sight of your role in all of this. No amount of assessment and data revealed will matter if the material is delivered poorly or comes from a dubious source.

There are a variety of tools to conduct organizational/KM assessments. When looking at which tool to use, consider the following:

1. Your bias; without some awareness, you might pick/adjust a tool in an effort to reveal something YOU want versus what the client/organization needs -- this is a big deal. To the fullest extent possible, you must be viewed as an impartial analyst; this speaks to credibility directly.

2. The cultural impact of the tool; generally speaking, the more formal the roll-out and subsequent publishing of any findings, the heavier the cultural impact and likely resistance and fallout to your findings.

When you look at tools, compare their use with a return to Schein's notion of "Helping." Helping and formal assessments aren't mutually exclusive. Schein recognizes that "assessing" is a cultural event -- the act of assessing affects the culture you're trying to study. One can be helpful in the process of assessing; one should be helpful in the process of assessing.

When assessing, note that tools (like a survey) tend to give a snapshot of data; this snapshot will have natural impediments to its accuracy, but it will also have a "shelf-life" of meaningfulness. It follows that "doing an assessment" actually means conducting multiple in-stride inquiries and building a culture of reflection and analysis. Note how this might logically lend itself to emergent strategy and adjustment as you go.

Bottom line: be very careful doing a formal assessment with heavy published results, and then linking all subsequent change and adjustment to that data.

Conduct an organizational assessment for use in your special project -- or -- determine how you will go about it. The specifics of the tool are not as important as your notions of how to use it. The most common tool is a survey that uses sliding scales (1-10 or such) to indicate variance. In theory, you can measure an organization now, and then conduct another one later to see improvement. Check the readings for examples.

Mck 7S Model:

https://whittblog.wordpress.com/2011/04/24/mckinsey-7s-model-a-strategic-as...

European KM Forum:

http://www.providersedge.com/docs/km_articles/KM_Assessment_Model_and_Tool....

CMM/KM from ASU:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.86.8010&rep=rep1&t...

Mapping:

http://www.tlainc.com/articl180.htm

and

http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pnadk308.pdf

Schein on helping I:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VPl3sdNmGU

Schein on helping II:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bknGdA_xdw

Consider the way this question is asked versus what "conducting an organizational assessment" suggests. In my mind, the use of language and understanding here is key.

"Determining a client's needs" entails service and inquiry; the consultant is aiming to release the client from the things that hold him or her back from success.

"Conducting an organizational assessment" suggests the consultant will study the client like a doctor would a patient. The patient waits for the information that the expert will provide; the client is not at the level of expertise of the doctor. The doctor prescribes medicine, the patient must then determine in a binary yes/no sort of decision whether they will take the medicine.

If I am right about the differences, maybe our charge is to figure out how they would align or blend. Both have merit, different notions of speed and efficiency, and might combine to produce an overall body of service that would resonate and be meaningful to the client.

Check my tumblr for a "60303 // Wk 8 Discussion Question" and respond accordingly.

Here is the link to the "on peer grading tumblrs" writeup:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1naT27vVTacXsIDHhGHcyh8Ea8_Xsb2GLkUqo4Z4...

The purpose of peer grading:

// increase student interaction

// expose you to different thinking

// increase your comfort with giving and receiving critical feedback

All of these are essential/core KM concepts directly tied to overall assessment and strategy design/delivery.

Tie the "do this plz" organizational assessment to your project. If you have not done an organizational assessment, conduct or speak to how you would conduct one. Pay attention to roll-out, publishing and their affect on the culture.

Rules of thumb:

- the more formal and widespread your roll-out and publishing, the more resistant to change the culture may become

- the more damaging your data are, the more likely you personally -- and the nature of your assessment -- will be scrutinized

- it's not about you; do what is required to truly help the client

- If put in the hard position of being the Big Boss' Cat's Paw*, tread carefully. Use your knowledge of self and culture to help the CEO and organization to better health.

Cat's Paw: a weak CEO type will hedge decisions and create distance from hard cultural events by pointing to "weakness" in KM, HR, IT and Accounting (IE, cost centers), but they will however be very interested in using something like a KM assessment to shake up the organization to their design. Who is the pawn in this game? The KMer...

Whose work is in the photo? How might he be helpful to us?

a: PIet Mondrian

An abstract artist? Yes!

We're interested in the intellectual lineage and traditions of the West. Why? Your current environment in work and beyond is shaped by a body of thought that has developed and evolved very quickly in the last 150 years or so. Artists, writers, philosophers, social scientists and other thinkers are our best insight into the phenomenon around us. Their work is a reflection of the world we live in, excuse me, the world in which we live. We are wise to understand what they have to say as we make moves to refine and improve our current circumstances (the essence of consulting...).

Mondrian's style, de Stijl, was a response to the horrors of WWI, and a desire to order and organize the world around him better. He and his contemporaries were deeply disillusioned by the war, and felt that Enlightenment ideas and Modern society had failed, they were searching for new ways of seeing things. Note the influence on modern architecture and notions of organizing. WWII only further cemented these notions; from both wars, we gain a body of Postmodern thought that is arguably a violent rejection of reason and order, further muddying the waters.

From these notions, management and knowledge are deeply affected. We can see the business world's response to all this as an attempt to order the chaos; not unlike your efforts at work.

Thoughts? Too much of a stretch?

http://www.theartstory.org/movement-de-stijl.htm