knowquestion :: Stephen Bounds

One of the key components of Knowledge Management is to improve an organisation's ability to solve problems. When analysing a problem to determine possible solutions, there are two dominant modes of thought:

Divergent thinking is exploratory - brainstorming, reframing the problem, looking to expand our evidence base and identifying alternative solutions are all divergent activities.

On the other hand, convergent thinking seeks to narrow our focus - whether by concentrating on only a specific aspect of a problem, choosing between identified solutions or improving on a particular solution.

One of the topics gaining prominence in the field of KM is the question of how closely organisations mirror human biology.

It is well accepted that there are at least superficial similarities -- both are complex adaptive systems, for example -- but the use of a metaphor which resonates so strongly with our personal experiences as a human is both enlightening and dangerous.

Kerrie Christian recently posted a fantastically detailed and passionate post about her experiences in disaster management on actKM.

One of the things that struck me is that her experiences and the stories she was told serve as a really important mental reinforcement. By having a highly emotive reminder on why these lessons matter, Kerrie was more likely to remember them.

All projects are accomplished through a trio of things: communication, coordination and collaboration.

Communication is about establishing a common understanding of what needs to be done and the impact of doing it.

Coordination is the process of making decisions and scheduling actions based on those decisions.

Collaboration is when people work together to accomplish the various tasks assigned to them through the coordination process.

Recently I have been thinking a lot about the impact of collaborative tools on workplace interruptions.

In the old days of computers, PCs could only work on one task at a time. This naturally discouraged task switching, since there was a cost of setting up and quitting the application. Instead, people completed the task they were on before moving on to the next one.

Not coincidentally, this habit also closely mirrored the traditional "in-tray" approach of business. Take the first piece of paper; deal with it; move on to the next. The only difference was that it encouraged "clumping" of tasks. Deal with all tasks requiring Application A, then move to all those requiring Application B.

Once multitasking became widespread with Windows 3.1, this approach no longer had to hold. People could partly complete one task; switch to another task on demand; and switch back. However, my memory of these early days is that multi-tasking was generally reserved for reference purposes. You might run multiple windows, but generally the new task supported the completion of the original, "master" task.

The advent of email and the internet changed all that.