The Tipping Point

AAR’s is a process used by the US Army where after each action [in army's parlance] the team meets to capture the learning’s and lessons, what went well and what could be done better. The advantage of such AAR’s is that the activity performed is fresh in the teams mindspace and they can reflect better on the activity performed and learn from it.

Variations of AAR have been used in the software industry(and in other industries also) in form of Post Harvests, Sunset Reviews, Post Mortem Report etc where the team meets at the end of the project, to look back and reflect on what went well, what could be improved and how to gain from the experience.

While all such practices are fine in theory, there are some fundamental issues in their execution. Few of the limitations are:

• Projects, programs etc get executed over a long span of time – maybe months, years. If a post harvest, sunset review etc is conducted at the end of several months, then it is practically impossible for teams to remember what went well and what could have been better. These meetings then usually will turn into blame game, finger pointing, or of things at a very superficial level. The real learning’s may not surface in such scenarios.

• The importance if learning’s, lessons may become trivial. When the team of individual is facing an issue, or trying to solve a problem, then the lessons they learn while solving the issue/problem the first time is the most important. The next time they face the same situation/problem, then they will see little value in the lessons. They already know how to do it and over a period of time, by the time the post harvest, sunset review happens, the very important lesson that the team had while solving the problem could have become trivial to even mention it.

• Team members join and exit the projects/programs throughout the life cycle of the projects/programs (This is especially true of software development projects). This is compounded by the fact that people leave or join a project not in one shot but in a staggered manner over a period of time. Post harvest, sunset review do not account for tapping into the lessons learnt by people leaving the project, nor do they try to tap into the lessons that people joining a project/program midway bring with them.

• Many times during Post harvests, sunset reviews etc, the team members who had left the project and are now part of other teams are asked to join for such meeting. The intent is very noble — to also tap into the learning’s that these people had and benefit from it. However, the problem is that these team members who had left the project are mentally NOT associated with their previous project anymore, they are mentally switched off from their previous project and are very unlikely to contribute any meaningful learning’s or lessons, and even if they do, it will be very superficial. NOTE: It is not that they have noting to contribute, but the very fact they are mentally, emotionally and physically removed and no longer part of the project, make it difficult from these people to contribute anything meaningful.

There is no doubt that learning’s from Post harvests, sunset reviews can be applied to new projects, but the very fact that lessons/learning’s of AAR’s can be applied right away in the next activity of the current project make it very powerful.

It’s about time that the software industry looks real hard at the value it derives from Post Harvest processes.

After working in the KM arena for many years now, one thought has started puzzling me — “The relationship of KM function with other functions in an organization and the consequences of these relationships — in terms of the KM viewpoint & outlook, success etc.”

I have observed many different Indian IT organizations [I presume it must be similar in other countries also], that each organization has it’s own structure for KM within the organization. For example in one organization, KM reports into quality and is part of the quality function, In another organization KM reports in Education, Training & Research, In another it is heavily distributed and some parts report into Marketing & Sales, some into HR etc. In another one we have a separate KM function that reports directly to the COO.

I have observed the KM initiatives in all these above organizations from close quarters, through various interactions and in all of these cases, the results of KM and the road map, the view of KM, what KM is, is all different and very heavily influenced by the function/person KM reports into.

- KM being a cross-functional discipline, also is similar to an elephant being viewed by blind-folded persons and each person [function] having it’s own view/perception of the elephant [KM] depending on what part of the elephant they are seeing.

- At the same time, KM’s cross-disciplinary nature can create structural tensions within an organization if it is a separate function, with developing working relationships, alignment on directions, strategy, over stepping on other functions toes.. being just some of the issues..

- KM being a relatively new discipline and not very well understood by the stakeholders also contributes to this dilemma. For example, Quality as a function has been there for ages and is pretty well understood. You will very very rarely see quality reporting to say CIO or HR or Marketing or Learning/Training function..

- Also, KM itself is a journey within an organization and goes through various stages.. from repository/technical platforms [CIO function alignment] to communities [HR/Learning function alignment ] to reuse of knowledge [Quality function alignment] to deep integration within the line function [function head alignment] to complex change management & Innovation [COO/CEO alignment]

Surprising isn’t it? We are in the knowledge era and the position of KM function within the organization structure is neither well understood or defined….

I think every organization that is starting a KM journey needs to ponder over this in great depth and align KM function appropriately within it’s organizational structure

Many a times; just because the whole world is going the wiki way, organizations start a wiki initiative and put a wiki in there and say — let’s use it. Many a time it doesn’t work..

Every organization, team, function, or unit needs to first identify the context’s in which Wiki will be used and what needs it will satisfy. In short, you need to answer ‘Why do you want to use Wiki’; and generalities won’t do here. You need to be precise and identify the scenario’s , the context in which your team will use the wiki. Saying that we wil use wiki for ‘collaboration’ just won’t do. Ok.. collaboration for what?

Whatever be the context, say a place to list all the SoP [standard operating procedures] , glossary of terms, cheat sheets, place for sharing infrastructure details, contact details of team members, list of modules within a project and roles & responsibilities, release notes, installation procedures… etc etc..

If you identify even the basic 2-3 scenario’s, the contexts in which your wiki will be used, and then make them work… then wiki adoption will be easy..

Had attended the KM India conference in Delhi from 14th to 16th Nov. Though I must say that it was one of the better conferences I attended, but still I would put it as a waste of time. You know, the speakers, the panelist — even though intelligent people in their own right, don’t have anything worthwhile to say.. Sometimes I feel that this whole conference business is a sham, I feel it’s like the scenario of nobody saying that the ‘King is naked’.

I mean, these speakers, panelists, keynote speakers have ‘nice things’ to say but is that equivalent of ‘relevant things’ to say? At times, the question asked is something and the answer is something else. Imagine speaker after speaker saying that India is into a knowledge era and that the managing of this environment is very important and there are issues with our education system and so on and on.. whoopie do.. EVERYONE knows that.. it’s not anything new…

Anyway, as usual the best discussions happened over lunch, tea & coffee.. and that’s what I like about ‘unconferences’ that they are a ‘one long coffee break’..

I, along with couple of friends, just finished organizing the KAMP @ MindTree.

There were nearly 20 intense sessions with lots of discussions, debate, passionate view points. There was even a ‘knowledge cafe’ conducted in the evening. There were even ‘paper shining stars’ that participants could give to anyone — whose sessions they they liked, whose questions they liked.. or just liked interacting with them during the day..

There were sessions that addressed the basic, fundamental, theoretical aspects of KM and also sessions which were oriented towards practical issues w.r.t KM and it’s role in an organization.

Interesting, the whole concept of barcamps/unconferences are fundamentally about knowledge sharing & learning, and one would expect that KM professionals would be tuned to this concept. However; almost none of the participants knew about barcamp and this was the first time they were attending one.

It was a wonderful experience with most of the participants really happy with the ‘unconference’ format of the KAMP. Looks like the participants really enjoyed the whole ‘unconference’ experience

The best part — there was a KM-India conference in Delhi a week ago. Most of the people who attended both KM India & KAMP, liked the KAMP lot better. They found the energy in the KAMP, the user generated agenda, content much better than the formal KM-India coference.

I think the proof of KAMP success is the fact that by the evening, participants were asking when & where the next KAMP would be. Infact, lots of participnts wanted KAMp to be monthly ‘unevent’ from now on.