Does structure drive knowledge or does or should knowledge drive structure? This interesting question was raised in an email response to my previous post on organizational networks. I will address this question in this post by looking at our contemporary reality and what a new paradigm of "knowledge driving structure" might look like.
In our traditional organizations, clearly structure drives knowledge. We have created superhighways for knowledge flow and, to follow the metaphor, we also have country roads along which knowledge moves more slowly as well as a variety of dead ends and cul de sacs. These are defined paths for the movement of knowledge. We have established a variety of check-points or traffic cops along the way to ensure that knowledge goes where and when it is supposed to. There are norms that support the flow along these pre-ordained channels and sanctions for when the knowledge starts moving outside of these channels. All of this worked well when the environment was stable and simple.
The world has changed radically from when the bureaucratic organizations of the past were the easy solution. The litany of changes is well-known to all of us. The question we now ask is whether this new age requires a paradigm shift to "knowledge-driving structure"?
For the purposes of this post, I will cover two areas mandating change.
- The NetGen mindset.
- The complex and emergent nature of challenges.
The NetGen Mindset
The new generation of knowledge users and current and soon-to-be workers in our society have grown up in a world best reflected by a moment in the life of such a person. There sits the NetGener - perhaps in Starbucks, perhaps on a bus, train or even a park bench. Their computer is open to Facebook or My Space where they are actively communicating with hundreds of people who are part of their world. There are videos flashing across the screen as well as candid pictures. While doing all of this, they are working on a project either in text or using graphics or a spreadsheet. There are several windows open on their screen which they continue to address. They occasionally stop to take a phone call on their cell phone or to text a message. They are also consulting their blackberry. And, of course they also have their earphones on connected to their i-pod. All of this comes quite naturally to this person. They have a mindset which I painfully have to admit cannot be fully understood by prior generations. It is not a mindset that is conducive to life in a bureaucratic organization. This is not the type of person who will likely understand what it is like to be in an organization with pre-defined and exclusive channels for knowledge flow.
The reality set out in terms of the NetGener is also becoming the reality for huge numbers of the rest of us. Knowledge has become instantaneous for us. We are used to taking the initiative to gather knowledge to solve problems or understand the world around us. We have experienced more and more the efficiency and even the thrill of having knowledge and people with expertise at our finger tips. The archaic nature and irrationality of pre-ordained knowledge highways becomes more and more painfully obvious whenever there are quicker, more efficient pathways to knowledge and expertise.
The Complex and Emergent Nature of Challenges
Events like the intelligence failures of 9/11 make it clear that the challenges of today cannot be solved by the highways of the past. We no longer have time for knowledge to try to make its way along superhighways and risk getting stuck in cul de sacs. Simply watching television over the course of several days with regard to the financial crisis makes it abundantly clear that change happens hourly. Yesterday's solution becomes quickly outdated. Knowledge transfer and absorption must happen instantaneously and among a diverse group of people to keep pace and be responsive to these changes. Knowledge cannot follow the structures of the past.
The Choice
One choice is to create new structures for the new types of knowledge to follow. Another choice is for structures to follow and support the flow of knowledge in a different kind of way.
I believe that creating new structures for knowledge to follow would still be pursuing the old paradigm. I do not think it is feasible for organizations at this point in time to successfully carry out work confined to mandated knowledge structures. Even if we could figure out these new structures, within a short period of time new applications will be developed and then used that will make these structures obsolete. The answer seems clear that knowledge flows in a Web 2.0 world will remain emergent. Designing after-the-fact structures may be feasible but will become quickly outdated as well.
The New Appropriate Structures
I believe that our contemporary role is to develop overarching enabling structures that will make emergent knowledge flows useful and safe for our organizations. Our role is to create a holding container in which the many conversations enabled by technology and catalyzed by challenges can take place. Our role is to make the boundaries of this container appropriately porous to allow access to external knowledge and people. The integrity and purposefulness of this container can be maintained by establishing a mission, goals as well as overriding tasks that are known by all and to which all voluntarily buy-in by their remaining presence in the organization or their willingness to affiliate with the organization or task.
We can establish norms that rationally determine how to maintain required security of knowledge and also design security into the technology. Norms can be established to govern the desired respect, reciprocity, openness and other attributes desired within the container. Technology can support these norms and in turn be supported by them. Detailed profiles, wikis and social networking applications can be utilized to foster openness and trust. The structure (a word that more and more may conjure up old mental models) may now be seen as more of a dynamic, ever changing network of internal and external people interacting with regard to current challenges.
The governing question for the Web 2.0 organization may be how do we bring people together to get work done around a specific challenge or task and how do we efficiently share information, questions and context with people with whom we work.
The Transition
The transition to this new organization will be both natural and challenging. It will be natural, because it is already happening and happens day by day, minute by minute. The emergent nature of knowledge networks or bridges to knowledge is a new reality. Recognizing this, supporting it and guiding it will enable us to take advantage of this ongoing reality. Approaching this transition from the traditional, linear path of command and control will be more of a challenge. This requires constant decisions when to accede to the new reality and when to restrain it, how much control to give up and when and how and what to substitute for traditional modes of control. Both paths realistically will occur and likely we will all find ourselves switching between paths as we attempt to adjust to the new reality.
Feel free to share your comments in the comments space provided or by email.
Comments