Future Forward - KIN's 10th Anniversary

Ten years ago, Enron filed for bankruptcy, China had the 6th largest GDP in the world, Wikipedia was launched, and of course the 9/11 attacks took place. 2001 was also the year that the Knowledge and Innovation Network was established by the IKON Research Centre at Warwick Business School.

In the last ten years, the world has changed enormously. Your current top three competitors may not have even existed back then. China now has the world's 2nd largest GDP. Today, Amazon sells as many e‐books as hardbacks.

At the KIN 10th Anniversary Workshop in September, we will be taking a brief look back at the world of work and comparing it with what the next ten years may hold. The celebratory event will be over two full days at Warwick Business School, on 14th and 15th September.

Whilst we will spend a little time looking back, the focus will be to look at the World of Work as it might be in 10 years time. We already have some great speakers lined up to give us their insights; Charles Leadbeater, Prof Georg Von Krogh, Richard McDermott, Scott Gavin, Andrew Parker, Eddie Obeng, Steve Cassidy from BT and David Smith, a futurologist to help us look forward. All this, and of course a number of member case studies. All the KIN Associates have been invited to give their specialist views on what the future holds. From Warwick Business School, Profs Harry Scarbrough and Davide Nicolini will give us the research perspective.
Image by Furryscaly via Flickr
Representatives of all previous KIN member organisations are welcome to attend the first day of the event - it will be great to reconnect. If you were previously part of KIN, you can stay in touch through the KIN Alumni LinkedIn Group.

Choice Architecture

Choice architecture is not about nice buildings. It's about encouraging people to do stuff; the architecture of choice. Not a new concept by any means - the entire ad industry is based on it. There are some wonderful examples of how behaviour can be influenced in VW's The Fun Theory website. My favourite is the bottomless trash can. Originally designed to stop people dropping litter, it was so successful that folks actually went around looking for rubbish to deposit.


Choice architecture is also a central component of the UK Coalition Government's 'Big Society'. For example, encouraging individuals to volunteer in local initiatives, something that could never be coerced or mandated. Thaler and Sunstein's book 'Nudge' uses some interesting examples from organ donation and energy consumption to illustrate how our lifestyle choices are subtly, but deliberately, being influenced by government policy.

So how does Choice Architecture relate to Organisational Learning and knowledge sharing across firms? Well, the verbs encourage, persuade, influence are central. This is neatly reflected in Dave Snowden's heuristic of "Knowledge will only ever be volunteered it can not be conscripted". We need to be cognizant of the fact that, irrespective of corporate edicts about collaboration, or investment in web2.0 technology, every individual has a choice in whether they share or not.

My boss in a previous job used to talk about 'the pain principle'. If something is easier (or in the case of the trash can, more fun) to do the new way, it is more likely to happen. If it is more difficult, or a pain, it won't. Every intervention, technology, policy or tool we develop should be subject to the Choice Architect's slide rule; 'is it easier, quicker, less costly or (heaven forbid) more fun for the individual than the old way'? At this level, 'easier' probably trumps the others.

I am amazed at how many change programmes and technology projects miss out on applying this simple test.

Related articles

• The Fun Theory (response-learning.com)
• Delivering a social nudge (measuresconsulting.wordpress.com)
• Choice Architecture: Why Search Can't Be Totally Objective (mediapost.com)

KIN Member Organisation Maturity Benchmarking

We presented the results of the KIN 2011 Maturity Model at yesterday's Spring Workshop.

The results graphically show the delta between those with a high level of maturity in certain components and those with a desire to improve.

The components assessed were: Knowledge sharing strategy, Measuring impact, Learning and innovating, Collaborating and Re-using. We will use the benchmarking results to ensure the KIN programme for the year reflects this need.

It is also an invaluable signpost to how KIN Members themselves can:

• Connect peer-to-peer to learn and improve in those knowledge-sharing aspects where they see a capability gap
  
• Benchmark their own improvement over time (we will make this an annual exercise)
• Identify pockets of excellence and demand within their organisation (the tool is available for use by Members at a more granular level)Image via Wikipedia

Event Tweeting

I've been thinking about our use of Tweeting during KIN Workshops. For some time, we have encouraged the twitterati present to tell us what they are thinking through an event hashtag. As organisers, we find it useful to look back at what contemporaneous chat was going on. However those who don't Tweet, or don't want to look at screens during presentations and discussions, are excluded or unaware of that particular channel.

Dextr allows you to have a very simple feed to display tweets, one at a time and writ large on a second screen, or as Russell Davies did, a projector. We could use Dextr to project on a wall to display these comments and even questions in real time and to everyone participating in the workshop.
Has anyone displayed Tweets at an event? Was it inclusive or a total distraction? What about for the speaker? Is this any different to the 'chat' channel during a webinar?

Enforcement or Engagement?

Image by secretlondon123 via FlickrEngagement. It's a word that, in most cases, is associated with a pleasant or worthwhile experience. Why is it that so many of our efforts to engage in sharing knowledge across organisations resort to exhortation, pleading or enforcement. 'If you don't do this, this will, or won't, happen'.

Thomas Goetz presented at a TEDMed salon last year and brilliantly illustrated the ineffectiveness of such approaches. The most powerful example, and one I had vaguely heard before, is the change in behaviour resulting from the installation of vehicle-activated 'your speed is...' signs, compared to the universally hated speed cameras*.

Goetz posits that by personalising the information we receive, we are much more open to act upon it. The collection of personal data is now so commonplace and inexpensive, that providing comparatives between individual and aggregate data can be used to call-to-action, much more effectively than generalised edicts.

He neatly inserts personalised data as the relevance engine in his feedback loop. It would be worth stepping back and examining whether the interventions we propose as part of our knowledge sharing stategies, pass this simple 'how is this relevant to me?' test.

Heck, we may even do this at the KIN Knowledge Strategies Roundtable that we are holding on 23rd March.





*According to a 2007 report the reduction in the number of UK road deaths attributed to speed cameras, at a cost of £100m, could have been achieved at a cost of £2m for the equivalent number of vehicle-activated speed signs.