Blog

Since there were no activities here for the last couple of months, you may wonder if I have given up this Tao-of-IT.com website for good. It is not the case, but I have other priorities to take care of for the time being. I will be back in the new year 2010, definitely with a fresher view of IT and its Tao.

Until then, I wish all of you and your family the best of Health, Success and Happiness.

Sometimes, a genius needs help to fully realize his potential. That’s the story of Willard Boyle, the co-winner of the 2009 Nobel Physics Prize. Together with George Smith, a co-worker at Bell Labs in New Jersey, they have invented CCD (Charge-Coupled Device), a key component in digital sensor technology that was both revolutionary and widely applicable. More on the story at Science Canada.

I don’t want to take away the spotlight on Boyle and Smith today because they fully deserve it. But a peek into the story’s behind-the-scene is equally edifying. It reveals an interesting character, Boyle’s boss. According to the story, Boyle was already an Executive Director of Device Development at Bell Labs but he still had a boss, a very demanding one, in Jack Morton. He would call Boyle every morning to prod or cajole: 

“Boyle?”

“Hello, Jack.”

“So what happened yesterday?” came the familiar question.

Boyle shifted a little more in his chair.

“I can’t see you, Bill,” said Morton.

“Right here, Jack.”

“So what’d you guys do yesterday?”

“You know, more of the same. We’re still working on those new transistors,” said Boyle.

“Look, Bill, the other guys are doing great stuff with magnetic bubbles. It’s terrific. What are you semiconductor guys doing? The heck with transistors. Try and come up with something different. I’ll call tomorrow.”

And he hung up.

It was the "try something different" suggestion from Morton that sent Boyle to look for Smith and together, they brainstormed a new theory in a single afternoon. The rest is history. There is no mention of the role that Morton played in the CCD journey from theory to application, but I can bet my 6-pack of beer that he was not far behind, not with his daily inquiries.

So the next time that you see or sense your team is in a rut, ask them to "try and come up with something different". And don’t forget to tell them that you will call tomorrow. God knows, maybe that’s all it takes to trigger a genius idea.

If nothing else, you would get the quiet satisfaction of being the force that ignited the lightbulb in someone’s brilliant career.

Postcript

Who is Jack Morton? The best way to learn about him is to start with the Memorial Tributes piece from the National Academy of Engineering. According to James B. Fisk, President of Bell Labs at the time of Morton’s death in 1971:

"Jack Morton was one of the rare breeds of men who not only generate a vast number of technological innovations themselves, but also develop and inspire others to produce major innovations in concepts, systems, and technology. He was a man who devoted his life to propagating technical ideas and developing technical people; and was able to blend management theory and management practice."

Photo credit: National Academy of Engineering

If Information is "Data, correlated" then Knowledge is "Information, transformed". The transformation from Information to Knowledge is an exercise of the brain that, once understood, could shed light on the elusive process of capturing the tacit knowledge of business and corporate smarts.

Information is not Knowledge

The former is interesting but only the latter is useful. You want more Information to build up and fine-tune your Knowledge, but ultimately you want more Knowledge to make better decisions. For a clear explanation of the difference between the two, the readers are urged to read What Can You Capture? by Chuck Musciano on his blog The Effective CIO.

In a previous post, The Peril of Data-driven Knowledge, I have made similar observations about the difference between "interesting" and "useful":

"… there are too many performance measurements that inundate the executive dashboards today without providing any insight about how these pieces of Data/Information/Knowledge may help the business moving forward. They are known as the lag indicators by the initiated, the least useful pieces of Knowledge. So the next time that you hear someone expounds the virtue of Knowledge, ask yourself whether or not that kind of Knowledge is relevant to the business at hand or just a bunch of gobbledygooks to impress people."

In his post, Chuck also deplored the common attempt to "capture" Knowledge similar to the way that Data and Information are captured, albeit with more sophisticated tools such as Business Intelligence and the like. He called this type of data-driven knowledge "rote knowledge". He suggested that:

"The ease of data capture and the improvements in deriving information imply that the next level, knowledge capture, is possible and even easy. I contend it is not; while some rote knowledge may be captured, really important knowledge is only learned over time through continuous exposure to a master, much like a traditional apprenticeship.  Our fascination with tools misleads us into thinking that there is a tool for everything; I don’t know that there is a tool for true, deep knowledge capture."

 While mostly agreeing with his view, I have a slighly different opinion which I have expressed as a comment to his post:

"There is a tool for true, deep knowledge capture: our brain. It’s the universal tool that let all of us learn how to drive or acquire “deep” knowledge. It does so by identifying and classifying patterns of recognition. In an organization, the challenge of capturing business/corporate Knowledge (i.e. patterns of success) resides in the fact that captured Information (interesting) are not systematically processed, consistently evaluated, and publicly recognized as instances of success (useful). Otherwise, the staff (or to be more specific, their brains) would “know” how to solidify these instances into deep Knowledge over time."

When re-reading the comment, I realized that it was so cryptic to the point of incomprehensible, so that a follow-up is almost required. This post is my attempt to expand on it – and share with you some additional thoughts on Knowledge.

Knowledge = Information, encoded and wired

Let me first start with a disclaimer: I am not a trained scientist. My studies of the brain and the mind are limited and superficial. They nevertheless serves as the basis for my point of view (PoV) on Knowledge Acquisition and I take full responsibility for it. However, I am not going to provide an exhaustive bibliography to bolster my PoV. After all, this is a personal blog post, not a research paper.

In order to understand how the brain can be an effective tool to capture Knowledge, we should know how and how well the brain makes its acquisition, storage and retrieval. Each of the following 3 statements summarizes my understanding of each process:

1. Our brain acquires Knowledge through a progressive Intake process: it first registers the information in the active (also called short-term) memory. If the brain perceives this information important or useful, it will move the information to the long-term memory. At the same time, it will create a new neural network (a complex collection of synapses and neurotransmitters) in the cerebral cortex for this new piece of Information. This new neural network is the memory location of the Information and a node in an existing and larger network which is the brain itself. At this point, we can say that the Information is encoded (in long-term memory) and wired (in a neural net). It is the genesis of Knowledge.
    
2. There are 2 types of long-term memory: declarative or explicit memory which contains the Knowledge of WHAT (episodic memory for events, semantic memory for facts) and non-declarative or procedural (implicit) memory which contains the Knowledge of HOW [Ref. Joaquin M. Fuster, Memory in the Cerebral Cortex, 1995]. There are different theories about where these different types of long-term memory are stored. One theory talks about a "multi-stage, multi-store" concept, whereby the Information is passed from a shallow to a deeper region of memory depends on its persistence (Does it sound familiar to those of you involved in the Information Lifecycle Management – ILM – concept?). Another one, the one that I subscribe to, argues that the locations of these stores are not important, what is important is the capability of the brain to know where the Information – in plural - are (Again, does it also sound familiar to those of you involved with DBMS, SaaS, or Cloud Computing?).
    
3. The effectiveness of memory recall (or Knowledge retrieval) depends on the "level of processing" of the initial encoding, i.e. how deep the information has been originally processed. The deeper the encoding process, the better memory recall later on [Ref. Dr. Fergus I.M. Craik]. Depth of processing is a function of familiarity, specificity of processing, duration of exposure, etc. (See also Levels-of-processing effect for a better description of these variables). It also depends on the so-called "elaborative rehearsals" or associations between the new information in the short-term memory and the stored information in the long-term memory. The more associations are made at the acquistion phase, the deeper its encoding (which creates a richer neural net) and the easier its retrieval from memory.

What all this mean is that, strictly speaking, Knowledge cannot be captured at all, just like Chuck Musciano said earlier on; and that when I said the Brain is the tool to do such thing, I meant to say that the brain captures the Information in this complex memory-encoding, neural net-wiring process so that when retrieved, the Information is somehow magically transformed into pertinent, relevant, and useful Knowledge.

However, there are enough pointers here for those of you who wish to capture the tacit knowledge of business from the brains of those hard-to-replaced experienced workers who may walk out the door one day and never return. 

How to best capture tacit Business/Corporate Knowledge?

The first thing to do is to put aside any thought of capturing the knowledge through automated and data-driven methods. This kind of Knowledge created is shallow and its usefulness is not worth the investment. It’s better to focus the corporate effort on creating a learning environment conducive to information transformation, i.e. similar to the way the brain functions; and on guiding the employees through their own knowledge encoding. You can do that by:

• Making the process of identifying useful Information clear and timely - Whenever there is an Event (episodic memory) or a Fact (semantic memory) or a Process (procedural memory) or a Project (a combination of all these) that is desirable to capture for eternity, it should be publicly and timely recognized as such, i.e. as an "instance of success". Leave it to the employees to "encode" that piece of information into their memory stores. Naturally, the more such instances of success are known publicly, the more chances for the employees to make "elaborative rehearsals" and deepen the encoding process.
   
• Making the selection of useful Information consistent and non-ambiguous - Make sure that the instances of success exhibit some common or shared attributes. There is nothing worse than selecting ones with contradictory attributes. Better yet, point out the so-called "universal truth" from these instances so that a "pattern of success" could be created. Leave it to the employees to recognize the "familiarity" of such event/fact/process/project.
   
• Helping the employees refresh their memories - Create corporate legends and stories out of these instances of success. Make them visible and recognizable everywhere. There must be at least 3 stories of success for each type of business knowledge worth capturing (e.g. closing a deal with a difficult prospect, implementing a new technology in an impossible time frame, etc.). Leave it to the employees to pick the right one to complement their inner memories.

You will see that gradually, the employees will make better decisions as if they have somehow acquired the "secret sauce" of success that is elusive to them before. 

Conclusion

Most Knowledge, especially the tacit one, cannot be hard-coded. We need to rely on the people (and their brains) to learn from past and present Events/Facts. The success of an organization in preserving this Knowledge resides in its capability to have, at any given time, enough people with such knowledge (or people with the capacity to acquire quickly such knowledge), regardless of the inevitable turnover. In turn, the capacity of acquiring tacit knowledge depends on the Leadership of the ornanization to carefully create and maintain a corporate environment where examples of successful Events and Facts, as well as desirable Behaviours and Proceses, are clearly selected, timelely communicated and prominently displayed. Let the employees take care of the rest.

When it comes to describe a great leader, one who can inspire others to embrace change, there is no single word that can adequately do so. We may have touched on one such word, Integrity, in previous posts. Credibility would be a close second. In the context of a business organization, however, there are many managers but few recognized leaders. When pressed into a situation of leading change, the new leader usually doesn’t have much time to establish his/her Credibility or demonstrate his/her Integrity. A good leader should have something else up his/her sleeve to quickly establish the Credibility. That something is called Clarity, not just clarity of vision but also of actions and expectations.

I have said so a while ago in a forum discussion at LinkedIn. The forum belongs to the Organization Change Practitioners group and a member, Jim Markowsky, raised the following question:

"What is the single most important thing a leader can do to inspire their employees to embrace change?"

As expected, the comments are numerous and varied. They run the gamut of leadership traits (vision, commitment, accountability, trust, …) and actions (empower, co-create, ask, listen, …). One participant even suggested Fire (as in "Fire the resisters"). The most popular choice, without mentioning the word, was Integrity with comments like "walk the talk", "do what you preach", "be the change you want" … One participant and I chose Clarity. His comment was short ("Explain clearly the why (or what for)."). Mine was lengthier. Since the forum is restricted to its members, I reprint my comment here in full for the readers:

"Clarity. Clarity of vision. Clarity of expectations. Clarity of actions.

 

With Clarity of vision, you (as the leader) articulate and Communicate better the end state and what it would take to get there. Clarity of vision generates a sense of Importance, Urgency and Excitement in the change initiative.

 

With Clarity of expectations, you delimit the contribution of each person or group, making it easier for them to Commit. Clarity of expections generates a sense of (willing/not forced) Ownership.

 

With Clarity of actions, you can choose to lead from the front (be a role model) or from the back (empower people) or both. Clarity of action generates Consistency and Trust which in turn make it easier for people to engage. "

Why Clarity?

Because the very first action of a leader is to communicate and connect with the staff. By necessity, the messages must be clear, concise and consistent in order to get through, hence the necessity for Clarity. And the best way to express Clarity is in a speech (or a memo) at the start of the change initiative.

It is not a coincidence that many great and inspiring leaders are associated with famous speeches. It is also not a coincidence that many of those speeches announced a "new deal". The inaugural addresses by the newly elected U.S. Presidents, Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933) and John F. Kennedy (1961), are fine examples of that. 

But there is perhaps no better example of Clarity (or should I say impact of Clarity) than the famous "I Have A Dream" speech given by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., on August 28, 1963 from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to over 200,000 civil rights supporters during the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, where he spoke of his desire for a future when black and white people, among others, would coexist harmoniously as equals.

According to Wikipedia, the "I Have A Dream" speech was "… a defining moment of the American Civil Rights Movement and is often considered to be one of the greatest and most notable speeches in human history and was ranked the top American speech of the 20th century by a 1999 poll of scholars of public address."

That particular public speech in 1993 had all the elements of Clarity.

The Clarity of Vision:

"I have a dream …

… that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

… that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

… that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

… that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

The Clarity of Actions:

"… In a sense we’ve come to our nation’s capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we’ve come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice."

The Clarity of Expectations:

"… But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force."

That speech has defined the man, Martin Luther King Jr., as the unique, incontestable and inspirational leader of the American Civil Rights Movement.

As a leader of a Change Movement, it’s your turn to pen your own version of "I Have A Dream" with similar Clarity.

I have been updating the Newly added Favorite Blog Posts & Articles section in the What’s New On This Site column in the sidebar for a while now, but this is the first time that I feel the urge to write about one of them. The blog post in question is Engagement Soup by Bret L. Simmons in his own Blog by the same name. There are several reasons why this post quickly becomes one of my favorites: its author (Bret is a well known and respected blogger on Leadership), its timely and timeless subject (Engagement), as well as its demonstration of critical thinking. By all means, go there and read the entire article and the great follow-up dialogue between Bret and the readers. But before you do that, here is my two cents:

The Engagement Soup post is a reaction to an article by Michelle Conlin in the August 24 & 31, 2009 special issue of BusinessWeek entitled Is Optimism a Competitive Advantage. In the article, Collin stated that, according to most human resources managers:

"optimistic, engaged employees are more productive and hence can help their employers grow and make more money. Put simply, workplace optimism, if nurtured properly, can be a competitive advantage."

No argument there from Bret (or myself). But then Collin went on to say:

"Companies don’t directly measure the optimism of their employees. Instead they rely on engagement scores, typically gathered by outside consultants who exhaustively survey the staff."

It’s an interesting statement and a fact (yes, there are scores of evidence to prove the truthfulness of the statement) that many, many large/successful/respected/… companies use external consultants with proprietary methods of measuring the levels of employee engagement and correlate them to the business growth and profit. Brett pointed out that most if not all the statements used in the employee survey (from one of the leading consultancy firms in this field) have NOTHING to do with employee engagement, neither as direct Cause nor Effect indicators.

Here is a typical statement:

"I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right."

And here is Bret’s observation: 

"Should we believe that BECAUSE you are engaged, you are given the materials and equipment you need to do the work right? Or is it that because you are given the materials and equipment to do the work right you are engaged?" 

I love his analogy of measuring the health of a tree:

"Want to know if a tree is healthy? Look at the leaves and the fruit. These are indicators of the health of the tree. Just because we give our tree lots of fertilizer, water, and sunlight does NOT mean it is healthy."

Unlike many who should no better, Bret has seen through the fog of correlative analysis with his critical thinking. Without saying it out loud, Bret has succeeded in pointing out (at least to me) that this practice of substituting a correlation for a causal effect is at best questionable and at worse, a pile of horse s..t … er, fertilizer.

This Engagement Soup post is definitely a keeper in my Favorite Blog Posts & Articles.