Thinking for a Living: The Coming Age of Knowledge Work [2 ed.] 9783110289671, 9783110289480

Citation preview

Kenneth Megill Thinking for a Living

Kenneth Megill

Thinking for a Living The Coming Age of Knowledge Work

2nd Edition

DE GRUYTER SAUR

ISBN 978-3-11-028948-0 e-ISBN 978-3-11-028967-1

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2013 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Typesetting: Michael Peschke, Berlin Printing: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ♾ Printed on acid free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

Alice Gannon

A Knowledge Worker’s Perspective I’ll give you an idea worth a million dollars every year or two. Your job is to pay me in the meantime.

This book is dedicated to the memory of Alice Gannon, a wonderful records manager, who specialized in managing records of nuclear power plants. We shared a minimalist view of our profession. We agreed we should keep as little as possible, but all of the right things, we should have as few staff as possible, and pay them very well, and we should automate every conceivable task. At our last lunch together shortly before she finally lost her battle with an illness that would have felled most of us years ago, she asked me what I was up to. When I told her I was thinking of writing a book with the title, “Thinking for a Living,” she said, “I know what that means.” She went on to say, “I tell my boss that I will come up with an idea to save him a million dollars or so every year or so. In the meantime, I expect him to pay me.” Alice was worth every penny she was paid, and I miss having lunch with her. Rest in Peace, Alice

Tom Sawyer’s Theory of Work Tom said to himself that it was not such a hollow world after all... If he had been a great and wise philosopher, like the writer of this book, he would now have comprehended that Work consists of whatever a body is obliged to do and that Play consists of whatever a body is not obliged to do. (Mark Twain. The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. Chapter II: “The Glorious Whitewasher”)

Tom Sawyer is perhaps the iconic American character. For those who have forgotten (or never read) Tom Sawyer, let’s set the stage for this quote. Aunt Polly, Tom’s keeper and guide in life, put Tom to work on a beautiful Saturday morning. At this dark and hopeless moment an inspiration burst upon him! Nothing less than a great, magnificent inspiration.

He decided to turn work into play. When one of his colleagues came by, Tom allowed him to paint, after some persuasion, because Does a boy get a chance to whitewash a fence every day?

Tom had his call to adventure. By the end of the day the fence is whitewashed and Tom walks away with many valuable objects as the various boys came by and paid him for the privilege to paint the fence. When asked, Why, ain’t that work?

He says, Well, maybe it is, and maybe it ain’t. All I know is, it suits Tom Sawyer.

One moral of the story is that our attitude (work culture) shapes whether a given task is work or play. Tom (who spoke for Mark Twain) did not use the proper definition of work = force x distance. But then Tom skipped a lot of school and learned life rather than physics. But Tom understood that all labor was becoming forced labor in the world in which he was growing up. The industrial revolution was getting off to a rip-roaring start along the Mississippi River where he learned life. Work, if it was work, was forced. School was a preparation for the work world. Tom Sawyer’s rebellion against that world captured the essence of humanity. Tom understood that what really counts is how much I get to play.

A Philosopher’s View of Knowledge But how is it that some people enjoy spending a great deal of time in my company?... It is because they enjoy hearing me examine those who think that they are wise when they are not – an experience which has its amusing side. (Socrates, Apology, 19c)

For those who have forgotten (or never read) Plato, let’s set the stage for this quote. Socrates is speaking to his fellow citizens in Athens. He is on trial for his life, accused of corrupting the youth. The report of his trial, called the Apology, was written by Plato. Socrates was a great teacher and thinker, but never wrote. He left that to his student, Plato. In the end, Socrates was convicted and sentenced to drink the poison, hemlock, which he did, with his students at his side. It is literally true, even if it sounds rather comical, that God has specially appointed me to this city, as though it were a large thoroughbred horse which because of its great size is inclined to be lazy and needs the stimulation of some stinging fly. It seems to me that God has attached me to this city to perform the office of such a fly, and all day long never cease to settle here, there, and everywhere, rousing, persuading, reproving every one of you. (Apology, 30e)

It was Socrates who first asked, and answered, the question – what is knowledge? It is justified true belief, what we know works, what makes sense. Knowledge is information created by others and ourselves that we bring to bear on our lives and our work. Knowledgeable people like to be around those who make knowledge. It is their fun, their amusement.

A Personal Note to the Reader from the Author We have inserted a number of passages in this book that serve as counter-points to our discussion. You will recognize them by the solid line before and after the text like the one here and a different font like the one in this paragraph.

Some of these passages were written by colleagues for this book. Others are extended quotations that make the same points I make from a different perspective. They are counter-points to my argument. Read this book like a web site and let your mind pursue various paths and then return to the book as an object -- with a beginning and a middle and an end. Flip through the pages. Find what interests you. Books look linear. They have beginnings, middles and ends. They have pages and chapters that shape and hold the information content. However, except for those with a story, books are seldom read from beginning to end. That is a good thing. Many of you are reading this book in electronic form -- but it still looks a lot like a traditional book. But you can easily jump around -- and if you find a word that interests you, then you can run a search and find it elsewhere in the book. There are several web sites mentioned in the book -- and many in the reference and citations section at the end. I write books because articles, e-mails, tweets and blogs do not allow me to develop an argument. I hope I have a coherent argument in this book. So think of this book as a spiral...you can climb on and off at various points. You need not read it in order. I hope you will return to the basic argument I put forward in this book: We are developing a new way to do work that can be both more productive and more humane. Most work is becoming knowledge work.

I don‘t expect you to accept this statement before you read the book, but I hope that once you follow my argument, you will say -- well, that does make some sense. Follow the spirals. Happy Reading! Ken Megill

Table of Contents A Knowledge Worker’s Perspective  Tom Sawyer’s Theory of Work 

 v

 vii

A Philosopher’s View of Knowledge 

 ix

A Personal Note to the Reader from the Author 

 xi

Introduction   1 Knowledge and Management   1 Philosophers and Knowledge   2 Librarians, Records Managers and Archivists   3 Engineers and Information Technology Professionals  Anthropologists and Learning Theorists   6 Management Theorists   6

Section I: Work Transforming 

 9

Chapter 1: Workers Become Professionals   11 From Menials to Professionals   12 The Airplane Mechanic   13 Retail/Service Industry   14 Forms Management and Data Capture   17 Automobile Manufacturing: From Assembly Lines to Quality Circles   19 Military – Network Centric Warfare   21 Many More   24 Chapter 2: Professionals Become Workers   25 Knowing More and More About Less and Less   26 Alienated Work   26 Professionals – The Modern Thinkers   28 Professional Associations   29 “De-Professionalization”   30 Education – From the Box to the Team   31 Universities Straddle Conflicting Missions   33 Medicine – the End of the Super Doctor   34 The Production of Knowledge   35

 5

xiv 

 Table of Contents

Management   38 The Life of the Intellectual 

 39

 42 Chapter 3: From Cooperation to Collaboration  Breaking the Link of Work and Time   44 Cooperation and Collaboration   46 Beliefs That Underlie the New Work Culture   47 Information Sharing   49 Moving From Cooperation to Collaboration   49 A Management View   51 A Culture of Ownership   52

Section II: New Ways to Think About Work 

 59

Chapter 4: Knowledge Work   61 The Fourth Wave   61 Characteristics of Knowledge Work   63 Knowledge: Justified True Belief   64 Knowledge, Information and Data – Some Distinctions  Wisdom – the Other Side of Knowledge   67 Work and Activity   68 Going to Work   69 Playing Office is not Work   70 The Magic of Understanding   71 Creativity   72 An Ontology of Work   73 What is Orthodox Marxism?   74 Knowledge Management   79 Chapter 5: Integrated Digital Environment   82 Technology Scaffold   83 The Three Principles of an Integrated Digital Environment  The Power of Working in a Web Environment   86 Chapter 6: Communities of Practice   92 The Baobab Tree – How One Kind of Community Shares Knowledge   93 Ba – A Japanese View of Community   96

 67

 84

Table of Contents 

Practice/Praxis   97 Cultivating a Community of Practice  Section III: The Work of Changing 

 xv

 99

 101

Chapter 7: Can There Be Joy in Work?   103 One Person at a Time   104 The Thinking Machine   106 Work is a Social Activity   107 Inherently Democratic   108 An Anthropologists View of Work   110 Overcoming Bad Habits   112 Chapter 8: Thinking Spirally   114 Software Development   115 We Don’t Know the End   116 Agility   117 Moving to the Cloud and Open Data   118 Designing for Flexibility   119 Four Philosophical Theories for Knowledge Work  Understanding (Hermeneutics)   120 Abduction   122 The Community of Scientific Inquirers   124 Faceting   125 Dialectical Thinking   129 Toward a New Theory   131

 119

Chapter 9: The Practice of Transformation: Three Practical Steps   133 Leadership from Above: Change from Below   137 Step I: Understand the Work and the Workflow   139 Step II: Understand the knowledge/information produced doing the work and make it accessible to those who need it to do their work   141 Step III: Understand information used (or needed) to do the work and make it immediately accessible to you and your colleagues   143 A Work in Progress   144 Chapter 10: One Society at a Time   147 Revolutionizing the Nature of Work   148 Marxism with Chinese Characteristics   151

xvi 

 Table of Contents

One Transformation Among Many   153 Learning from the Chinese Experience   154 Some Specific Suggestions   154  156 Epilogue: Work Becomes Play  What about Knowledge Management? 

 157

Appendix   159 The Air Force Project: From Computers and Wires to a Culture Change  How it came about   160 The Role of Leadership   164 Afterword 

 166

Acknowledgments  Glossary 

 174

 179

Resources and Citations Listing  World Bank Studies   188 Web Sites   189  190 About the Authors  Other Books by Kenneth Megill  Index 

 191

 182

 190

 159

Introduction “Thinking for a Living.” More and more of us are paid to think. Men and women always think and have had thoughts. Until now, few had the luxury of being paid to think. This book is mostly about work. This particular kind of work requires thinking. So, a few words at the beginning about thought and what it is will put us on the road to understanding knowledge work. Thinking involves language. One of the main functions of thinking is to articulate and make explicit what we take for granted. In knowledge management, what we take for granted is called tacit knowledge. Thinking for a living is done for a purpose – to get something done and to do work.

Knowledge and Management This book is not only about work, but is also about knowledge and how it is managed. Therefore it is also a book on knowledge management. The term “knowledge management” is used by many different disciplines. When my colleagues in the information world first started talking about knowledge management twenty years ago, it made little sense to me. How can knowledge be managed? I can tell someone what I believe and share the evidence I have which justifies my belief that the knowledge is true. However, information alone does not give anyone knowledge. It is just information about what I believe. A knowledgeable person can also share with another person how to do something. In order for that person to know how to do something, however, he or she needs to be able to do it himself or herself. Knowledge combines, in its very being, theory and practice. Without theory, what we produce is blind. Without practice, what we think is useless. Work, above all, is about creating useful things. This understanding and definition of knowledge has a long tradition in philosophy. Information professionals have only recently begun to think about knowledge – what it is and how it is created, lives, and dies. Information professionals generally agree that information is organized and structured data. Information is about something. It is not just raw data. Information makes sense because of its context, the community in which it was developed.

2 

 Introduction

Philosophers and Knowledge Philosophers have not reflected much on information – what it is, its character and how it relates to other, more studied terms and concepts such as experience, reason, faith, and wisdom. For centuries, philosophers in the Western traditions thought about and wrote about knowledge and its nature. What is striking is that philosophers, by and large, have a fairly uniform idea of what knowledge involves even though they have great disagreements and sometimes confusion about the source and nature of knowledge. For more than two thousand years, knowledge has been understood as “justified true belief”. Philosophers have a whole field called epistemology, the theory of knowledge. Even though there are many unresolved questions in that field, the definition and understanding of what knowledge is remains fairly constant. “Managing” knowledge does not make much sense if we use the philosophical definition of knowledge because it is not possible to “manage” beliefs. Beliefs, unlike information, cannot be collected, stored and retrieved. We can have information about beliefs and manage that information, but beliefs themselves are not manageable. We should say that, “My knowledge is information for you.” This formulation enables us to see the relationship between knowledge and information. Information management has to do with making the content of a body of knowledge accessible for those who need it to do their work. I use information to make knowledge. My judgments (knowledge) may be of interest for you in your work. For you it will be information, hopefully useful information. Knowledge management is relevant today because more and more work consists of creating knowledge. Complex bodies of knowledge exist and are transmitted through various means to other members of relevant communities of practice. The emergence of information technologies enables us to assemble, store, retrieve, and analyze information in ways that were impossible only a few generations ago. These tools enable knowledge workers to have immediate access to the information they need to do their work. These technologies enable the automation that make great increases in efficiency in knowledge work. They are the tools that enable the coming age of knowledge work. Knowledge is the result of the work of previous and current communities of scientific enquirers. Their conclusions are based on the best available evidence at the time they made their judgment. Knowledge resides in communities of practitioners who share a common set of beliefs.

Librarians, Records Managers, and Archivists 

 3

Knowledge is the justified true belief that communities of practice settle on in their work. Making knowledge generally requires a plethora of information. Experience and reason are not enough for the production of knowledge. Knowledge is the product of work. Information is the raw material of that work. Knowledge management means at least four different things to the growing number of professions trying to get a handle on the emerging new kind of work: 1. Information service professionals (librarians, records managers, and archivists) often equate information management and knowledge management. 2. Engineers and information technology professionals see knowledge management as technical “solutions” – software applications that “manage” knowledge. 3. Anthropologists and learning theorists see knowledge management as the way to acquire and pass on knowledge. 4. Management theorists emphasize the “management” part of knowledge management and use the term to refer to how to control and organize the work of an organization. Each of these fields have their own literature and language. Each bring something to the discussion of knowledge management. In our discussions we need to take into account all of these various meanings and uses.

Librarians, Records Managers, and Archivists Guy St. Clair has written extensively about the information service professions, which he calls “knowledge services.” His definition of information management is fairly standard. He says it is concerned with the “acquisition, arrangement, storage, retrieval and use of information to produce knowledge”. (St. Clair 2003, 97) I would point out that the acquisition, arrangement, storage, retrieval, and use of information does not “produce” knowledge. Knowledge is made by knowledge workers who use information to arrive at justified true beliefs. Information management deals with managing data in a context, which focuses on the content of documents. The information service profession fields also understand the importance of a “body of knowledge”, which is the knowledge associated with a profession. A body of knowledge is a term used by settled sciences, such as physics and chemistry, as well as in professions, such as medicine and law. The information professions, each in their own way, identify what is needed and not just what is wanted. The skill to identify needs and find ways to meet them is one of the most important attributes of a knowledge worker. The librarian

4 

 Introduction

points readers to their book by conducting an interview. A reference interview with a skilled librarian finds and delivers information one needs and not just what the reader asks for or wants. The librarian also collects and organizes information, but always with the user’s needs foremost. The librarian follows the Laws of Library Science articulated by Ranganathan, the leading theorist in the field of library science.1 While the librarian seeks to meet a current information need, the archivist has a longer view. The archivist identifies, collects, and preserves information that may be needed far in the future. The archivist looks at the whole human enterprise and attempts to determine what information is important enough to preserve and then how best to organize and preserve it so that it is available for users as far into the future as we can see. The archivist has faith that one day the things preserved will be valued. It is not easy to tell, however, what is important and what is not. It is even harder to tell what might be important in the future. The records manager straddles the worlds of information management, business, and organizational operations. They determine what will be preserved, not just in the long run, but in the immediate future, based on functional, legal, and historical requirements. Records managers understand the importance of identifying what an organization needs to keep and what needs to be thrown away. The records manager seeks to identify and preserve the best available evidence of actions. Records managers function in the world of business, governments and organizations. They seek to identify which information is of value for re-use. Records managers were once essential and powerful players in governments. They were the people in the Emperor’s and King’s court who could read and often became the Chancellors who took the words of the sovereign and recorded and preserved them. Even more importantly, they authenticated information by putting the stamp of approval on the document, thereby making it a “record”. Both in the East and the West, the records manager preserved the accomplishments of the government. A record is evidence of a transaction. Its value often lies in the context in which it is created and maintained. Provenance2 is particularly important for a records manager. The records manager disposes of the vast majority of material that accumulates which does not provide needed evidence. Without a records manager to authenticate the best available evidence, we are submerged with

1 We will speak more about Ranganathan’s laws later. 2 As used in records manage, provenance is the origin of the record and its relationship to other records. The art work uses the term to the chronology of the ownership of an art object.

Engineers and Information Technology Professionals 

 5

obsolete data and information. What we need are products of work that are of value to others. Librarians, archivists, and records managers are the triumvirate of the information professions who all share a common focus on what information is needed. The concept of need is essential. Identifying need by sorting out what is useful and not useful requires skills that are too often not appreciated in our societies. Identifying, preserving, and making information available are honorable tasks. Information professionals are one kind of knowledge worker. Information professionals manage information not just for individuals, but also for societies, cultures, and institutions.

Engineers and Information Technology Professionals Unlike librarians, archivists, and records managers, engineers and information technology professionals generally see knowledge management as a technology that develops and delivers knowledge management systems. These systems are technologies, generally software, that enable an organization to use information more extensively by data mining, and by using collaborative tools and telecommunications tools. Web technologies give us new and exciting ways to manage information more robustly. The information technologists focus on creating an integrated digital environment that makes full use of the advances in communications and computer technology to manage information. These two groups, the information technology and the information service professionals, both recognize an important part of the picture. As far as they go, they are correct. However, in their literature and in their practice they make the mistake of using information technology and knowledge management more or less interchangeably and they see knowledge management as simply an extension of what they have been doing for years. Managing information technology and managing knowledge are two distinctly different activities. Knowledge requires judgment. As we shall see, a knowledge statement is an answer to the question: “Is it a good idea to x or y or ...?” Knowledge management cannot be automated because it requires discernment, judgment, and decision-making. What are often now called “knowledge management” systems are increasingly efficient and robust information management systems. Managing knowledge is qualitatively different from managing information. However, information systems are important tools for knowledge management; making knowledge is not merely a technical process. “Knowledge management”, as it is often used by information professionals and information technologists, is more appropriately called information manage-

6 

 Introduction

ment. Finding patterns is an important part of information management, but patterns alone do not give us knowledge. Making knowledge requires thinking and coming to conclusions based on available evidence.

Anthropologists and Learning Theorists This third group approaches the topic of knowledge management from a different perspective. They focus on learning how workers acquire knowledge. They focus on the community of practice,3 one of the key concepts that enables us to understand the nature of knowledge work. (Lave 1993) A related notion, that of the learning organization, focuses on the importance of on-going learning that replaces traditional training. (Senge 1990) Those interested in learning view knowledge as a social product that is handed down from generation to generation. For them knowledge is often more about knowing how to do something than about managing information. Knowledge work takes the knowledge and the common sense that a culture or society or profession has accumulated and uses it to create new products. Information is the key raw material used in creating knowledge management and refining and changing what has been taught by others. Learning theorists focus on the process by which people take in information and apply judgment to become knowledgeable. The anthropologists and learning theorists contribute the important concept of a community of practice to our understanding of knowledge management.

Management Theorists Management theorists emphasize the management part of the term and look at knowledge management from the world of management theory. Peter Drucker introduced the notion of the knowledge worker more than four decades ago. However, some of the best work on the impact on management is by Ijuitsu

3 Communities of practice are groups of people who work for a common purpose within an organization, or across organizational boundaries. These communities may be highly formal with settled and organized bodies or knowledge or they may be informal communities with little structured bodies of knowledge. Communities united by a common work and a body of knowledge.

Management Theorists 

 7

Nonaka, the Japanese theorist who brought the term “Ba”4 to the discussion of business theory and practice. The business theorists speak of the importance of making the tacit knowledge of an organization explicit and developing ways to capture tacit knowledge of organizations. An adequate understanding of knowledge management encompasses and integrates all of the various professions and disciplines that use the term. Each professions and disciplines bring new concepts such as integrated digital environment, knowledge work, and communities of practice, which help us understand and conceptualize the transformation in work that is underway. Many people and disciplines observe, discuss, and advocate various kinds of transformation. Integration of a number of concepts from various disciplines and practices is the key to work transformation. As the familiar story goes, when a group of blind men touched various parts of the elephant, each described a very different “beast”. One said it was a smooth, pointed animal, another said it was a rough, pliable, thick-skinned one, a third said “no” it was a snake-like beast, long and slim, while another opined that it was massive, thick, and tough. Only a sighted-man’s provides the whole view of the elephant. The works in anthropology, education, philosophy, business management, psychology, cybernetics, and information technology all contribute to our understanding of knowledge and work. It is the integration of these fields that provides the theory and practice of the new culture that supports knowledge work.

4 The Japanese term “Ba” goes beyond cooperation to collaboration. “Ba” describes the environment in which work takes place.

Section I: Work Transforming Synopsis: By and large, our work is still done on the industrial model. We come to work. A job is prescribed or assigned by management. Tasks are divided and spread out. Management coordinates tasks to achieve the job goal. The industrial way of working is often no longer efficient. Knowledge work requires an integrated digital environment in which collaborative work takes place. We need a new work culture, one in which information sharing replaces information hoarding. This new culture is developing. Workers are becoming professionals. They are required to understand the nature and purpose of their work as well as to know and understand their customers and their needs. They work more and more in collaborating teams with a need to understand the whole picture of the environment in which they function. Information is viewed strategically as a resource to be shared and one that grows in value as it is shared. Professionals are becoming workers instead of freestanding intellectuals. They work in large organizations where collaboration is required and sharing information can be to the competitive advantage of all parties. The possibility for collaboration and new technology opens up new ways to work. These changes affect the individual professional and the worker as well as society as a whole. The distinction between professional and worker becomes blurred which renders this distinction meaningless. Knowledge work requires thinking. It is work where thinking is the essential activity. Thinking is the creative and critical process that goes into making knowledge. The transformation of the work and work processes is only possible if the work and worker’s behavior both change and evolve into a new culture. The change in the nature of work and work process and the accompanying change in worker attitudes create this transformation in work culture. Keywords: Ba The environment and culture in which work takes place. Ba is the context that makes a safe haven for creation of knowledge. Community of Practice A group of people bound together by a common class of problems, common pursuit of solutions, and a store of common knowledge and understanding. Culture The common understandings, language and ways of acting and other assumptions shared by a community. Information Organized and structured data. Knowledge Justified true belief. Record Best available evidence. Transformation A change profound enough to cause a metamorphosis in the physical, mental, or cultural form of the object or institution. Work Force times distance.

Chapter 1: Workers Become Professionals Nothing seems more like work than digging a ditch. Few would call it knowledge work. It is physical and it is hard. Thinking seems to be the last attribute we might look for in getting a good ditch dug. If you dig ditches for a living today the way you do that work is likely very different from what it was only a few years ago when you were handed a shovel and told to use your strong back. Today a ditch-digger sits high atop an expensive and complicated piece of machinery. The digger sits in the cabin, which may be air-conditioned. There is probably a computer screen in that cabin that shows the exact requirements for the ditch that needs to be dug. The vast machine is manipulated by an array of knobs and buttons. Perhaps by touching a screen one will send directions to the computer that tells the machine what to do. The machine will dig the ditch much faster and more accurately than a person could by hand. The work of this professional ditch-digger is the same work as that done by men and women who were handed a shovel and told to move dirt and make a ditch. The end result is the same, but the tasks, the qualifications, and expectations of the ditch-digger running a computerized back-hoe are very different. The professional ditch-digger needs knowledge in his or her job to make judgments and be certain that the machine is functioning properly, that the proposed ditch is appropriate, and that there are no unforeseen obstacles. The job requires one to be sure that the hole is “properly” dug and that the machines run “correctly” in performing the work. The ditch is still being dug, but now by a knowledgeable and qualified operator, a knowledge worker who is paid to determine if it is a good idea to dig that ditch there and to determine the manner in which the ditch is dug. The knowledgeable ditch-digger works collaboratively as part of a team of other knowledgeable people, many of whom he or she may never meet. Some of those knowledgeable people have developed plans that include the ditch, perhaps as part of a larger project, but the ditch-digger is expected to make appropriate adjustments to the plan if required. The leader of the project needs to respect the knowledge of the ditch-digger and expect the ditch-digger to perform prudently when doing the work. In order to do the work of ditch-digging today, the worker needs information and skill sets that include understanding the needs of the customer and the company in a collaborative environment. That environment is a digital environment in which safety and good practice is paramount. The worker needs to be a knowledgeable professional.

12 

 Chapter 1: Workers Become Professionals

From Menials to Professionals The transformation of ditch-diggers to professional operators is typical of many kinds of work that were once considered menial. Menial labor turns into professional labor when appropriate technologies are used and there is involvement of those doing the work. Although workers have always been involved in the work that they do, knowledge work requires a higher degree of commitment, understanding, empowerment, and responsibility. Collaborative work is proving to be a much more efficient way to organize production than the assembly line. Knowledgeable workers are an asset throughout an organization. Automation makes possible the transformation of menial labor into professional labor, which is knowledge work. Automation, itself, does not turn menial labor into knowledge work, but it does eliminate one kind of work that can better be done by a machine and replaces it with another kind of work, which requires knowledge and understanding. Quality circles and quality improvement began the process of professionalizing the work force. Many of the business practices that make up the new work culture were initiated in Japan and now are adopted throughout the world. After being decimated in World War II the Japanese put the values of their culture to work to build and develop a modern industrialized society. They did this by focusing on involving the work force in every aspect of production. When the Japanese lost the war, which wiped out their industrial capabilities, they were faced with a major crisis in their society. Initially the transformation of the way they worked was not motivated by their desire for change, but by significant emotional and physical events beyond their control. They had to build a new way to work not because they wanted to but because they had to. Japan became an industrial power by emphasizing quality; where quality is defined as what meets the needs of customers. Quality improvement was codified in a very specific methodology and became a means to make dramatic changes in the way work is done. A different, but related movement developed around reengineering, which is a methodology designed and developed to create new business processes. Reengineering is one of the tools used to bring about and manage change and is now part and parcel of the thinking and attitudes of management. Reengineering requires a vision of the end product, rather than re-working existing processes. A new work flow is created. Chapter IX applies three principles of reengineering to understand how to bring about a work culture appropriate for knowledge work. The emphasis on reengineering in order to meet customer needs and provide quality products requires developing new ways to do work by bringing people into collaborative relationships. The transformation of menial work into knowl-

The Airplane Mechanic 

 13

edge work is perhaps seen most clearly in the service industry and manufacturing. Similar processes are under way in a large number of fields that bring attitudes and ways of working that were once the sole purview of professionals to the rest of the work teams.

The Airplane Mechanic Today’s mechanic, like today’s ditch-digger, is a knowledge worker. The work has been transformed into professional work where knowledge and thinking replace the brute force that once characterized most mechanical work. The output of the mechanic, like that of the ditch-digger, is a judgment – that the airplane is working properly and can be flown. It is up to the mechanic to determine if the airplane is trustworthy and safe.5 The mechanic is the center of the work to determine if a plane is flight-worthy. The testing and evaluation of the plane takes place while it is in flight and the results are sent ahead so that the necessary work can be scheduled, parts ordered, etc. Information about the history of the plane, what work has been done, what regular maintenance is due, and what modifications need to be made, are collected together in an integrated data system. All of the necessary parts are ordered and available before the plane comes into the hangar. The mechanic is like the skilled surgeon in an operating room. Much physical activity takes place, but what is of most importance is that the mechanic is knowledgeable and can make the judgments necessary to answer the question: “Is this plane ready to fly?” Along the way, the mechanic is expected to notice similarities and anomalies and raise questions. The mechanic uses information technology to access a myriad of databases and answers questions that lead to modifications to correct problems for a whole class of airplanes. Their work requires a great deal of thinking and discernment. Discernment is a by-product of a knowledgeable person who combines theory and practice in his or her work. It is the knowledge of the mechanic and proper application of that knowledge from collaborating with a team of people that makes this mechanic a knowledge worker.

5 The author is indebted to the dedicated knowledgeable educated and knowledgeable mechanics at Warner Robins Air Logistics Center and to Anthony Adamson, who worked to dramatically improve the quality of their work, and their work life, through business reengineering.

14 

 Chapter 1: Workers Become Professionals

Retail/Service Industry The retail business is the subject of considerable interest by knowledge management theorists because retail businesses apply information technology in order to survive. One of the most interesting business theorists is Ikujiro Nonaka, a Japanese business theorist who focuses on knowledge creation and its use in businesses. He describes the transformation in two huge retail businesses, Seven-Eleven Japan and Walmart, with very different cultures and ways of doing business, which are both striving to achieve similar results – to create and manage knowledge. In 1973, Ito-Yakado, a Japanese Supermarket Chain, and Southland Corporation, the owner of Seven-Eleven convenience stores in the United States, entered into a licensing agreement. The first stores were opened in Japan in 1978 and in 1991 Ito-Yakado acquired Seven-Eleven. Nonaka describes their business as follows: Seven-Eleven Japan … is a franchiser that sells knowledge. The company charges its franchisees for services, receives royalties for trademarks, and collects leasing fees for equipment such as information systems, display racks, and refrigerated cases. To provide these services to the franchisees, Seven-Eleven Japan makes extensive use of quintessential explicit knowledge... The key to understanding Seven-Eleven Japan is its successful use of IT (information technology) together with human-based systems... Store owners and part-time employees alike can place orders… They gain tacit knowledge through experience-based institutions... Human insight, not IT, makes the difference. (Nonaka 2001, 837–838)

The process that Nonaka describes is one that we will, later in the book, call “spiral or dialectical thinking” or “abductive reasoning”. He describes that process as follows: Selected hypotheses are presented at headquarters during a weekly conference attended by all field counselors, top management, and headquarters staff... Seven-Eleven Japan emphasizes the importance of context for knowledge creation... Seven-Eleven triggers action and reflection in four phases: 1. IT (information technology) is used as a trigger for the conversion of front line knowledge into ideas. 2. Insights of employees trigger experiments with the POS (point of sale) data. 3. Verification of hypotheses in the database leads to experimentation in other regions. 4. Justified new knowledge (proven hypotheses) is disseminated among and utilized in all stores... Thus Seven-Eleven uses a series of triggers that alternate between action and reflection. (Nonaka 2001, 838–840)

The combination of action, enterprise-wise experience, and reflection are at the core of knowledge work. What happens at a particular store, in a particular com-

Retail/Service Industry 

 15

munity, is particular to that store. To meet the needs of the organization as a whole, the insights from the employees at the various stores need to be gathered together and synthesized. Once this new knowledge is adopted, it is then made available to all of the stores. This process depends upon a high level of automation in the work place so that information is accessible throughout the enterprise. It also depends on developing a new work culture and manner of doing work. The process of knowledge work involves developing hypotheses, testing them, and disseminating the knowledge gained throughout the business. This process and the understanding that comes with it is known as abduction which is a characteristic of knowledge work. A similar discussion of Walmart leads to the same conclusion from the point of view of large retail outlets selling large quantities at the lowest possible cost. Seven-Eleven sells relatively small quantities to repeat customers with a high profit margin. Both see the task of retailing to be knowledge management. What makes Seven-Eleven and Walmart successful throughout the world is that they are able to deliver specific goods and services to the specific clientele and neighborhoods efficiently in a timely manner. Nonaka describes the environment in which the particular needs of the customer/client needs are quickly identified by the associates at the store level and made available to everyone throughout the company. For example, if there is a basketball tournament being televised in a small city in Indiana, local associates know and share this information. The local community in Indiana understands the importance of basketball and can make certain that their stores have ample supplies of beer, colas, chips, etc. on hand for this important event. It is important in just this one community. Knowing what communities need is what retailing is about and this work must be done one community at a time. Technology enables information from communities throughout an enterprise to be gathered, analyzed, and made available so information can be turned into knowledge. Stocking is done on a daily basis. Knowledge gathered by staff at the various stores is a valuable commodity and workers are empowered to order what is needed based on their knowledge of the community in which they work. All of this knowledge is gathered together, analyzed, and used as the basis for managing the company. Within the context of a large company that delivers consistent quality and reasonable service, a whole new concept of neighborhood stores was born. Walmart grew out of a single store in the small State of Arkansas which is far removed from the industrial and power centers of the United States. It is now a large international company with stores in many countries throughout the world and is one of the largest companies in the United States while maintaining its home office in Arkansas. Walmart focuses on eliminating intermediaries

16 

 Chapter 1: Workers Become Professionals

wherever possible. Direct lines from the manufacturer to the consumer replace wholesalers. Products remain the property of the manufacturer. Manufacturers link directly to the point of sales systems allowing deliveries to replenish inventories without extensive human intervention. Making sales information accessible to manufacturers enables them to do their work more effectively with savings to the company. The focus of the business is at the community level, not the central office. The company strives to meet the particular needs of a specific people. The Walmart story is not a simple or uncontroversial one. Many communities saw their landscape transformed by the arrival of the Big Box and some won battles against the large corporation that they saw coming to destroy their community. Many critics and some employees question employment practices that appear to be discriminatory. The supply chains now reach around the world with China as the primary source of what it sells. Retail stores are established around the world. Trade unions once played a prominent role in major retail stores in the United States but they have not been successful in organizing Walmart employees. The management vigorously opposes attempts by large national unions to form trade unions. When Walmart established stores in China and some other countries they were required to have trade unions in their stores. The point in this discussion is to give examples of how work is being transformed in all parts of society, not to portray Walmart or Seven-Eleven as perfect companies. As one observer put it, Piece by piece, Walmart was building a system that would give its executives a complete picture, at any point in time, of where goods were and how fast they were moving, all the way from the factory to the checkout counter. (Ortega 1998, 130)

Traditional retailers focused on how best to sell the same merchandise as widely as possible. They saw retailing from the viewpoint of the goods they want to sell. Walmart and Seven-Eleven see retailing from the viewpoint of the customer. Before the Walmart and Seven-Eleven model was adopted around the world goods were manufactured in large plants, sent to wholesalers who stored them and distributed products to retailers who sold them to the public. The job of wholesalers was to convince people to buy what the factories made. Both Walmart and Seven-Eleven Japan (and many other companies that imitate them) look at the process from a very different point of view. Retailing is a form of knowledge management. Instead of gathering all resources into headquarters, a deliberate effort is made to spread the resources throughout the enterprise. Knowledge of what is going on in the community-based stores is the most valuable commodity of the enterprise. All of this transformation in retail business is enabled by information technology.

Forms Management and Data Capture 

 17

At least in theory workers are valued for the knowledge they have, what they know about the products, and what the products can do. Most importantly, the workers in the stores are a part of and understand the communities in which they live and work. These workers are expected to take on many of the characteristics traditionally associated with professionals. Marketing for Walmart is more than selling and distributing goods. The “good works” of the Walmart Foundation is an important part of the business. Employees are encouraged to “volunteer” their services to the community. Walmart advertising focuses as much on the social life found in the store as it does on the low cost of the goods that are for sale. Doing good works and selling to communities is not confined to Walmart. A flier in the local Starbucks Coffee house, promotes the Starbucks Foundation (“Hope, Discovery and Opportunity in Starbucks Communities”), which is a reflection of the company’s commitment to support our communities and embrace diversity. The Foundation receives funding from Starbucks Coffee Company and from individual donations. Walmart employees are called “associates”, the same term used in law firms and they are expected to participate enthusiastically in community life. Their work follows them home and the company expects their work to go beyond putting in time at the store. Both the Walmart and Seven-Eleven stores create a direct link between suppliers of products and customers. This link is possible only if information easily and regularly turns into knowledge. Employees are paid to think and their judgments about what needs to be done are not only welcomed, but are acted upon. Knowledge is community-based. Decisions are related to those who know the community and its needs. The linkage of suppliers to customers gives a whole new meaning to retail. This way of organizing retail by eliminating wholesale establishes a new relationship between those making products and those who sell them to local communities. The business will only succeed if workers are knowledgeable and if information technology and knowledge management infuses the entire organization in order to meet the needs of customers in each particular community.

Forms Management and Data Capture Data capture, using various forms of recognition such as bar codes, marks on paper, and optical character recognition (OCR) is now a normal part of our lives and new technologies continue to develop that enable us to capture data by using cell phones and a variety of tools. These technologies developed out of forms

18 

 Chapter 1: Workers Become Professionals

management. A form is a way to control and capture data and information in order to make it fit into a pre-conceived scheme or format so the data that is collected can be more easily retrieved and manipulated. A paper form is a database on paper. A database is a paper form put into the electronic world. Now data can be captured in a web-based environment and go directly into databases without human intervention. As a result, new ways to capture information and data are being integrated into our work and non-work lives. An entire industry grew up to manage paper forms. Document management, the management of thousand and hundreds of thousands of forms, is one of the most highly automated sectors in our information society. (Megill and Schantz 1999) Forms management is particularly important for banks (check processing), insurance companies (claim processing), mass marketing companies (fulfilling requests), and government (census, tax collection, law enforcement and criminal justice). The act of “automating” forms began as a process of doing the same work processes with machines that had previously been done with paper. The emphasis of this automation focuses on data capture and uses technologies such as optical character recognition (OCR) (sometimes called intelligent character recognition). These technologies enable machines to read text so that the processing of paper forms is automated. The forms processing industry has now gone far beyond capturing data on paper and focuses on work process improvement. When Etienne Wenger describes a “community of practice”, he chooses the work of insurance claims processing. He describes in considerable detail how this work, which appears to be routine, is actually done within the context of a community of practice. What appears to be the most routine, boring assembly line, upon examination by an anthropologist/sociologist/cybernetician, becomes a rich and varied set of activities. (Wenger 1998, 47–48) Effective claims processing comes by improving workflows and eliminating the number of steps in the chain that the claim travels through. Accuracy comes from what is called “data purification”, using look-up databases and information about the community from which the forms emerge to improve the accuracy of the work. Claims processing uses many of the same technologies that are applied in other industries where data needs to be read and captured. For example, the post office sorts mail using optical recognition of addresses that are printed or written on a large variety of envelopes with a plethora of hand-writing styles. The recognition of the addresses is accurately done by machines because the information systems managing the data capture can compare what it “thinks” the character may be with databases that contain zip codes, names of cities and towns, and street names. Insurance companies processing health claim forms have extensive databases composed of names of doctors, hospitals, diagnoses, and drugs. While

Automobile Manufacturing: From Assembly Lines to Quality Circles  

 19

processing the claim form, quality control and fraud detection is built into the process of form recognition. Additional efficiencies come when the knowledge worker is empowered to make judgments as to what the correct data should be when the machine is in doubt. The machine cannot do some tasks as accurately as a human being who applies judgments but it can do routine tasks much faster. Even the lowest worker in the chain becomes a knowledge worker who needs to understand and know the nature and purpose of the work of the organization in order to be most efficient. Paper forms are eliminated and replaced by managing the knowledge of a community as the automation process proceeds. To a certain extent judgments can be automated when they are routine and similar, but these judgments all take place within a community of practice with its own way of doing work, its own language, and its own way of accomplishing its work. Automation, properly carried out, enhances knowledge work. For this work to be done most efficiently the workers need to be recognized as knowledge workers and be given the ability to use their full creativity within a community of practice. Forms management is now a matter of quality control, sharing information used by a community across individual and company lines, and making information immediately accessible to those who need it to do their business. It is an example of what appears to be one of the most bureaucratic and routine functions that turns out, when properly organized, to be knowledge work in an information-sharing environment that is highly social in nature. The social interaction of workers in a community and their empowerment to make appropriate decisions is necessary as the forms management processes are automated and a new culture of work emerges.

Automobile Manufacturing: From Assembly Lines to Quality Circles The auto industry was once the paradigm of the modern industrial mode of production. The transformation of the auto industry away from the traditional industrial model of production is one of the clearest indications that we are moving into a post-industrial age where knowledge work is becoming the primary form of work. When Henry Ford introduced the assembly line to automobile manufacturing in the early part of the twentieth century it was a radical concept for how to do work. The assembly line was touted as the “scientific” way to work. The complex task of making the automobile was broken into thousands of discrete tasks and laid out along an assembly line. Workers remained stationary while cars moved from one end of the line to the other. The line controls and regulates production.

20 

 Chapter 1: Workers Become Professionals

Efficiencies come as workers do a discrete task faster and faster. The line speeds up as they improve. Industrial production reached its most developed state in the automobile industry. Workers were organized as an industrial army with hierarchical command structures. Levels of supervision were imposed to keep the line running and to devise new ways to speed up the line. Time and motion studies rationalized each task as it was made increasingly routine. The rationalization process is at the heart of applying “scientific” principles to industrial processes. In this sense, science is understood as a process of observing and simplifying so that redundant tasks can be eliminated and the assembly line sped up. The assembly line form of work proved to be incredibly productive and was widely applied far beyond the production of large and complex machines like the automobile. However, as time went on the straight-line form of production gave way to a newer more efficient process based on collaboration. The transformation of automobile production to a team-driven activity had many causes. One contributing factor was that the work force sabotaged the line and slowed it down, making it more humane and more interesting. Workers organized into industrial unions to be a counter-point to industrial management. Industrial warfare followed. An accord was reached and relative peace came to the work place as trade unions and management agreed on how to keep the machines and the line running efficiently and effectively. In several instances, particularly in Europe, representatives of the trade unions joined the board of directors. However, the struggle for control continued. In the second half of the twentieth century the introduction of computers and information-driven processes to the work place brought another revolution. Tools took over a host of tasks that previously required human intervention. Other tools offer opportunities for collaboration to take place throughout the work process. Information, learning and sharing became the reigning values. When the twenty-first century dawned the assembly line was still the norm for industrial production, but new values gained dominance, often led by the auto industry. Instead of breaking down tasks, tasks are integrated. Instead of each person doing only one task at a time, at least from the viewpoint of the product and customer satisfaction, the most productive way to do work is through collaboration. Collaborative work entered manufacturing. This transformation to collaboration in the work place establishes a premium value on information sharing. The demise of the traditional assembly line mode of production began in Japan and was quickly transferred to the industrial heartland, the United States and Europe. Like all transformation of work the move away from assembly line to collaborative work took place over time and spread world-wide as international companies seek the best and most efficient places to make their products.

Military – Network Centric Warfare  

 21

Seniority and life-long jobs become less and less the hallmark of a good worker. Whole industries simply get up and move to a new place or a new country to get the kind of less expensive and more flexible work force needed for maximum efficiency. In the process, the “industrial” worker is transformed into a knowledge worker who is responsible for understanding the nature of the work and the purpose for which it is done. The knowledge worker involves and invokes judgment in all aspects of work. The knowledge worker works collaboratively and collaborative work becomes more efficient than even the cheapest labor in the industrial model that relies on reducing all work to simple tasks. Factories which move to countries where cheap labor is the only commodity find they need knowledge workers in order to produce quality products. The move from assembly line to collaborative production that transformed the automobile manufacturing work place spreads throughout industries around the world.

Military – Network Centric Warfare The notion of community-based, rather than hierarchical relationship, is finding its way into every phase of our work life, even in those areas, like the military, that we may think must necessarily be hierarchical in character. The new military professional collaborates closely with the communities of which they are a part. The knowledge created in these communities is critical to the military professionals’ success and survival. The military is nearly everyone’s idea of the best example of a top-down, hierarchical organization. It is the model of an industrial enterprise. “Modern” warfare developed on the industrial model with armies moving across terrain to capture and control land. War became a matter of logistics, getting the people and material to the right place at the right time in order to defeat the enemy. That model is now being replaced by collaboration. In practice, as the electronic world comes to dominate war, an effective military must rely more on leadership than obeying orders. Leadership is one of the most important attributes of a knowledge worker and the military has long experience in creating leaders. The ability to present one’s justified beliefs (knowledge) in a way that others in the community can adopt them is important for everyone involved in knowledge enterprises. Non-hierarchical does not mean disorderly or being incapable of making a decision. Indeed, through their leaders, communities of practices make decisions that guide and infuse the entire community. A new doctrine of warfare, with many names, is emerging for the knowledge age. One name is “network centric warfare”. This doctrine brings with it a new

22 

 Chapter 1: Workers Become Professionals

work culture, new requirements for the military “worker”, and a professionalization of war. The winner of industrial wars was often the country that could mobilize the largest number of people in the fastest time to go to the “front” and overwhelm the other army. Conscription, involuntary labor, is the norm in the industrialized army. The new doctrine recognizes that how a war is fought is determined largely by available technologies. One publication sums up the relationship as follows: War is a product of its age. The tools and tactics of how we fight have always evolved along with technology... Warfare in the Information Age will inevitably embody the characteristics that distinguish this age from previous ones. (Alberts 1999)

The professional military requires a new kind of work ethic. It requires trained, educated, and thinking soldiers, sailors or airmen who are motivated to do more than just follow orders. This transformation is shown by the U.S. Army’s replacing its recruiting slogan from, “Be the Best You Can Be” to “An Army of One”. Like all slogans, this current one carries various and sometimes contradictory meanings. At first glance, it might mean that the spirit of cooperation in the previous slogan is replaced by a kind of naked individualism in which a person is no longer dependent on other workers for success. However, the slogan also implies that one is not necessarily doing one’s best when simply operating under someone else’s orders. The new slogan implies an independent person. The next step is to flesh out the slogan and describe the proper role of the war fighter as “An Army of One,” working within a community. The term “network centric warfare” contrast with “platform-centric warfare” and is defined in convoluted language appropriate to texts emerging out of the U.S. Department of Defense as: an information superiority-enabled concept of operations that generates increased combat power by networking sensors, decision makers, and shooters to achieve shared awareness, increased speed of command, higher tempo of operations, greater lethality, increased survivability, and a degree of self-synchronization. (Alberts 1999, 16)

Words like “shooters” emphasize that real warfare is being talked about. Now warfare takes on a very different character than armies moving across territory. It requires, in their words, “a degree of self-synchronization” or the ability for those doing the work to think. Network centric warfare “translates information superiority into combat power by effectively linking knowledgeable entities in the battle-space”. (Alberts 1999, 26) Alberts goes into considerable detail about the emerging nature of warfare. He emphasizes that network centric warfare

Military – Network Centric Warfare  

 23

is not about turning the battle over to ‘the network’ or even relying more on automated tools and decision aids. It is really about exploiting information to maximize combat power by bringing more of our available information and war fighting assets to bear both effectively and efficiently. NCW (network centric warfare) is about developing collaborative working environments... to make it easier to develop common perceptions of the situation and achieve (self-) coordinated responses to situations. (Alberts 1999, 26)

The important point, from this perspective, is the insertion of “(self-)” into the text, which makes all of the difference in the nature of work. Soldiers need to be self-coordinated knowledge workers collectively working within a community. A network centric environment is very different from a centralized command environment. It operates by linking communities. Work goes on in the individual nodes that linked together creating a community. Knowledgeable people do very different tasks. The web that links their work together is very different from the command model based on orders from the top. The practical implications for how wars are successfully fought are still developing. What is interesting and noteworthy is that in the heart of the most hierarchical organizational structures in our society, an understanding of the importance of knowledge and the work done by knowledge workers is emerging. In the Appendix, the Air Force officer who led the Integrated Digital Environment project about which we will speak makes the following observation: The Air Force, in keeping with its culture and tradition, emphasized the environmental aspects of the integrated digital environment. The work of the Air Force focuses on the people (stereotypically the pilot, but by extension every person on the team that operates or maintains a complex weapon system, such as an airplane). The importance of the person in the work is never doubted, within the Air Force tradition, despite those who claim that drones and rockets can replace a plane piloted by a skilled and trained professional. (The Air Force objection is less that drones aren’t useful, but the concept seems to ignore the human element of making a drone available and productive.) (Balven, Appendix)

A knowledgeable work force and a centralized command are still necessary for the military, just as it is for any kind of large and complex organization. However, “control” needs to be understood more in terms of leadership than autocratic management. Leadership involves motivating people to take on common tasks. The concept of network centric warfare recognizes that centralized direction is no longer the most efficient way to get work done. The network centric environment describes this new way to do work. It is a profound shift in understanding the relationships among those who lead and those who follow. It is an important example of the professionalization in work and the significance of thinking for a living.

24 

 Chapter 1: Workers Become Professionals

In the decade since the concept of network centric warfare was articulated in the United States it has been widely adopted by all sides in conflicts. Technologies, including social media, replace hierarchical structures. War is no longer a matter of armies marching in formation toward each other. War is conducted in and through communities. Much of this doctrine, relying on communities and the people, rather than technology, was developed in an entirely different environment and time by Mao Tse-Tung. He developed the military strategy of achieving power through a people’s army that was able to defeat a much larger and technologically superior industrial armies in China. Military forces around the world adopted the lessons that Mao taught.

Many More We could give many more examples of jobs that were once organized on an industrial model that are now knowledge jobs, where the primary product is knowledge that becomes information for others to use. These examples are enough to make the point that work in many different industries is in the process of being transformed into knowledge work. The transition is not complete, but it is well underway. Even in the so-called developing world, an increasing portion of the population is engaged in what is now called knowledge work. In fact, we can sometimes see instances where historical epochs are skipped. Technologies that underlie the knowledge age are being rapidly transferred and adopted by societies at all levels of development. Sometimes subtly and gradually and sometimes suddenly, paradigms are changing. From ditch-diggers to military troops, from sales clerks to teachers, knowledge work is becoming the expected norm. The process of professionals becoming workers and workers becoming professionals is widespread and seems to be moving rapidly throughout the world. What we once called professionals can now best be described as knowledge workers. We turn our attention to them.

Chapter 2: Professionals Become Workers When it is done for a living, thinking has value to someone else, generally to an employer or to a community. In the past we used the term professional to describe many people who were paid to think for a living. Many professionals who were once thought to be apart from the industrial world are becoming socialized into the broader society as their work becomes more mechanized. Their work is becoming characterized by the same high degree of cooperation found in the industrial world. Collaboration becomes the norm as professionals become part of the work force and the industrialized work force takes on the characteristics of professionals. What professionals do and how professionals think of their work can often be very different as their vocation, or calling, is transformed into a job. As professionals become part of the industrial work force a distinction is drawn between their work time and free time. The special status traditionally given to professionals disappears as they begin to punch the clock. Thinking as a job becomes routine. It is not just the purview of the privileged, but is a universal character of work. This may be a loss of status and privilege for the professional and is sometimes uncomfortable for the professional worker. The liberal arts, the gateway to the professions, were once seen as the domain of the gentleman. The Oxford English Dictionary says this in its leading definition of liberal: “Originally the distinctive epithet of those ‘arts’ or ‘sciences’ that were considered ‘worthy of the free man’ opposed to servile or mechanical.” We all must work for a living, except for the fortunate few who enter this world with wealth and position endowed to them. What makes professional work different is the context in which the thought goes on. The professional sells his thought as a commodity that is consumed, transformed, and passed on. Economists now speak of “intellectual capital”. We can measure and account for intellectual assets. Although working for a living is not universally admired, thinking is. When thinking becomes a way of making a living, tensions arise. In fact, according to the American myth, the sons and daughters of the poor work their way into the middle class. They go to college and become doctors or teachers so they don’t have to work, at least not in the manner their parents did. Anyone with a professional job today knows that thinking is a way of working. Being part of a working class can be an honorable way to spend one’s life, although that work can be professional in nature. Workers create products, things that can be bought and sold. When professionals become workers, the commodity (product) they sell is their thinking, their decision-making power, their ability to take information and turn it into knowl-

26 

 Chapter 2: Professionals Become Workers

edge. Once the professional enters into the industrialized setting, then thinking is sold as labor time. Stresses and strains emerge because decision-making and knowledge creation are often not activities that can easily be scheduled and coordinated. The company and the company’s policies determine the relationship of the worker to the customer or client. The professional no longer deals directly with the client. This process separates the professional from the knowledge products and alienates the knowledge worker.

Knowing More and More About Less and Less The individual thinker in the industrial setting is expected to know more and more about less and less. General knowledge becomes a matter of interdisciplinary activity. Interdisciplinary work by its very nature is cooperative in character and scope. Cooperation develops as experts from various fields attack overlapping work. Specialists cooperate to produce a particular product. Cooperation of this kind requires a manager to bring together the disparate specialists and direct their work. In this sense the precondition of interdisciplinary activity is the division of labor. Division of labor and the cooperative work that comes with it transforms the work of many professionals into coordinators and managers. Other professionals are absorbed into the “paraprofessional” group of workers who “support” the professionals. A laboratory becomes identified as the property of the head of the laboratory, just as the Carnegie steel mill was identified as the personal property of the owner of the plant. Within the laboratory, just as within the plant, many professionals become managers. Instead of doing work themselves, they become directors of teams of technicians. They find satisfaction through the work of others, not their own work. The division of labor does not stop here. Managing, itself, becomes a specialty. Professional administrators emerge who take over the control of the work process. The work that once centered on an individual can be divided among a team. Cooperation replaces individual labor in industrial labor.

Alienated Work The concept of alienated labor was formulated by Marx in the mid 1840’s, but his writings were not published until the 1920’s. Marx took the concept of alienation as used by Hegel and applied it to work. He also identified a key characteristic of

Alienated Work 

 27

industrial labor in a capitalist system. Work time is sold by the worker and it no longer belongs to him or her. The manager or supervisor, who is the delegated authority of those who control capital, determine how time is used. Labor is external to the worker, i.e., it does not belong to his intrinsic nature; that in his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind. The worker therefore only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside himself. He feels at home when he is not working, and when he is working he does not feel at home. His labor is therefore not voluntary, but coerced; it is  forced labor. It is therefore not the satisfaction of a need; it is merely a  means  to satisfy needs external to it. Its alien character emerges clearly in the fact that as soon as no physical or other compulsion exists, labor is shunned like the plague. (http://www.marxists.org/ archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htm)

Alienated labor is the labor of the industrial world – a way of production that exists to create capital. This industrialization also lays the foundation for a new world in which true knowledge work is enabled. For Marx, alienated labor is a corrupted form of labor. It takes a fundamental human activity and transforms it into a vicious and inhumane process. With the introduction of machines, labor, including the work of professionals, comes under a new kind of discipline, a discipline dictated by the machine. The discipline of the machine is thoughtless. It is a force external to the work process. The machine takes over the production of goods and the worker becomes an appendage to the machine. The worker sells his or her time to “operate” the machine and the products belong to the owner of the machines. The work of professionals becomes alienated, just as the work of the industrial workers has long been alienated. Philosophers have paid much attention to the concept of alienation. They have paid much less attention to the concept of labor. The process of the alienation of work is a necessary process for work to become a job. When labor-time becomes a product like any other product, it can be bought and sold. The control of the work time, once it is sold, passes to the employer who owns the time. Once labor time is bought and sold, it loses its human function. Intellectual work, like other work, has a use value and can be sold. The intellectual provides assistance, or solace, in a time of need and is paid in goods that sustain the intellectual. The history of the industrialization of intellectual labor corresponds with that of other work, with the same consequences: alienation, separation from community, and loss of control of work time. As professionals become part of social and collaborative work processes many of the tasks once performed by the professionals are transferred to the

28 

 Chapter 2: Professionals Become Workers

technicians. The technicians often work under the direction of the professionals, causing a further separation from the work as the professional assumes supervisory functions. The number of technicians necessary for productive labor increases. Teachers, doctors, nurses, and laboratory scientists become the minority as they are increasingly dependent on technicians and aides to get the work done. The thinker is caught in the firing line between the managers who control the needed resources and the technicians who do much of the work. It becomes possible to contract out much of the work once the work is simplified and divided. Sometimes the contracting and subcontracting takes on the form of delegating whole tasks to specialists in another location. Other times it comes by hiring part-time and temporary workers to perform tasks. In the process of alienating work, the cost of machinery rather than the cost of personnel becomes the primary cost of operations. Decisions are made on the basis of what will increase the efficiency of the machine. In an assembly line, technology dominates the work of the professional. In an industrial setting, it is disciplined and controlled in the same way as the work of the manual laborer on an assembly line is managed and planned. No longer can a knowledge worker afford to be anti-technological. The specialness of professional work subsides. The computer’s capabilities drive and control intellectual work in an industrial setting. In the knowledge age this force is turned around as thinking collaboratively becomes widespread. Technologies emerge that enable collaborative work to become the norm. In the process, thinking for a living becomes a mainstream activity, not just the purview of the few.

Professionals – The Modern Thinkers Traditionally, a profession is characterized by the professional’s ability to control the work situation and set fees. Professionals do their work when, where, and for how long they wish. Professionals sell the product of their thinking, not their time. Now, however, relatively few professionals set their own time and place of work. Even doctors, lawyers, psychologists, and accountants who once worked as “independent” professionals are part of institutions that determine and shape the work that is done. In all walks of life the number of professional workers is increasing dramatically. Even though these professionals generally work for large institutions they do the work once done by “independent” professionals. Their work is now very much a part of the productive activities of an industrialized society. They are ana-

Professional Associations 

 29

lysts, scientists, and professionals with a wide variety of titles and responsibilities. They are united by an expectation that their judgment is what is important. Organizing is required for any work to achieve its purpose. However, some organizing is self-organizing. It is one of the forms of organizing that come out of the socialization of work in an industrialized system when a group of people come together to pursue common ends.

Professional Associations An association or professional society is often the first form of organization of knowledge workers. The professional association seeks to manage the value of the knowledge work done by a particular profession. It seeks to control and limit competition in order to preserve the status of those already in the profession. Other times, it may work to improve the public image of the profession. In the end, the primary function of a professional organization is to decide who is “in” and who is “out” of the profession. Self-regulation also enables the association to maintain the standards of the profession. In practice, enforcement is normally left to the employer of the professional, not the professional association. A profession shares a body of knowledge. A well-formed body of knowledge is best developed within sciences, such as physics, biology or sociology, as well as in some professions, such as law and medicine. Other professions may not have such a clearly defined and accepted “body”. Professional organizations and associated educational institutions, seek to establish and maintain a “special” body of knowledge as a characteristic of a profession. A body of knowledge embodies the shared conclusions of a group of people working in a common area. A body of knowledge is generally not located in just one or two places. The members of the community accept certain “repositories” of the knowledge of the community. In the scientific world these repositories are often scientific journals where the results of research are published. In professions and other disciplines, the bodies of knowledge are gathered together and made accessible through educational and training programs, through trade publications, and through regular meetings of the members of the professions. In addition to having a body of knowledge the professional association often endorses, monitors, and enforces standards, a quasi-governmental function. The association seeks to establish and document standards that are written into laws and governmental regulations. With the assistance of governmental authorities associations may seek to use their codes of conduct in a published code of ethics as a means to control entry into the profession or maintain status in the profession.

30 

 Chapter 2: Professionals Become Workers

Licensing is a governmental type activity, often closely linked to professional associations through certification of defined competencies within the profession. Licensing confers the approval of government to the association. Sometimes this is done directly by by promoting or requiring a professional to be certified by a particular organization to get a license. Sometimes it is done through requirements that professionals achieve a degree granted by an accredited institution, with the accreditation under the control of the association. “Free time” is the time when you do not work. Such a concept was traditionally foreign to the professional. Working time and professional time were intertwined. According to the mythology of the profession, all time belongs to those in the profession – to the calling. The calling infuses all activity whether at the work place or at home, whether in public or in private, whether you are on or off the job. The professional is always on call and always at work, always thinking, and always responsible for his or her actions. Even in the industrial mode, some elements of “professional” work survive. Most contracts for professional services exempt professional jobs from certain labor laws, such as required payments for overtime. Often professionals are expected to adhere to special “ethical” standards that apply only to professionals and not to other workers. The requirement to adhere to ethical standards does not diminish the fact that the professional is paid for the time spent on duty, time that is under the control of the institution employing the professional.

“De-Professionalization” The establishment of free time and interchangeability is the essence of the industrialization process. When workers came to the factory, they were “freed” from their land. Individual workers assumed the responsibility for family, education, health, religion, and politics that were previously provided by the communities from which they came. Freedom meant liberation from constraints imposed by what were often closed communities. It also meant the end of communitybased support systems. The skills of the work place became interchangeable. The workers could be replaced and substitutes found when one worker wore out or a more qualified or available worker appeared. A similar process occurs as professionals enter the industrial work place. The subjective manifestation of the transformation of a vocation or calling into a job is alienation. A separation and loss of control enters into the life of the professional who becomes a part of the industrial system. Free time does not just mean the separation of work time from free time. It also means that pay and compensation become linked to work time. Instead of allegiance to the “public” and to a code of

Education – From the Box to the Team  

 31

ethics, the professional contracts with the owner of the means of production and is paid for the time that he or she devotes to the work. Once “free time” becomes ubiquitous, the process of increasing the efficiency of “work time” begins. Once “work time” becomes standardized, efficiency is measured by looking at how long specific tasks take. Prior to the creation of “work time”, there is no standard of efficiency, except a vague notion of “peer review” or evaluation by peers. A “good idea” may take years or only a few minutes, but the quality of an idea cannot be measured by how long it took to produce that idea. As professionals become part of the work force, peer review is replaced by legal boards and commissions with the power of the state to license workers and determine professional norms. Over time the enforcement of these norms switches from the profession to the institution that employs the professional. The enforcement is normally carried out through the work place by managers, not by the profession itself, even though the norms and standards may be developed within professions. Managers, who may or may not be part of the same profession, control the work place. When pay is linked to performance and performance is linked to the amount of time it takes to make the product of thought, then quantification of work proceeds. The linkage of pay to work time also creates the basis for conflicts among professionals, now hired for their work time, and the traditional requirement that professionals be “free-standing” thinkers who control their work. Measuring efficiency in terms of time to do a task is antithetical to their entire tradition. Freedom for the thinker is a freedom to work, not the freedom to leave work and be “free”. The thinker requires the right and possibility to associate with other members of the profession and to organize time in accordance with his or her professional needs, not the needs of the manager in charge of the work place.

Education – From the Box to the Team Teaching is an excellent example of a profession that has gone through dramatic transformation in a relatively short time. Teaching and learning was once reserved for a very small part or society. The number of teachers increased dramatically, as widespread publicly funded educational systems became the norm. The needs of an industrializing society were the impetus to broaden education throughout the population. Schools played an essential role in socializing individuals who had lived in insular communities and bringing them into the industrialized work place.

32 

 Chapter 2: Professionals Become Workers

Schools were organized like factories. The classroom was created as an isolated box with a teacher controlling each box. Students worked in the box and they moved from box to box, from classroom to classroom. The assembly line dominated the work. Teachers saw themselves as professionals and were often treated as professionals and enjoyed some of the privileges and standing of professionals. Like other industrialized workers teachers organized and their organizations struggled with those who controlled their work life. They emphasized the values of professionals and asked for a return to a life in which teachers were “called,” not hired. For many people, a teacher in a box is still the model. Most teachers understand that a new way to do the work of education is needed. In the box the teacher stands in front of the room and controls the environment while dispensing knowledge. The amount of knowledge successfully dispensed is measured by standardized tests. Although the model pervades our assumptions about what education and learning are about, the reality is moving rapidly in another direction. Learning is replacing training. Understanding is becoming as important as adding new skills. Making knowledge by assimilating and understanding information is becoming the norm. The good teachers know they need to teach judgment-making, evaluation, and creativity. In many societies education is still very much a matter of accumulating credits by attending a series of courses taught by a series of teachers or by passing standardized tests. Discrete units are added together to make a degree. Certification that measures competencies, whether granted by professional associations or businesses, replace degrees as the sign of the most effective and efficient worker. Testing for competencies rather than attendance and participation in formal educational programs focuses on a knowledge base and how well a particular person masters that base. The purpose of competency-based certification is to determine whether someone is competent to do a particular kind of work rather than whether he or she sat through a prescribed program. The world of education blows apart as technology moves beyond assembly line teaching to learning. Collaboration of teachers and students using appropriate technology is a more efficient way to do work and gets better results. Teams of people deliver more learning faster and better than a lone teacher in a box. Technology makes it possible for a student to “sit” in a virtual classroom with others who may be in many different parts of the country or the world. At the same time standardized tests become nation-wide and worldwide and teaching is a matter of meeting norms, leaving no student behind, and delivering uniform products. The drive to bring technology and standardization to the

Universities Straddle Conflicting Missions  

 33

classroom is ubiquitous. However, learning is often best done when students are an apprentice who learn “peripherally”. (Lave and Wenger 1991) Teachers, like other traditional professionals such as doctors, lawyers, and priests become responsible for the direction and management of para-professionals and other “support” personal, who take on more and more of the work once done by professionals. The rapid rise of knowledge work demands a new kind of product from educational institutions, a creative thinker or a computer literate person who can also write. The knowledge worker needs to be able to play games and improvise, see connections, and work with a team-oriented customer-driven set of values. Education returns to communities. New kinds of schools and other new ways of organizing teaching flourish by meeting particular needs for particular groups of people, all within a new set of emerging values: sharing, collaboration, quality control, and flexibility. Thinking for a living demands new kinds of learning for thinkers: those who know how to integrate, make choices, innovate and synthesize. These are the skills of the knowledge worker.

Universities Straddle Conflicting Missions One group of professional employees, faculty in universities, was once considered to be outside the mainstream of productive society and had a special status. Alexander von Humboldt, the inventor of the modern university, described this status as “Einsamkeit und Freiheit” – Loneliness and Freedom. The professor’s freedom came from the non-involvement in society and productive work. In the traditional German University a Chair was occupied by a single scholar, one who had an overview, a command of the entire field. In English Universities, a Don pursued truth as an individual occupation. Similar models of a university as a center of freedom for teaching research spread around the world. In this view universities are independent centers where “freedom” exists to pursue freely chosen work. Universities are protected from “outside” control. From the beginning, however, the role and functions of universities has always been ambivalent. The rise of the modern university coincided with the rise of the nation state with universities serving a key role in creating and fostering a culture for political entities. Universities are thought to be free. They are also charged with conserving culture. These two missions are often at odds and universities and those who work in them find themselves straddling conflicting missions.

34 

 Chapter 2: Professionals Become Workers

The independent institutions protected the work of the professional from “outside” control. This independence was long ago replaced by a close cooperation in the areas of research among government, industry, and universities. Universities that were created as research centers are now very much a part of the business and government world. There is a close tie among universities, major industries, and political entities. Universities play an increasingly important role in maintaining and furthering industrialized societies. With the rise of the modern university alongside the modern industrial plants in the nineteenth century, the state and its close ally, the church, created jobs for professionals. These professionals were paid to think and provided with lifetime security (called tenure in the universities). In the modern university management is in the hands of an administrator of a department of specialists. The administrator may come from a separate “profession” (that of administration) and oversees professionals who have become workers in highly specialized fields and have lost the range of vision intellectuals once had. Yet universities are charged with the responsibility of training knowledge workers for society. This obligation often conflicts with their goal of maintaining the industrial activities of the state and major enterprises. Like many professionals, faculty members straddle various missions. On one hand, they are “free” thinkers and on the other hand they are part of large institutions that are managed like other large industrial work places.

Medicine – the End of the Super Doctor The traditional triumvirate of professionals was doctors, lawyers, and priests. They were honored and revered by society and controlled the worlds in which they operated. The industrialization process transformed the work of the physician and the medical world. Hospitals look and operate like factories. More and more doctors became employees. Medical care is a right that all expect. A plethora of professions took on functions that were once reserved for the doctor. Peter Drucker identifies the modern hospital as one of the three paradigms for knowledge work (the symphony orchestra and the university are the other two). (Drucker 1998) Drucker looks at the modern hospital as a small group of people (the doctors) controlling a large army of workers. The work in medical facilities is increasingly carried on by teams of professionals and para-professionals with more and more work being done by technicians. The traditional professions, the nurses, doctors,

The Production of Knowledge  

 35

and social workers are transformed into managers and directors of teams of technicians and other assistants. These technicians and assistants require an increasing understanding of the work that they do and the ability to function as knowledge workers. The professionals undergo a transformation into “workers,” just as the “workers” take on more and more of the traditional work of the professional, the knowledge work. A closer look shows the emergence of teams, cooperation, and even collaboration as the characteristics of the efficient and effective practice of medicine. As the cost of industrial-style medical care skyrockets and its success creates an older and older patient population, new kinds of medicine emerge based on holistic and environmental ways of looking at the patient. Health management, rather than “curing” sick people, focuses on preserving health and preventing illness. New kinds of practitioners are accepted as part of a team that focuses on improving the quality of life through exercise, good nutrition and satisfying human activities. Even death itself is seen less as an indication of failure by the medical system and more as a natural event in life. The modern industrial hospital with the super doctor at the top of the heap turns out to be just as inefficient as the assembly lines in manufacturing. Computers make diverse information immediately available to those providing health care. Cooperation, collaboration, and information sharing are values of the new health care professionals who work together as a team to focus on the patient in a community. Patients no longer need to be transported to a central location, such as a hospital, in order to access the knowledge needed for good health. This knowledge can be delivered anywhere, any time, to patients within a community.

The Production of Knowledge The use of machines and computers as a precondition for professional work has been increasing for many years. In the professions and sciences this process is already well advanced. Research requires equipment that is best purchased within an institutional framework. Every phase of activity, including thinking, takes place within a system of division of labor. Contract law makes it clear that products that are made on work time belong to the person paying for the time, not the person doing the work. The transformation of professional work into a job is not complete until intellectual work is bought and sold. The process of buying and selling intellectual labor time is not fundamentally different from buying and selling other labor time. In order to sell work time it is codified and quantified so that it can be measured. This requires

36 

 Chapter 2: Professionals Become Workers

the work to be rationalized and quantified. The rationalization of intellectual labor takes the same form as other rationalizations in the industrial work place where the elements of the productive process are quantified so that they can be measured. The culture of intellectual and professional labor runs counter to these forms of “rationalization” since what “makes sense” to a knowledge worker may be very different from what is required to speed up a work processes. Only in the last few centuries has work been organized around managing work time as a commodity. In the industrial mode of production the buying and selling of work time reaches its full expression. A commodity is freely exchanged and can be replaced by another. The specialness that is a part of work done by a professional vanishes in the industrial work place. The work is “freed” from the vagaries of the individual. As a result, the professional, like other workers, is invited to move on to find other work at any time. Telling someone, “If you don’t like it here, you can always go somewhere else” assumes that there is somewhere else to go. It also assumes that professional work can be freely moved from one setting to another. The machine and its software increasingly determine how work is done. Work is organized around the needs of the systems. The increase in productive power that comes from the interchangeability of labor in an industrialized system is enormous. Knowledge is now truly cumulative in nature, at least in principle. A new work culture begins to emerge as the work of the professional moves from cooperation to collaboration. New technologies develop to enable and encourage collaborative work. The work of the individual professional requires the use of tools and an environment that are often available only in the “thinking factories”. The exchange that the individual makes is to sell the right to his thinking (labor) time and products to the institutions. Only products developed during “free” time are the property of the individual. In fact, only truly independent thinkers do their thinking outside the thinking factories. This is possible only for intellectual work that does not require instructional support, laboratory equipment, sophisticated machinery, or the collaboration of other thinkers. The final link between the market place and the professional comes in research and development, where the thinker, the new product, and the market place come together. In research and development the individual scientist working in the laboratory is progressively transformed into a part of the corporate life. The creation of research and development as a specific activity with specific funding as a part of universities, the government, and major corporations unites thinking and practice.

The Production of Knowledge  

 37

In the past the link between theory and practice was a mediated one. The people who did the theory did not need to worry about the practical implementation of their work. With research and development the link between creation and application becomes direct. Knowledge becomes embodied in communities of practice, not just in the work of a specialist. The production of knowledge becomes collaborative. The patent and copyright laws embody the legal system relating to the ownership of intellectual property and the exchange of labor time. These laws were initially established to protect the individual products of individual creators from theft. It was determined, and rightfully so, that someone who had labored for years to make a certain product should not be robbed of the fruits of that product once it reaches fruition. The products of the individual professionals are registered with the government. The government and the courts enforce the rights of the inventor or the creator. In the United States, where corporations are defined as persons, most copyrights and patents were held by artificial entities such as corporations, universities, and other institutions. Applying for patents and copyrights is a highly technical process that spawns a support system of patent attorneys and allied professionals. In the professional work place of buying and selling those who pay for the labor time of professionals generally own their intellectual property. Copyright and patent laws that were originally established to reward and protect individual inventors became laws that assure that the institutions receive the benefits of intellectual labor they purchase. Professionals identify primarily with the employer rather than colleagues who do not share the same work place. Within the company teamwork is praised and promoted and cooperation becomes an important value for professionals. Cooperation outside the firm is discouraged or sometimes prohibited. Collaboration is limited to working within a company, not with a community of practice. The professional becomes an important property of the company. Contacts beyond the realm of the company are organized and controlled for the benefit of the company rather than the professional. The result is that in the individual work place the work of the professional is closely identified with an institution rather than with a community that shares a profession. In earlier models of intellectual work, the family model prevailed. For example, the doctoral “father” or the dissertation adviser served as the tutor and assisted the young scholar to enter the life of the mind. Like a parent, the scholar directed the work, but received no value other than the satisfaction of watching a child grow and mature. The scholar as a parent is still found in some recesses of intellectual work places. However, once the commodity relationship is estab-

38 

 Chapter 2: Professionals Become Workers

lished, the professional takes on a managerial role, not a nurturing role, to those who work with and for him or her.

Management In traditional professions control of the profession is vested with those involved in the activity, either individually or collectively. There are no bosses. But in the new order, the bosses of intellectuals need not be intellectuals nor even understand what thinkers do. The rise of the professional manager requires the development of tools to organize the work of the professional. These include certification (in conjunction with professional associations), codes of ethics, and contracts that ensure that the intellectual products are the property of the company, not the knowledge worker. With these tools, the manager is able to control the work place. Work takes on a different character when thought becomes industrialized. The activity of thinking must fit into a productive process and be pieced together with the work of others. Research and development go hand in hand. Once it is a productive activity thought becomes a valuable product. The value of work is determined by the employer in the industrial system. The control of the work place passes from the professional to the manager and pressures grows to constantly increase the efficiency of production. The work of the professional in an industrialized setting lacks the elements of self-direction that make professional work self-fulfilling. The industrialization of professions creates managers of thinkers. Initially, the heads of large departments of professionals were often professionals themselves and may even be members of the same professions and communities as those they supervise. The management function is frequently thought to require a particular knowledge of the activity of the workers. Soon, however, we see the development of a totally independent managing profession – the hospital administrator, the higher education administrator, etc. who may or may not be members of the profession. For example, at universities the president and other members of the administration were once faculty members who assumed the post for a limited time and then returned to the faculty. Now, however, administration is its own activity, with its own specialized knowledge and the link between the community of scientific enquirers and the managers of that knowledge is broken. A similar development has happened for other professions, such as physicians, attorneys, scientific laboratories, and even the clergy.

The Life of the Intellectual 

 39

With the industrialization of thinking as a job activity, disciplines emerge with specific knowledge domains. Job descriptions are devised, evaluation systems put in place, and work becomes ordered as the tools created by human resource managers for industrial settings are applied to professions. The disciplining of work begins in earnest as work is quantified, divided, and sub-divided until the professional often no longer understands what is going on. The professional manager is the implementer of the desires and wishes (the policies) of those who own the institutions where intellectual work takes place rather than the professionals who work there. Especially in areas where they need to manage knowledge workers need to know enough, themselves, about the activities to determine if the work is being done properly. Financial rewards follow the managers rather than the professionals. The ultimate benefits of professional labor go to the owners of the firm. Managerial functions for professional activities and institutions were once considered “clerklike” functions of a lower status. Some positions were rotated among the professionals but few professionals had a goal of becoming a manager. As managers began to be paid more than professionals, the ranks of professional administrators grew rapidly. The manager in the thinking factory, just as the manager in other factories, has one job, which is to get maximum production at the least cost. The manager is required not only to see that production breaks even, but also that the production increases as time goes on. The test of a good manager is how much production he or she can get from the workforce in the least amount of time. For professionals, like other workers, pressures mount to become “productive” and to increase productivity. “Incompetent” and “unproductive” workers and managers are weeded out. Everything is bought, sold and quantified. The thrust of the productive process is to bring order where chaos and individual direction once dominated. Professionals must cooperate in order for production to go on once they are brought under control in an industrial environment. This cooperation brings the possibility for a new and different way to do work. Cooperative work begins to develop a new work culture, a culture that can lead to collaboration.

The Life of the Intellectual One term traditionally used for those who make their living by thinking is “intellectual”. This term is much more prevalent in Europe than it is in the United States, which has not had a class of intellectuals. The life of the intellectual was not idyllic even before professional work became industrialized. In fact, intellec-

40 

 Chapter 2: Professionals Become Workers

tuals and professionals often lived on the fringe of society and were often barely tolerated. They were not seen as a productive part of society. Once they entered into the industrialized work world their work became valued and valuable, but the independence that was a hallmark of their earlier life disappeared. Most “modern” philosophers (the term for Western philosophy from Descartes to Hegel) were attached to royal courts, along with musicians, jesters and artists. The French philosopher Descartes had a particularly rotten work life. He had his great idea (“I think, therefore I am”) while he was inside an oven, no doubt trying to escape the frigid cold of Northern Europe where he had to move in order to find work. He died an ignoble death after catching a cold, because he had to get up early to tutor the offspring of a Scandinavian noble family. The cold floors were just too much for him. Socrates had it even harder. He enjoyed a good life (as evidence in the good party described in the Symposium). He did not have to worry about cold floors for he lived in sunny Greece. He did have to worry about the public-spirited citizens of his day who were troubled because he was corrupting their youth. Like many a good teacher, Socrates was rather proud of the fact that the youth who crossed his path were transformed. He understood that the search for knowledge is a matter of learning how to ask the right questions. Yet Socrates was tried and found guilty of corrupting the youth. He was executed by the State. At his trial, Socrates proposed an interesting punishment for his crime: Well, what is appropriate for a poor man who is a public benefactor and who requires leisure for giving you moral encouragement? Nothing could be more appropriate for such a person than free maintenance at the state’s expense. (Apology, 36d)

Those in charge of his trial did not take kindly to his suggestion, so in the end he drank the hemlock. Some of his students tried to talk him out of taking the poison. They arranged for him to escape and go abroad, but he rejected their arguments. He knew that he should be paid to think. That was his job. If the penalty was to drink the hemlock, so be it. Since Socrates, many thinkers have come and gone. More than one has been subjected to ridicule and punishment for questioning the accepted knowledge of the day. Thinking is still a prized activity and a lucky few, often called professionals, have been fortunate to be paid to think. Now more and more people are paid to think. Professionals are often organized in the work place and in society. In an industrial society, intellectuals are part of universities, academies of science, laboratories and other “factories” that have the work culture of a factory, rather than that of the free-standing intellectual. In order to do their knowledge

The Life of the Intellectual 

 41

work well, the work of these intellectuals requires more than cooperation. It requires collaboration, which is the key characteristic of the work culture that is most appropriate for knowledge work.

Chapter 3: From Cooperation to Collaboration How we think about our labor is more often determined by the way we used to work, rather than how we actually work or should work. Most work is still organized as if it were on an assembly line. On the line, efficiency comes by dividing work into smaller and smaller units and, ideally, making each task so simple that it can be done by anyone or by a machine. Workers become interchangeable and, as automation takes hold, machines replace workers. Assignments are made, hierarchies are created, work is organized, controlled, and evaluated in accordance with a plan formulated by managers. Work is made uniform and efficiencies are achieved by increasing the size and scale of the work place. Management controls production. Efficiencies come as work becomes routine. Every possible facet of work is honed to play its role in the planned processes. Marx described the industrial form of work as one that mutilates the laborer into a fragment of a man, degrade him to the level of an appendage of a machine, destroy every remnant of charm in his work and turn it into hated toil. (Marx 1867, 645)

In an assembly line, nothing is more disastrous than stopping the line. Efficiencies flow from the work products arriving and passing on at fixed intervals. The task of the manager is to speed up the assembly line as much as possible. In this setting, we sell our time, not our work. Once our time is bought, we no longer own it and no longer decide what to do, when to do it, or how we use our time. When our work time is up, we reclaim our lives and our time. We have “free” time. Despite all efforts, however, managers have never been able to fill up all available work time. The struggle between the foreman/supervisor, who represents the management, and the worker is an integral part of the culture of our work place. An antagonistic relationship emerges between managers, who plan and organize work, and the worker, who is increasingly a cog in the machine and, indeed, may one day be replaced by a machine. Workers resist as control over the labor process becomes more centralized. They resist in many ways, by doing only what they are told, by working only when necessary and, in times of crisis, laborers may sabotage the work process. The struggle between management and labor is about time, how much time the worker puts in and how that time is controlled and used by management. No matter how well work is organized and controlled, workers find ways to bring

Chapter 3: From Cooperation to Collaboration 

 43

humanity to their work place. Slaves sing. Workers chat and if they cannot chat, they find other ways to communicate. Breaks are necessary and are, themselves, the subject of regulation and control. Despite efforts to fill all work time with productive activity, time is spent waiting for someone else to finish a task, holding meetings where work is discussed, but not done, taking breaks, and taking care of non-work items. As one high-level official commented, “I don’t know how often I have stopped working to go to a meeting”. In order to do work, something needs to be accomplished, something has to be produced. If I push on a wall, do it according to directions, spend lots of time, expend lots of effort and the wall does not move, then no work is done if the goal is to move the wall. Unless something is produced, no work is done. We are just at the beginning of a transformation of work away from industrial ways of operating to a knowledge economy. The tools we are using are still very crude. We are still, to a large extent, tethered to our machines, but computing power is being moved to a “cloud” so we are no longer bound to or desk or other place to work to access information. Interconnectedness is becoming more and more a part of our lives as small and mobile machines are linked to information sources that may be located anywhere in the world. Much knowledge work is very physical in nature. Knowledge work does not mean “not physical”. In fact, knowledge work often combines physical activity and intellectual work. The emergence of collaborative knowledge work brings a number of surprising changes in how we view work. One of these is the elimination of a strict distinction between manual and intellectual labor. The “blue collar” worker is becoming professionalized and the “white collar” worker is becoming industrialized. Physical activity and intellectual work often converge to produce a new kind of work in which physical tasks are, whenever possible, automated out of existence or replaced by machines. Intellectual tasks, on the other hand require an understanding of the physical processes that go on in automated environments. Knowledgeable workers understand both the theory and practice and not only think about what needs to be done, but actually carry out physical activities in doing work. The work we do now and will increasingly do in the future, requires strong minds as well as strong backs. In an economy based on thinking, we still need strong backs. Strong backs can also have strong minds. These backs and minds must be able to analyze, to adapt, to invent, and to change. Ditch-diggers, soldiers and many other jobs are becoming professionalized and are developing a body of knowledge required to do the work. Professional

44 

 Chapter 3: From Cooperation to Collaboration

fields are becoming more and more socialized and the linkage of theory and practice becomes an integral part of work in the knowledgeable economy. The move toward knowledge workers extends throughout the work force, and every indication is that the number and kinds of knowledgeable workers will continue to increase as we move into a post-industrial world. The correct way to organize work is consuming many societies, as a huge army of underemployed and unemployed knowledge workers is created. These workers are over prepared and underutilized. They hold the seed for the next form of production that supersedes the industrial mode of production – knowledge societies and knowledge economies.

Breaking the Link of Work and Time The link between work time and work is broken when it comes to knowledge work. Knowledge work, by its very nature, takes place within a community and relies on an understanding of the work that others are doing. Since the work of knowledge workers is not interchangeable, we are not able to equate the value of the product of work with the amount of time it takes to do that work. In the words of Marx: In this re-orientation what appears as the mainstay of production and wealth is neither the immediate labor performed by the worker nor the time that he works – but the appropriation of his general productive force, his understanding of nature and the mastery of it as a special force; in a word, the development of the social individual... As soon as labor, in its direct form, has ceased to be the main source of wealth, then labor-time ceases, and must cease, to be its standard of measurement. (Marx 1971, 35)

Knowledge work requires both doing and thinking. Planning, understanding, and implementation are all required for good workers, not just for managers. Workers bring together knowledge and skills from various communities of which they are a part and, together with others, make things happen. Knowledge work can be joyful. In fact, to be most productive it needs to be joyful. Knowledge workers, unlike industrial workers, welcome increasing automation and replacement of repetitive tasks through machines. Knowledge work is, by its very nature, collaborative and necessarily under the control of those doing the work. The most productive work is done freely, not coerced. The most productive work is enjoyable and fulfilling. Play and knowledge work are closely related. The playful attitude is often what is needed, more than strict adherence to rules and procedures. Play is a joy. When we do knowledge work well, we become more skillful, learn more, and

Breaking the Link of Work and Time 

 45

enhance the understanding and knowledge of other members of the communities in which we live and work. In knowledge work, what is important is not how long a task takes to get a product, but the value of the product once it is produced. Knowing what to do might also mean, however, recognizing alternatives and seeing difficulties. Quality, not quantity, becomes the key to good work. None of these ideas are particularly new. They are taught in nearly every management course in every society. But making knowledge work joyful is not just a matter of having better managers. It is about empowering workers. To be done efficiently, knowledge work cannot be divided into pieces and be put back together by a manager or supervisor. Knowledge workers need to understand what they are doing, not just because it makes their labor more efficient (which it does) or more pleasant (which it will be), but because understanding the purpose of one’s labor is an essential component of knowledge work. In the industrial mode of production, work is organized and driven from above, with directions from the top through a bureaucratic structure that creates inherent conflicts between those whose labor time is bought and those who manage that time. As automation accelerates, the efficiencies of industrial production that come from dividing labor into discrete pieces and laying them out on an assembly line begin to disappear. The struggles now are moving beyond a mere shortening of the working day to the creation of meaningful labor for all in society. These struggles are the struggles of our day.

46 

 Chapter 3: From Cooperation to Collaboration

Cooperation and Collaboration This table summarizes the essential characteristics of cooperative labor, which is work done in an industrial, assembly-line setting, and collaborative labor, which is characteristic of Knowledge Work.

Cooperation – Industrial Work

Collaboration – Knowledge Work

– –

–

– – –

– –

–

–

–

–

Information is traded. Division of labor. Tasks are divided and parceled out. The worker does not understand all that is going on. Work and workers are brought together into large enterprises. Cost/Benefit analysis enables the cost that goes into a product or products to be measured against the margins generated. Productivity increased by automating tasks and speeding up work flow. Automation enables machines to take over more and more of the tasks that we do. Machines replace workers. Efficiencies flow from increasing the scale of production in order to decrease costs and write off the expenses of automation. Industrialization advances by the simplifying complex tasks so that interchangeable workers can perform them. By dividing labor into discreet tasks, these tasks lose their artistic character and become interchangeable. Managers control and direct projects with specified stages from beginning to end. Management focuses on meeting production goals, keeping people in their proper places, and coordinating the work of hundreds or thousands of people. The chain of command drives the in crease in production.

– – –

– – –

–

–

–

Work is done in work groups that coalesce and disband. The worker needs to understand the totality of the work being done. Collaboration requires relatively small, but intertwined communities. Knowledge work is about production, about applying force (thought, research, creativity) to information to move it a distance toward the goal, mission, vision so that something is changed or transformed. Results and quality, not speed and quantity, determine efficiency. Productivity increased by increasing communication and integrating work. Automation enables and facilitates work; it does not take it over. Efficiencies flow from doing work within communities united by a shared body of knowledge so that knowledge is accessible and dependable when needed. Standards and best practices arise out of the work that is done. They are rules/conventions/ norms adopted for communication among communities in order to make information accessible. People work in communities and come together to accomplish particular tasks and accomplish work with a shared goal. Collaborative work is done together. Like most things organic, collaboration is not hierarchical, neatly channeled, and managed.

Beliefs That Underlie the New Work Culture 

Cooperation

Collaboration

–

–

–

–

–

–

The work force works side-by-side with communications channeled through appropriate hierarchies. The industrial mode of production brings people together in a place and organizes them around machines that determine how work is done. These places may be factories or offices. The essential determination of work is the machine and its demands and its needs. Cooperation comes from workers whose work is aligned by management to achieve the purposes and goals of the enterprise. Each member of the team must cooperate with others. A production line is perhaps the best example of a cooperative work environment in the industrial society. People work side-by-side, with work processes organized and controlled by management to assure maximum productivity. Cooperation requires accepting and following work rules prescribed by management. Work is done by following the rules and proper procedures.

–

–

–

 47

The relationship to the customer, who is the user of the products of work, needs to be as direct as possible, because user needs of the user determine the work that is done. Knowledge work does not require gathering people together in order to do work. People continue to come together for work and pleasure, but the driving force of the machine is replaced by the need for a collaborative and nurturing environment. Collaboration is not just among individuals, but also among institutes, laboratories, departments, and work teams. Collaboration involves doing work together, depending on one another, not just cooperating so each individual work gets done.. Thinking is inherently critical and evaluative, questioning how things have always been done.

Beliefs That Underlie the New Work Culture How we do our work is mostly a matter of habit. These habits are developed over a period of time in response to the needs of the work place and the tools (technologies) that are available to get our work done. The development of knowledge work as primary work requires new habits to get work done efficiently and well. Developing these habits requires a transformation of work culture, for the work culture is made up of the beliefs and expectations that we bring to our work. These habits make up the “common sense” of our approach to work culture.

48 

 Chapter 3: From Cooperation to Collaboration

An integrated digital environment, along with communities of practice and knowledge work, gives us a way to think about this new work culture, a culture appropriate to knowledge work. The way we work is shaped by beliefs we hold about how work is properly done. These beliefs often take the form of common sense, what we assume without questioning. Beliefs come from previous experiences of the communities in which we participate and, often, communities we once participated in. For knowledge work to be done properly, a set of assumptions different than the beliefs that underlie work done on an assembly line is needed. The beliefs and assumptions that underlie knowledge work are: – inherently collaborative, – not bound by space and time, – done in an environment in which information is shared, not hoarded, – customer/client centered, – driven from below, not managed from above. The characteristics supporting the beliefs and assumptions of the work culture in of an integrated digital environment in which knowledge work is best done include: 1. Trust: In a trusting work relationship, work is done in a transparent work environment. People “know” one another, even if they have never met. They are able to determine the value of the knowledge that others produce, which is the information they use to do their work. The work done and the roles played need to be understood and accepted (not just acquiesced to). The manager trusts that the information used by the subordinate (which is also available to the manager at all times) is the latest and most accurate available. The subordinate trusts that his/her data/information is accepted as authoritative. 2. Information Sharing: Immediate access to information needed to do work requires collaborative relationships in which each person with a need to know has access to another’s work without the owner having to post his/her work and without the seeker gaining access via special permission. 3. Preservation of and Access to Essential Evidence: A secured, trustworthy corporate memory system preserves the evidence created in doing work so that it can be re-used by others. The change in our work culture is already well underway.

Moving From Cooperation to Collaboration 

 49

Information Sharing Information sharing is the key to successful collaboration in doing knowledge work, because the knowledge that I make in the course of doing knowledge work becomes someone else’s information that they need to do their work. Sometimes the sharing that goes on is individual in nature. More often, however, it goes beyond that. It comes out of working together in a community or communities to accomplish a goal, to do work. We have all, from time to time, been fortunate enough to experience true collaboration. The difference between collaboration and cooperation is the difference between playing a team sport and simply playing at the same time. Cooperation is like what psychologists call parallel play in which two or more kids play side by side, but are not necessarily playing the same “game”. They may share and cooperate while each playing his or her own game. Sometimes (and this is often a function of age), however, the children begin to share in a game. It is no longer this person’s game or that person’s game. The game belongs to everyone who plays, regardless of the particular role they assume. The community of players shares in the ownership of the game and a culture of ownership underlies their interaction. Collaboration is a creative process that emerges out of a common desire to achieve a goal. Collaboration takes place when we all play the same game, with the same goals and a common understanding of what the game is about. One way to understand collaboration is to look at the community of people who make up a sports team. There are players, a coach, a statistician, the announcer, and the fans. Some of the players are stars and others often spend their time sitting on the bench. All of the community members are members of the team. More than cooperation is necessary for a team to succeed. “Team spirit” is characteristic of successful team play. The “spirit” is sometimes described in mystical terms. When we are fortunate to play on a really good team, even if our play is merely sitting on the bench watching the stars perform – that may be our role, the competent, ready to serve substitute. When the team does well, we are filled with a kind of awe and surprise and satisfaction that comes from a job well done. But when our team fails to achieve its goal, we are filled with despair. We are part of the team, regardless of the particular role we play.

Moving From Cooperation to Collaboration Cooperation, which is highly developed in the industrial mode of production, fosters an attitude of control. Information is power. Those who have information

50 

 Chapter 3: From Cooperation to Collaboration

control power. When cooperating, I trade with you and give you what you need to do your task. The sharing is only for a limited time and some kind of “return” is expected. Cooperation is also essential for the assembly line to function. Everything depends on each person doing his or her job well and efficiently, so that one piece can move on so the next worker can do his or her part of the assembly. Cooperation is basically an unwritten contractual relationship. Collaboration, on the other hand, requires that people understand what others are doing and how their work fits together with the work of others. It also requires a much higher level of inter-dependency for success in the work than cooperative environments do. Cooperation is about negotiating and giving people enough to make them go away. Collaboration is about developing networks and connections and common goals. Collaboration involves trust. A transformation of the work culture is evidenced by the observed change in behavior, in this case from an information-hoarding to an information-sharing environment. Measurements can be qualitative and quantitative. The measurement of a transformation in work culture serves several purposes. It assures those who are supporting the transformation (your bosses, the public, and your customers) that something is really happening. Even more important, though, is that measurement keeps us in line and lets us know if we are really doing the work of transformation or merely making an effort. The industrial mode of production relies heavily on quantitative measurement, as work is parceled out and coordinated. The measurement of a transformation in the work environment and in the work culture requires more than tracking and measuring the amount of automation. If done properly, the work culture transformation will increase overall productivity in terms of real work. The incentive for work culture transformation comes primarily from improved productivity and quality of work. Quantitative metrics will continue to play an important role in measuring work process improvements that come from applying technology to the solution of problems. As knowledge work moves to the center stage, qualitative measurements of production become more important. The transformation of a work culture is primarily qualitative in nature. It is a different way to approach what we do. It is more than an improvement in how we work. It is a new way of doing our work, a transformation. Most psychological and social scientists understand that not everything can or should be quantified. There are kinds of measurements we can use to determine the nature of our culture and how that culture is changing. We can observe behavior and from behavior, we can begin to make judgments. In an environment suitable for knowledge work, we can see to what extent a trusting relationship is

Moving From Cooperation to Collaboration 

 51

established, whether information is shared, rather than hoarded and whether the corporate memory is preserved for re-use. Culture change is qualitative. Once information becomes accessible, new collaborative ways to work emerge. Once we define our current work processes, make our products immediately accessible to others and their products accessible to our community, then the transformations in work processes are possible. New attitudes and new assumptions inform our work – we have a work culture based on information sharing.

A Management View In 1995, Edward M. Marshall made many of the same points made in this chapter in a study published by the American Management Association. He states that, American business is undergoing its most profound transformation since the Industrial Revolution... Hierarchy, the cultural principle by which we have led and managed business for at least the past century, no longer seems practical or relevant. (Marshall 1995, 1) A new work culture is need to replace hierarchy. He goes on to identify the need for: Culture wars sap the energies of our people and our companies. We end up spending too much time managing internal conflicts – time that would be better spent meeting the needs of our customers. To reconcile these cultural differences and build a long-term foundation for high performance, we need a new set of values to guide the organization as a whole – a new cultural framework. Without it, business will continue to struggle. The default position will likely be hierarchy. (Marshall 1995, 24) Marshall identifies seven values in what he calls the “collaborative work ethic”, which he proposes to replace the hierarchical work ethic. These values are: Value 1: Respect for People In such an environment, management shifts its role from one of authority, telling, controlling, and monitoring, to one of facilitating, coaching, mentoring, and counseling; there is no ‘boss’. Value 2: Honor and Integrity Because people are interdependent, we need to trust each other, which means I must believe in others’ integrity. Value 3: Ownership and Alignment The true owners of the organization reside in its workplace... By increasing their stake in its success, the managers can do nothing but gain. Equally important is the value of alignment that is driven by a high level of ownership... So, if ownership is the rocket booster, align-

52 

 Chapter 3: From Cooperation to Collaboration

ment is the guidance system... Alignment occurs when all the members of an organization agree on the vision, mission, and strategic course of action for the company or organization. Value 4: Consensus Many people confuse consensus with compromise or “I can live with it” – as in “I can tolerate that decision.” … True collaboration requires that individuals in a group responsible for an outcome work through their differences. Value 5: Trust-Based Relationships In the networked organization, authority no longer works as the basis for work relationships. Trust is the new glue. Value 6: Full Responsibility and Accountability The success of the Collaborative Workplace is most likely to occur when we can move away from the view of responsibility and accountability as being a policing function grounded in a top-down approach to relationships. Instead, we must move toward a view that full responsibility and accountability are horizontal, shared, and grounded in our individual and collective integrity as adults and professionals. Value 7: Recognition and Growth It needs to be okay for people to make some mistakes, to take risks, to try new things, and to learn and grow. (Marshall 1995, 29–35) Even though Marshall speaks of values, the language of morality and ethics, his argument is purely practical and business-based. The Collaborative Workplace is the one that works best to get business done.

A Culture of Ownership Collaboration is the key to creating a work environment that makes efficient knowledge work possible. Collaboration is only possible, however, when the participants in the work process take ownership of the work that they do. The work culture where productive knowledge work is best done is one where those involved in creating the knowledge products have a sense of “ownership”: knowing that the products of their work are acknowledged as their creation. Ownership takes many forms in work and the term can be used to convey several “senses.” Sometimes it is a matter of attitude, how the worker approaches the tasks to be done. This is sometimes referred to as “pride of authorship.” Other times there are formal ways in which workers, themselves, are the legal owners or participate in the legal ownership of the employing enterprises where they work. A third sense of ownership applies to when a community of practice takes ownership of a body of knowledge. The community “owns” the knowledge that is agreed upon. Taking ownership in these several senses is a key to successful

A Culture of Ownership 

 53

knowledge work. The power of knowledge management flows from sharing information with others and is an essential part of knowledge work. Ownership brings with it an attitude of risk-taking, for it is only by taking risks that what one owns can grow and develop. A legal owner may also be an employee of the enterprise where he or she works. An owner has a very different attitude toward work than an employee who is alienated from his or her work and who comes to work, not because of the work, but because he or she must put in time in order to have “free” time. Employees are, by their very nature, often cautious and conservative and risk averse for they want to keep their job, so they can have time away from their job. Automation is a threat, not an opportunity, for it may mean (and often does mean) that the job will be transformed or even disappear. Opening up and sharing may be a real and tangible risk for the worker, for if you enter into a sharing relationship with others, the worker may be harmed. An enlightened “owner” of his or her labor has a very different attitude. Automation is welcomed, for the work becomes easier and if tasks are taken over by machines, this is a liberating, not a threatening force. The work of the enlightened “owner” is the work of someone who is open to, and eager to, innovate and create. These are the primary characteristics of knowledge work. In the industrial mode of production, ownership is often far removed from the workers, whether the owners are capitalists, public bodies, non-profit institutions, or cooperatives. Industrial production is based on establishing control so that planning and direction can be centralized. Efficiencies come from the division of labor. Control of the work comes from above and the assembly line can only work if it keeps going in a regulated and predictable manner according to the plan. Knowledge work, however, is often as much about serendipity as it is about following a plan. Knowledgeable workers, working in communities of practice, collaborate to make products of values to others. That is the essence of the work process. To do that effectively and efficiently, those who do the work need to “own” it. Developing a culture of ownership is an essential component of establishing a working environment in which information is widely shared and collaborative work is enabled. Sometimes this culture of ownership is best created when those involved in the work process, themselves, are the legal owners. Worker ownership and control is one way, but perhaps not the only way, in which various societies create an ownership culture. Even the most capitalistic theory recognizes that once you get to the production floor, a collaborative environment where workers have a culture of ownership is more efficient and effective. The problem is control, for managers are, by their very nature, hired to

54 

 Chapter 3: From Cooperation to Collaboration

control the work process, to monitor it and make sure that work is done according to plan in a timely manner. The range of worker ownership is vast. A cooperative in Spain is the third largest enterprise in the country. Farmer and producer cooperatives have a long traditions in Canada and the United States. Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) in the United States enable entrepreneurs to cash out their assets. Those ESOPs survive when workers do, in fact, control the places where they work and develop an ownership culture. Entrepreneurship is one of the clearest forms of ownership where those who do the work both control and own the enterprise. The entrepreneur takes the risks and, sometimes, reaps the rewards. This process is seen most clearly in the information technology industry. It occurs in many other parts of the economy as well. In the United States, John Logue provided much of the theoretical and practical work encouraging employee ownership. Logue worked at the heart of American manufacturing, Northeast Ohio. Logue saw the route to employee ownership to be through workers obtaining stock in the company where they work. Initially Logue worked with failing manufacturing plants to help them turn the company over to its workers. Later he and others went on to use ESOPs in other situations, especially when an owner of a business wanted to transition out of the business and turn his or her company over to employees. A provision in the United States pension law, enables an owner of a company to sell the company to its employees at a price equal to the fair market value of the company. ESOPs are now generally used by small or medium-sized companies where the owner wants to retire. The employees purchase the company from the owner. Some of these companies succeed. It becomes clear that transferring ownership to employees requires a fundamental change in the relationship of management to workers. Many employees find themselves being responsible for decisions that were once made by others. In particular, companies taken over by employees sometimes became more interested in conserving what they have, rather than developing new or expanding businesses, which would take risks. Developing an ownership culture became one of the primary requirements for a work culture that promotes knowledge work. According to Bill McIntyre, the successor to John Logue as Director of the Ohio Employee Ownership Center, an outreach center of Kent State University: Research studies consistently show that employee owned companies without an ownership culture show no improvement in corporate performance over comparable non-employeeowned companies and that employee owned companies with an ownership culture show better corporate performance over comparable non-employee-owned companies in just about every measure of corporate performance. The typical results are 2–3% better perfor-

A Culture of Ownership 

 55

mance; e.g., 10% sales growth vs. 7%; ROI = 13% vs. 10%, etc. Indeed, the theme to our conference this year was “Employee Ownership: Simply a Better Way of Doing Business”.6

Many hi-tech start-up firms give stock shares in the company in order to supplement salaries during the company’s early stages. For some, this leads to very wealthy individuals. For most, it means they worked for many years at a reduced wage without a pay-off at a later date. Other companies, such as Southwest Airlines with twenty-five per cent employee ownership, began with substantial employee ownership. Over time, if the company survives, the companies tend to become similar to other publicly owned stock companies with management employed by a Board of Directors, whose primary obligation is to provide a maximum return to stockholders. The initial employees, many of who had invested themselves and were intensely proud of what they were doing, shared an ownership culture, but it becomes difficult to bring new employees into that culture, even though the company continues to emphasize its ownership culture in training new employees of the company. Another model of employee ownership is the cooperative. In the United States and Canada, cooperatives arose as producer cooperatives, often in rural environments. Farmers who operated their independent businesses came together to market their products and to purchase supplies they need to operate. There are many examples of successful cooperatives and those that succeed do so because they have a culture of ownership and both a sense and pride in what they have built. Large producer cooperatives in the United States include Welch’s, Ocean Spray, Land O’Lakes, and Sunkist. Sustaining cooperatives and developing a culture where risk taking is an important part of work life, is difficult to achieve. In Western Europe, especially in Scandinavia, worker owned enterprises proliferated and many governments endorse and foster employee ownership. In Spain, one cooperative, the Basque Mondragon Cooperative, became one of the largest enterprises in the country while retaining employee ownership. They have even gone international, establishing plants in the United States and China. Interestingly enough, the concept of employee ownership is not extended to the foreign plants. Various forms of worker control have been tried over the years in the former Soviet Union. In the end, ownership control did not go to the workers, but to a new class of oligarchs who assumed control of the enterprises. In China, a major-

6 Correspondence with the author. A summary of research on increased productivity in employee-owed enterprises is contained at http://www.nceo.org/articles/research-employeeownership-corporate-performance/printable.

56 

 Chapter 3: From Cooperation to Collaboration

ity of enterprises are still publicly owned, generally by local and provincial governments and the army. As foreign investments were welcomed, a wide variety of different models for ownership and control emerged. In a few places, ownership by those working in the enterprises emerged. To create the innovation society that is now a cornerstone of Chinese policies, we might anticipate that various forms of worker control may develop in China. Each of these forms of employee legal ownership has come to the same conclusion. What is important is that there is a culture of knowledge ownership, regardless of who are the legal owners. A knowledge ownership culture is one in which risk-taking (usually in the form of information sharing) is encouraged and, as knowledge work becomes ubiquitous, we can expect new forms of employee ownership and control to emerge. Creative and innovative work, however, is not necessarily done in a timely manner. Breaking the link between time and production is a key to establishing an environment in which knowledge work can be done. One of the striking characteristics of each of these forms of worker ownership is that when the enterprise is established or when, for various reasons, ownership is shared with additional workers within an enterprise, a high degree of collaboration often emerges. Sometimes, but not always, this collaboration does not extend to all those in the work place. As an enterprise prospers, it needs to establish relationships with other enterprises and supply chains, often international in character, are created. Marketing can also become an international activity. The energy and efficiencies that grow out of an entrepreneurial environment can only be sustained, however, if the collaborative working environment is developed. The implications for this are enormous when we look at international relationships and the development of companies that transcend national boundaries. Control of the work place has always been an issue. In industrial production, that control is manifested by contradictions between the owners/controllers/managers and the work force. Trade unions take on the function of representing these workers and enter into agreements with those who control the work process. These same trade union institutions can become collaborators with the owners of the enterprise and become part of the problem, not the solution. There are examples in several parts of the world, including the United States, of trade unions moving to develop cooperatives in which workers have a culture of ownership. The solution is to make work collaborative throughout the work place and develop institutions and cultures that foster knowledge work. That requires us to look at the way work is organized and controlled, for knowledge work needs to be

A Culture of Ownership 

 57

done by those who are able to exercise their creativity in the work place, which implies that they have control of their environment and, in the communities in which they work, the work processes.

Section II: New Ways to Think About Work Synopsis: In which we consider some new ways to think about work in the Knowledge Age. Concepts that were once quite separate such as “knowledge” and “work” and “community” and “practice” come together to make “knowledge work” and “community of practice”. The terms “integrated”, “digital”, and “environment” are put together as integrated digital environment. These are three new concepts for the Knowledge Age. Work is purposeful activity that yields a product of value. Knowledge is a justified true belief. Knowledge work is work that yields a judgment that something is true. It is the answer to the question, “Is it a good idea to...?” A community is a social institution based on common interests and activity. Practice is the work done based on a shared body of knowledge. The form in which knowledge work is done is a community of practice. An integrated digital environment is an environment where there is immediate access to information needed to do work. The new concepts of Knowledge Work, Community of Practice, and Integrated Digital Environment enable us to conceptualize and understand the new culture that is developing in the Knowledge Age. Keywords: Community Groups of people who work for a common purpose within an organization or across organizational boundaries. Community of practice A group of people bound together by a common class of problems, common pursuit of solutions, and a store of common knowledge and understanding. Integrated digital environment A work environment in which there is immediate access to the information needed to conduct business (to do work). Praxis (Practice) The “business” lawyers and doctors maintain; it includes their clients and all the work they do for their clients, including customs and cultural content.

Chapter 4: Knowledge Work So what is knowledge work? It is a kind of work. Like all work we do for a living, knowledge work is of value to someone else, so they pay us for our work. We exchange our valuable work for money. Of course, some work today does not require thinking. As automation continues, menial labor is replaced by thinking labor. Also, of course, we don’t get paid every time that we think. We have hobbies. We muse and we volunteer our thinking. To be knowledge work, it must be both work and it must require thinking. To do knowledge work for a living, it needs to be of value to someone else who pays for that work. Knowledge work is the work of those who think for a living. It is what professionals do. It is what properly motivated Walmart employees do. It is what scientists do. Obviously the work of Walmart employees and the work of scientists are very different. They have different missions and purposes. Their products are dramatically different. They come from very different cultures and traditions – but they are all paid to think.

The Fourth Wave We can look at the Knowledge Age as the “Fourth Wave”. My colleague, Herb Schantz, first used the term “fourth wave”. He took Toffler’s notion of the “third wave” (the information age) and observed that the information age is just a transition to the knowledge age. Toffler identified the first wave as agricultural, the second as industrial, and the third as the information age. Schantz said that the information (computer) age is the last stage in the industrial age and we are now in the transition to the knowledge age. It is not particularly important how we name and number these “ages”. The point is that fundamental changes seem to be occurring. It is not just about computers and managing information more efficiently. Many parts of our lives are changing so dramatically. Now it makes sense to speak of a new age, the Age of Knowledge Work. It is hard to tell particularly at the beginning of such an age if it is really new. But the evidence is pretty well in. Making knowledge is really quite different from other kinds of work including managing information. Work in the Age of Knowledge is largely the production of knowledge from information. As we enter this Knowledge Age, our work takes on very different characteristics than the work we do in an industrial environment. In order for work to be done most efficiently in this new age, we will not be paid for what we know and what we get done, rather than for our work time.

62 

 Chapter 4: Knowledge Work

We are at the beginning of that Age, an Age as different from the Computer Age (sometimes called the Information Age), as the Industrial Age was from the Manufacturing Age and the Manufacturing Age from the Agrarian Age. The Computer/Information Age is the final stage of the industrial age for it applies automation to tasks that were once thought to be uniquely human. Work, including much of the work of the professionals, is rationalized, channeled, and was brought within an industrialized structure. The information age brought with it dramatic increases in information services professions and institutions. Libraries, archives, and records management professionals became an important part of organizations and businesses. The importance of managing information throughout its entire life-time from its creation to its destruction or transfer to an archives for permanent preservation is now widely recognized. The function of technology is often to eliminate manual work and to make physical activities no longer necessary. Work process improvement focuses on these issues. The Knowledge Age is made possible by new technologies that enable information sharing within and among communities. Computers and wires do not improve work but they are the tools that make improvements in the work processes possible. The technologies that enable knowledge work were among the first products of the Information Age which is the end phase of the Industrial Age, an age driven by many heady new inventions and machines. Work and knowledge come together in the Knowledge Age. Putting the terms knowledge and work together enables us to begin to think about the transformation of work and culture needed to support knowledge work. Recognition of the importance of documentation and identifying and preserving records and information for future give us the possibility to develop ways of working that take advantage of knowledge contained in communities of practice. Knowledge, which philosophers have defined as “justified true belief”, is the product of much work today. This is particularly true in certain areas where invention and creativity are essential especially in sciences and applied sciences where a body of knowledge of communities of practice is one of the products of their work. Knowledge is also the basis for more and more work, ranging from a ditch-digger who operates an automated backhoe using computerized machinery to the laboratory worker discovering new truths and even to the philosopher who wonders and worries about the nature of knowledge. Knowledge is no longer something apart from the productive processes of society. It is part and parcel of much of the work that we do. How we create and manage knowledge becomes one of the most important practical tasks of society. You cannot make knowledge using industrial modes of production. It just does not work. Other ways of working are much more efficient for knowledge pro-

The Fourth Wave  

 63

duction. Post-industrial production will not automatically bring about an end to alienated labor. That would require a democratization of society and freeing men and women to take control of their work. If we can understand the nature of knowledge work, we can begin to understand the nature of the post-industrial society into which we are emerging. The theory of knowledge management that is developing recognizes that knowledge work is the practice of making knowledge explicit. Knowledge work has quite different characteristics from other work. It is at its very heart collaborative in nature.

Characteristics of Knowledge Work Putting the terms “knowledge” and “work” together does not give us a term that is intuitively understandable. As the term “knowledge work” becomes a part of our language, it provides us a way to bring together what were once thought to be two very different activities: doing work and having knowledge. – –

– –

Knowledge work is: Inherently social. It takes place within a community and calls upon the resources and products of other individuals and communities. Makes something new. Creative work (of which knowledge work is one kind) is not simply a matter of inputs and outputs (although there are inputs and outputs). It is a matter of “making” something new – something which did not exist before. For the knowledge worker this is normally a judgment, a conclusion that rises to the point of certainty in the mind of the people doing the work. Of value to someone, an employer or a community. Has an unpredictable outcome. The goal and purpose of the work can (and should) be identified in advance, but the answer to the question or questions that give rise to knowledge work is not known in advance. If it were, then the process could be automated and a machine could (and should) do that work.

Knowledge workers create knowledge by taking data and information and applying their own experience, judgment, know-how, assumptions (culture), background, and values in order to reach a conclusion. When this is done for a living, these conclusions need to have value for someone else who is willing to pay them. Knowledge is a reasoned conclusion. Knowledge is relevant information embedded in experience that is readily available in a timely manner for users to make timely, valid decisions that increase the productivity of a set of work processes. No amount of information or data will answer the question, “Is it a good idea to...?” Data and information may be required in order to help us answer the question properly. Data and information are some of the evidence that we use to justify

64 

 Chapter 4: Knowledge Work

our beliefs. The synergy of information and analysis brings about the answer to the question and produces the knowledge.

Knowledge: Justified True Belief Knowledge is a good and elevated word. Philosophers have chewed on it for centuries. At least in the Western philosophical tradition, philosophers came to the conclusion that it is “justified true belief” Philosophers, more than any other people, worry about knowledge, what it is, and how to acquire it. They call that discipline epistemology – the theory of knowledge. In the 1901 edition of Baldwin’s Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology, C.S. Peirce defines knowledge as follows: This word is used in logic in two senses: 1) as a synonym for Cognition, and (2), and more usefully, to signify a perfect cognition, that is, a cognition fulfilling three conditions: first, that it holds for true a proposition that really is true; second, that it is perfectly self-satisfied and free from the uneasiness of doubt; third, that some character of this satisfaction is such that it would be logically impossible that this character should ever belong to satisfaction in a proposition not true. (Peirce 5.605)

Pierce’s formulation is in keeping with the traditional definition used by philosophers: Since Plato, nearly all western philosophers have accepted this deceptively simple statement of the three necessary (and jointly sufficient) conditions for knowledge. That is, I know if and only if I sincerely affirm the proposition, the proposition is true, and my affirmation is genuinely based upon its truth.7

To say that you know something is to make a sincere affirmation of a proposition. Maybe you believe something because some authority (like your mother or a priest) tells you that it is true. Maybe you believe something because you experience it yourself. The “empiricists”, proponents of the kind of philosophy that most people in the United States carry around with them, believe that knowledge is what you experience. If your belief is a product of doing knowledge work, it comes from synthesizing, comparing, judging, eliminating, and coordinating. In this process, your belief grows because you are able to justify the belief and can provide evidence for what you believe. Justified beliefs are generally more valu-

7 http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/k9.htm.

Knowledge: Justified True Belief 

 65

able than unjustified beliefs. For a belief to be knowledge it must be justified (or justifiable) by some kind of evidence. Not all beliefs are justified. In fact, we might think that something we used to believe was justified and later turns out to be wrong. If there is evidence that leads us to a new belief, there is nothing wrong about changing one’s mind. This definition/understanding of knowledge as justified true belief is richer than that used by information managers such as Thomas Davenport and Lawrence Prusak: Knowledge is a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information. It originates and is applied in the minds of knowers. In organizations, it often becomes embedded not only in documents and repositories, but also in organizational routines, processes, practices, and norms. (Davenport and Prusak 1998, 5)

Knowledge is not just a “mix” of information. It is a belief arrived through experience and reasoning using a process called abduction. A belief is a conclusion you come to for some reason or for no reason at all. Some beliefs may be better than others. In the realm of knowledge work what separates the good beliefs from the not so good beliefs is the justification given to support the belief. A body of knowledge is a collection of justified true beliefs that are the result of experiments, discussions, disputes, and examination of evidence that leads to conclusions. The conclusions, taken together, become a “body of knowledge”. That is what we learn when we go to school or training where we are taught which beliefs are justified and, if it is good training, why they are justified. As we shall see in the next chapter, a “body of knowledge” is created by and sustained by a community of practice. The worlds we live in change over time. Sometimes our knowledge of the world does change, but often beliefs last much longer than the justification for the belief. Much of our common sense is unexamined. Peirce pointed out the importance of developing what he called “critical commonsensism”. Knowledge changes over time, sometimes because the world changes, but more often because we gain new knowledge and justifications for these new beliefs. At any given time, we are quite certain that what we believe is correct. We need to be certain of our knowledge before we act. We build bridges. We practice medicine. We dance. We make ball bearings. In order to do something, we need to know something. Knowledge enables us to act. Knowledge enables work. Notice that we sometimes say something like “I used to believe ‘x’”. “Now I know I was wrong, and I know ‘y’.” Present knowledge (justified belief) replaces former belief (belief that is no longer justified). In the past, however, we probably

66 

 Chapter 4: Knowledge Work

said, “I know ‘x’”. We revise how we speak of that previous “knowledge” in the light of new evidence. Occasionally we say that we “do not know”. If we really do not know, then we are frozen. We cannot act. Knowledge enables action. Lack of knowledge hampers action. Usually we wind up acting on our best belief of the moment. Life goes on and we continue to collect justifications that a belief is true and therefore is knowledge. It is a spiral process. So there has to be some sort of justification for a belief in order for it to be knowledge. Even more than that, the belief needs to be true to satisfy the middle part of the definition – justified true belief. Saying that something is true has a kind of arrogance about it. Unless you believe something is true enough to act on it, then you really can’t claim to be a professional knowledge worker. Believing something does not make it true. We all know that advertising is built on the premise that beliefs can often be formed without reference to the truth. Knowledge requires more than belief. It must also be true with evidence for the belief. Knowledge is more than just an opinion. It is an opinion (belief) that a professional renders based on evidence. It is true. The mechanic who says, “This plane is ready to fly” knows what he or she is talking about. The artist who says “You should use the blue color” is knowledgeable and knows more about colors than most of us. The farmer who can look at a herd and say “That bull or cow is better for breeding” knows something that others do not know. My knowledge is your information. Your knowledge is my information and we rely on each other’s judgments to get our work done. Your information becomes my knowledge if having examined it against my own experience, skills, and knowledge, it “fits” into my body of knowledge and passes the truth test. What is true in your world may not be true in mine and different communities may come to different conclusions. But as communities overlap, their conclusions are called into question, and out of that interchange often comes new knowledge. Truth is not just a matter of opinion, but what is true may depend on our perspective, on where we are, how we see things, and on what works in different situations. As we live, we “know” some things to be true because we act on them, and if they work, they are considered true. If my bridge stands, the information which I based the design on is now called knowledge (justified, true belief). If I jump out the window believing I can fly based on the “truth” of an LSD trip and die, in retrospect that belief is now “known” to have been just a belief and not “true” since it does not conform with reality. Reality is a harsh judge of truth. Knowledge statements need to be true. What we believe to be truth and knowledge today may, in the course of events, turn out not to be true, in which case I will no longer know what I thought I knew. Making

Wisdom – the Other Side of Knowledge 

 67

judgments about what is true and what is not true is at the heart of knowledge work. A true belief is the best judgment, based on evidence, which we make at a point in time. Therefore, the traditional definition of knowledge as “justified true belief” seems to serve us well and “truth” is without doubt the most important and most elusive part of our definition of knowledge.

Knowledge, Information and Data – Some Distinctions Knowledge is often confused with information or even data. Information work and knowledge work are very different – and managing knowledge and managing information are often different activities. As we have pointed out, knowledge is related to data and information. Knowledge is the result of someone’s (or a community’s) judgments based on data and information. Data is the set of discrete, objective facts about events in today’s world. Data often resides in computers, in databases, and other electronic records. Information is data that is given relevance and purpose and contextualized or sorted, evaluated, and “given shape” by what is included or what is excluded in a collection of information. A judgment is applied to the data. Information has meaning. Knowledge is the beliefs that come from taking information and forming judgments, based on available evidence. Knowledge is competence in doing work. A knowledgeable worker is a professional who “knows” what to do. The professional’s work is taking information and data and making knowledge, a creative act to produce something of value that requires understanding. What we call knowledge, therefore, is not just a matter of local competence; it depends also on the orientation of these practices within broader constellations... Knowing in practice involves an interaction between the local and the global. (Wenger 1998, 14)

Knowledge work adds value. It is done for a purpose. It connects things and puts them into a context. Knowledge work is the creative “leap” that unites means and ends, tools and goals.

Wisdom – the Other Side of Knowledge Wisdom is beyond knowledge. It is the “other side”. Wisdom seldom comes with justification and goes beyond belief to a kind of certainty that comes not from

68 

 Chapter 4: Knowledge Work

criticism and examination, but from revelation or long experience. We test beliefs by living, learning, observing, and understanding how the world works. Wise people are often, but not always, very knowledgeable. Some say that wisdom comes with age, but we all know that few are truly wise, regardless of the number of years on this earth. Wisdom is imbued with mystery and awe. That is why wisdom is often the purview of the enlightened and the religious who know and understand Truth and Justice and the Good. Wisdom speaks with capital letters. It is on a higher plane and relates to insights that reveal connections not readily grasped or understood, even by those who are very knowledgeable. The wise seldom rely on knowledge for their wisdom. We can speak of knowledge workers, but it makes little sense to speak of wisdom workers. For you do not “make” wisdom. Neither do you make wisdom for a living. If you are lucky, you have wisdom and live wisely. That is why hermeneutics, the art and science of understanding, is even more important in the realm of wisdom than knowledge. Beauty and truth are revealed. Through the ages men and women have found sacred texts to be the “source” of wisdom. Interpreting and understanding these texts is often the purview of a class of people who are not of this world. Wisdom is, truly, “other worldly”. It is not the purview of this book, nor is wisdom something that comes from accumulating knowledge, any more than knowledge comes from accumulating information. We leave the world of wisdom to others. Understanding knowledge and the nature of knowledge work is a knotty enough task.

Work and Activity Developing a new work culture more suited to knowledge work begins with the recognition that there is a fundamental difference between activity and work. One observer of business life described the process in a pithy little book about the transformation of work when something happens to change the work environment. He describes how a mouse adjusts to a new environment when the cheese is moved. He calls his book Who Moved the Cheese? (Spencer 1998) In our work life we are often confronted with situations where we wonder who moved our cheese. We need to get real answers to real questions in order to do knowledge work. One engineer demonstrates this principle by going to a wall and pushing against it. He says, “I can push on this wall all day long, do it with skill, put in great effort, follow directions, be creative in how I push, but unless the wall moves, no work is done.” Of course, this assumes that the work is to move the wall. If the purpose

Going to Work 

 69

of the work is to test the wall to see if it will stand pressure, then pushing on the wall would indeed be work, because it achieves a goal. Knowledge work involves action, but work is a particular kind of activity, one of movement. Something happens when you do knowledge work. You engage. The world changes. Work involves accomplishing something. We learned the formula: Work = Force times Distance (W = F x D) in high school physics. Work is that part of what we do (doing is the “F” in the equation) that moves us toward our goal (our mission, our vision is the “D” in the equation). Work adds value to an activity – something happens. Knowledge is sometimes contrasted with action. “Those who cannot do, think.” Actually, with our definition, knowing is a particular kind of action. It requires moving objects (ideas) from place to place in order to do something, to answer questions like “Is it a good idea to...?” To make something of value. The knowledge worker provides results – the products of thinking. Knowledge work is more than just being at work. It is creating something of value to others. Much work is preparatory in nature – seldom does a person or even a group of people perform work from beginning to end. Value of labor resides in its use value, not just immediately, but as products for others to use in their work. Work has value and its value is determined, over time, through the exchange process. The products of labor and labor itself are valued, because it is worth something to someone else. The market, when it operates correctly and fairly is the place where labor values are defined and quantified. Markets do not always act correctly and fairly. Thus creating and operating markets require regulating rules about how the communities interact and how the values are fixed and created.

Going to Work The distinction between “free” and “work” time is at the heart of what we call the industrial mode of production. This is replaced in the knowledge age by a professional attitude toward work. For many of us, work connotes doing the things we do not really want to do. In other words, we have to work so we can have “free” time. Work time is the time someone else organizes and controls. Free time is ours. This act of “going to work” is the essence of the industrial mode of production: – work is separate from leisure – there is “work time” and “free time”

70 

– – – – – – – – – –

 Chapter 4: Knowledge Work

you are paid for your “work time” you are “on the clock” you are “at your desk” you are “on the line” you “do your job” management coordinates owners make decisions work is divided up and parceled out work is routine/mundane work takes place in a particular space and at a specific time

We build our work culture around these basic characteristics. Work starts and stops when you are “on the clock”. Your time belongs to your employer, who organizes, directs, and manages your work time while you are working on the clock.

Playing Office is not Work In a serial hierarchical system managers coordinate the work of individual workers. The industrial assembly line is the model whether on the shop floor or in offices. Complex management systems are developed, tested, and implemented to bring the work together, to wring out inefficiencies and to see that work is done in the shortest time at the lowest possible cost. Analyses of work processes show that only about twenty to thirty percent of the time spent “at work” is spent actually doing work. The percentage is not as important as the realization that when we are “at” work, much of the time we do not “do” work. This is not necessarily because we are “bad” employees but because our work environment is organized to “put in time” over productive labor. Even in the most productive organizations this happens. Playing office is not work. We spend much of our time “at work” waiting for someone to decide what to do or for someone else to complete the work that must be done before the “real” work can start. Workflow analysis and business reengineering focuses on wringing these inefficient moments out of the system. However the problem is endemic in a work culture that is built around work being done in one place with free time being spent somewhere else. Travel is not work (unless you are the pilot or part of the crew that gets us there). Travel is, indeed, often necessary, but that does not make it work. Travel, like meetings, is often a substitute for work. As one astute observer noted, “I don’t know how often I have stopped working to go to a meeting or travel somewhere.”

The Magic of Understanding 

 71

When we divorce work from showing up for work, we begin to look at the world in a way that is fitting for the creation of knowledge in the digital age. A different kind of work culture develops – and it makes sense.

The Magic of Understanding The work we do as knowledge workers is to understand information and use it as evidence to help us come to new knowledge. A bit later, we shall look at hermeneutics as the science/art of understanding. For now let us notice that we see information as part of a context, a context that enables us to answer questions and solve problems. The “production” of knowledge is a process of understanding. We bring our life, experience, expertise, and skills to our work. We also bring previous understandings/knowledge with us. Etienne Wenger eloquently described the process of understanding as one in which we choose what to know and what to ignore: Words like ‘understanding’ require some caution because they can easily reflect an implicit assumption that there is some universal standard of the knowable. In the abstract, anything can be known, and the rest is ignorance. But in a complex world in which we must find a livable identity, ignorance is never simply ignorance, and knowing is not just a matter of information. In practice, understanding is always straddling the known and unknown in a subtle dance of the self. It is a delicate balance. Wherever we are, understanding in practice is the art of choosing what to know and what to ignore in order to proceed with our lives. (Wenger 1998, 41)

When we transmit the knowledge to someone else, that person puts it through a filter of life, experience, expertise, and skill. This information becomes part of the information another person users to make judgments in a different situation or field. This understanding is the magic that transforms the world in which we live. It is the magic that makes us human. However, it is not so magical at all. It is just doing what we do when we make knowledge. We do that by: – Identifying the problem. Knowing what question to answer is at least half the task – or more. – Accumulating. Gathering the information, the right information, recalling the right information, and only the right information that might give us an answer to the question. – Discarding. Normally we accumulate more information than we use. The creative process of making knowledge is one of identifying and shaping. Identifying what is relevant and what is not relevant is as important as accumulat-

72 

– –

–

– –

 Chapter 4: Knowledge Work

ing information. “Precision” in information retrieval is one way to refer to this process. What “precisely” is useful often requires going back to the source, or a different source. It is an iterative/spiral process. Comparing. Much of knowledge work is identifying what is similar and what is not similar, what something is “like” or “not like”. Hypothesizing. Drawing a tentative conclusion, one that is not certain. The hypothesis may be with the knowledge-making person all along the process (it is a spiral after all). Concluding. At some point we make a decision. We formulate a belief. We decide that, “This is the right answer.” We know the answer to this question. We may come to a conclusion right away or at the end of a long and involved process. The essential element is the quality of the judgment, not the time it takes to make the judgment. Knowledge requires certainty, but it is not the kind of certainty that comes from faith, revelation or perception, but the certainty that this is the best answer to a properly formed question. The conclusion requires a reference to the body of knowledge of the community. How does it “fit” with the conclusions that others make? Disseminating. We make the conclusions known and available to others who need it to do their knowledge work. Evaluating. Out of the work process, new issues arise that may need an answer. Depending on the nature of the work, the problems to be solved may come from the discovery/work process itself. In other cases, new work comes from others, both within and outside the community. Part of the evaluation process involves adjusting the body of knowledge, recognizing that what we “used to know” is no longer knowledge and what is “new” knowledge. Knowledge work is spiral. People describe the process of understanding in many different ways. It is the basic process of creation.

Similar descriptions of this process sometimes with more or less steps are found in many places. Sometimes it is called the scientific method which is the method used by scientists. Sometimes it is called the creative process, the method used by artists. Information management uses the term life-cycle management to describe managing information from “birth to destruction”, often with different ways to describe the process depending on the perspective of the viewer.

Creativity The process of creativity sometimes, but not always, involves serendipity, and is often called a “gift”. We know that some people are more creative than others

An Ontology of Work 

 73

and none of us can be creative in everything that we do. Some people are better mechanics than others. Some are better gardeners. Some are better story tellers. People can learn how to be creative, often through an apprentice relationship with a master. An apprentice does not just do what the master does. The apprentice learns “peripherally” by circling around and absorbing the values of the master. How learning takes place in an environment where knowledge work is the norm is no longer a mystery. Much has been written and spoken about a “learning organization” as one in which learning becomes imbued into the very work of the business. Others learn through meditation, observation, critical self-examination, play, or other means. Creativity is at the heart of knowledge work – and at the heart of what it means to be human. Creativity comes within and from a community. When we make knowledge, we make something new. “Making something new” becomes a value in the knowledge age. Coloring outside the lines and seeing things differently are positive traits for the knowledge worker, traits that would impede an industrial production line. Knowledge develops and grows within a community. Knowledge also changes as a community of practice develops new knowledge. This underscores the importance of information sharing to enable good knowledge work. If one person’s knowledge is another person’s information and that person relies on that information as evidence for his or her knowledge work, then ways need to be in place for that person to know if or when the first person changes his or her mind because of new evidence. Within a scientific community, the interconnectivity of knowledge is embodied in the knowledge store of the community. Managing knowledge stores is an essential part of knowledge managing and marshaling. Work and life are never certain. But we know, within a community, enough to do our work. Knowledge work links intricately with the concept of the community of practice. Knowledge work is enhanced in and through communities of practice, in an integrated digital environment.

An Ontology of Work There is one philosopher, the Hungarian Georg Lukacs (1885–1971), who wrote about the nature of work. We can learn from him and he can help us think through some very thorny problems – problems that are not just theoretical, but intensely practical. Lukacs understood that work is the fundamental activity of man (men and women) that makes us what we are. The creative act results from working with nature, the environment, or others to make something new.

74 

 Chapter 4: Knowledge Work

We believe that it is right to see labor as the model for all social practice, all active social behavior. (Lukacs 1978, 46)

Work is done for a purpose, for a goal – it is what he calls a teleological positing. For him, there is no teleology, no being or force, outside labor. Through labor, a teleological positing is realized within material being, as the rise in objectivity. The first consequence of this is that labor becomes the model for any social practice, for in such social practice – no matter how ramified its mediations – teleological are always realized, and ultimately realized materially. (Lukacs 1978, 3)

Work is the basis of thinking and thinking is a kind of work. The simple fact that labor is the realization of a teleological positing is for anyone an elementary experience of everyday life, and it is therefore an indelible component of any kind of thinking, from everyday conversation through to economy and philosophy. (Lukacs 1978, 3–4)

Work, for Lukacs, is what makes us human. Lukacs’ Marxism is not a matter of looking back to a great thinker, but of looking forward to a new world in which forced labor becomes a thing of the past. Lukacs embraced this vision of Marx as a great philosopher and economist who developed a methodology that enables us to better understand the world. Lukacs developed a form of humane and democratic Marxism that was rooted in the theory and methodology of Marx and in his own political practice. He saw Marx’s methodology as a way to understand and transform reality. His philosophical analysis shared this vision of free labor as a fundamental human activity.

What is Orthodox Marxism? Karl Marx and the political movements that have claimed to implement Marxism are declared by some to be failed ideologies. In 1919 the Hungarian philosopher George Lukacs addressed the question of what is orthodox Marxism. This essay, included in his most famous book, History and Class Consciousness,published in 1923 is as relevant today as it was when he wrote it. He begins with a quote from Marx:

The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it. (Marx: Theses on Feuerbach)

An Ontology of Work 

 75

And then gives us his view of what is orthodox Marxism: Among intellectuals it has gradually become fashionable to greet any profession of faith in Marxism with ironical disdain... Let us assume for the sake of argument that recent research had disproved once and for all every one of Marx’s individual theses. Even if this were to be proved, every serious ‘orthodox’ Marxist would still be able to accept all such modern findings without reservation and hence dismiss all of Marx’s theses in toto – without having to renounce his orthodoxy for a single moment. Orthodox Marxism, therefore, does not imply the uncritical acceptance of the results of Marx’s investigations. It is not the ‘belief’ in this or that thesis, nor the exegesis of a ‘sacred’ book. On the contrary, orthodoxy refers exclusively to method... Materialist dialectic is a revolutionary dialectic... To be clear about the function of theory is also to understand its own basis, i.e. dialectical method. This point is absolutely crucial, and because it has been overlooked much confusion has been introduced into discussions of dialectics... Facts can only become facts within the framework of a system – which will vary with the knowledge desired... As the products of historical evolution they are involved in continuous change... If, despite this, contradictions do spring up between particular theories, this only proves that our knowledge is as yet imperfect. Contradictions between theories show that these theories have reached their natural limits; they must therefore be transformed and subsumed under even wider theories in which the contradictions finally disappear... Every substantial change that is of concern to knowledge manifests itself as a change in relation to the whole and through this as a change in the form of objectivity itself. Marx has formulated this idea in countless places. I shall cite only one of the best-known passages: “A negro is a negro8. He only becomes a slave in certain circumstances. A cotton-spinning jenny is a machine for spinning cotton. Only in certain circumstances does it become capital. Torn from those circumstances it is no more capital than gold is money or sugar the price of sugar.”9 Thus the objective forms of all social phenomena change constantly in the course of their ceaseless dialectical interactions with each other. The intelligibility of objects develops in proportion as we grasp their function in the totality to which they belong. This is why only the dialectical conception of totality can enable us to understand  reality as a social process... It is by virtue of this insight that the dialectical method and its concept of totality can be seen to provide real knowledge of what goes on in society...

8 This is from an old translation of Marx. Today it would no doubt be translated as African American. 9 Marx, Karl. Wage Labour and Capital, available at http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/WLC47. html page 28.

76 

 Chapter 4: Knowledge Work

Man becomes, in the true sense of the word, a social being. Society becomes the reality for man... A situation in which the ‘facts’ speak out unmistakably for or against a definite course of action has never existed, and neither can or will exist. The more conscientiously the facts are explored – in their isolation, i.e. in their unmediated relations – the less compellingly will they point in any one direction. It is self-evident that a merely subjective decision will be shattered by the pressure of uncomprehended facts acting automatically ‘according to laws’... Marxist orthodoxy is no guardian of traditions, it is the eternally vigilant prophet proclaiming the relation between the tasks of the immediate present and the totality of the historical process.10

At the close of his life, Lukacs devoted himself to creating an Ontology of Social Being. Both information professionals and philosophers use the term “ontology”. Information professional understand ontology as a collection of terms and their relationships that are used to describe, index, and manage information. For philosophers, such as Lukacs, ontology is a description of the fundamental characteristics of reality. Ontology is a part of metaphysics, a branch of philosophy much maligned by Anglo-Saxon philosophers, but a field with a rich tradition and value in continental European philosophy. Lukacs puzzled over everyday life (Alltagsleben) and its transformation over time. His analysis of the nature of work is the cornerstone of his analysis of social life. Lukacs’ work is a part of the continuum in the development of Marxism. Despite Lukacs’ intellectual endowments and his deep, profound understanding of Western philosophy, he remained a modest man – a man searching to understand the whole of society. Lukacs believed in and worked for revolution throughout his life. He did what he could to foment and foster revolutions that encouraged freedom. Uniting theory and practice was not just a slogan. It was a way of life for Lukacs. Lukacs identified the essential elements of work. If we can fathom what he wrote about we can go a long way to understand the nature of knowledge work. Knowledge work is the highest form of labor. If we create good and just societies we will be doing this kind of labor. Work is a teleological process that is done within a context and for a purpose. Work is done for a reason. It has a point. The point is production. Play may be as important as work and knowledge work, done well, often looks and feels like

10 Lukacs, Georg “What is Orthodox Marxism” (1919) in History and Class Consciousness (1923) available at http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm.

An Ontology of Work 

 77

play. However, the difference however between work and play is that work is done for a purpose, to produce something of value to others. Work is about meeting needs that are both social and individual. The purpose of work is to meet these needs – and information professionals are among the knowledge workers who identify and meet the needs, rather than just the desires, of those they serve. For almost all work is about service to society and service to other workers. Customer needs and client needs are the driving forces for work. The extent to which work meets these needs determines the value of work. Lukacs returned to the concept of work as a fundamental human social activity and took the notion of alienated labor and focused on the labor part – and not just the alienation. Industrial production alienates labor from the worker. Work time, not labor, is bought and sold in order to increase capital. Once sold, labor is controlled by the purchaser, not the worker. Automation is an important part of the industrial system and drives much of the productive process. On one hand, it replaces the brute labor of workers performing manual and repetitive tasks. It also creates the necessity for knowledge workers who understand work processes and can manage the machines that make automation possible. However, the automation which Marx and Lukacs knew was very crude compared with the automation that drives production in industrial settings. The thrust of industrial automation is to replace human labor with machine functions through the division of labor and substituting machines for people. Since work is a teleological process, in order for it to be done well, workers need to understand what they are doing and why they are doing it. The why of work is about producing useful objects. The market, the the process of exchange, defines usefulness. Work is valued not only by the worker but also by those who use what is made. To be put more precisely, it is valued by communities. Work is a fundamental human activity – an activity that is creative. It is a social activity. I work with others and also in a community. Sometimes that community is as close as the woman or man sitting next to me, but more often it is someone far away whom I have never met. For Marx human nature develops and changes historically. Human powers and human needs are a human and social product. In particular, they are a product of the essential human activity of labor. “By acting on the external world and changing it, (Man) at the same time changes his own nature.” (Marx 1867, 177) In a lecture prepared for an international philosophy conference in 1968, Lukacs described labor as follows: Labor consists of teleological positionings that activate causal series…Work is a conscious positioning and hence presupposes the concrete knowledge of ends and means, even if that

78 

 Chapter 4: Knowledge Work

knowledge remains incomplete…Development and improvement belong to the essential and ontological characteristic of labor; that is, how labor perfects itself or calls into being a higher order of social structure. Perhaps the most important aspect of this differentiation is witnessed in the movement towards independent status of preparatory labor, which is always connected somehow with the knowledge of the separation of ends from means within labor. (Lukacs 1983, 139)

This is a dense paragraph worthy of elucidation and exposition. It gives us hints of what men and women do when they do productive work – when they create and fashion new products through their labor. What Lukacs, like Marx, brings to us is a way to think and act in the world in which we find ourselves. Although men and women make the world, we cannot always do it as we wish and we do not get to choose the circumstances in which we live. In his lecture, Lukacs goes on to say: Looking at the totality of the process of labor from the point of view of the working subject, it becomes clear that although the subject consciously carries out the teleological positionings, nonetheless he can never be in a position to weigh all the conditions of his activity, and therefore to consider all its consequences. Naturally, this does not prevent the subject from acting. Yet, there are innumerable situations in which one has to act even at the risk of perishing, though one is conscious of being able to control only a very small portion of the circumstances. (Lukacs 1983, 141)

The ontology of work is only a small part of a larger enterprise that he thought he had completed until he shared it with his colleagues in the Budapest School. He died shortly after, but his attempt to write an ontology, an understanding of the nature of things has many pieces to it that are of value. The very project of writing an ontology is odd to most philosophers in the Anglo-Saxon tradition. But it is at the heart of German philosophy and much of continental thought. For our purposes, the essential element of Lukacs’ work is the identification of work as an essential element of social life. It is, to use an often misunderstood term, the “essence” of man. It is what we do in a social context that fulfills us. Alienating work and the products of work makes us less human. Knowledge work is a kind of work that embodies what it means to be a human being. Many of the concepts Lukacs introduced were developed and articulated by Gyorgy Markus, one of his close associates and a member of what is called the “Budapest School”. Markus, in a book written at the time that Lukacs was developing his ontology of labor, describes Marx’s view of work as follows:

Knowledge Management 

 79

Marx views work in a two-fold dimension and significance. He examines human productive activity primarily as a process of sociological character, as that of the self-creation and selftransformation of man in the course of history... But Marx also regards work as a process of natural-evolutionary character, as the highest form and type of the evolution of nature... It surely does not make sense to speak about the development of the universe as a whole. But as far as that segment of the nature known to us is concerned, in respect of which we can speak about the occurrence of evolutionary processes, work, social production appears as the most effective and pervasive form and mode of natural development – and not simply as a purely external refashioning of objects making them suitable to prefixed human needs and consumption.(Markus 1978, 14–15)

Knowledge Management The terms knowledge management and knowledge workers are now part of our vocabulary and no doubt are here to stay. Knowledge Management is the discipline of making relevant knowledge available as information so that users can make timely, valid decisions that increase the productivity of their work. A healthy community of practice enhances the process of knowledge creation and management. It evaluates and validates the work of the members of the community and builds a body of knowledge. Knowledge is organic and, like all things organic, it decays if it is not used. Knowledge is not “used up” when it is used – it, in fact, grows in value and use to the members of community. The important tasks of knowledge management are encouraging knowledge creation, validating knowledge, removing useless knowledge, and impeding decay of knowledge over time. Knowledge managers manage knowledge stores making them accessible, organizing them, and doing all of the other activities involved in information management. We manage it as information, for one person’s knowledge is another person’s information. We can also encourage knowledge production. A knowledge store is not a permanent fixed encyclopedia of knowledge, but an organic creation of a community of practice. Managing knowledge involves providing an environment, nurturing a community with supporting technology so that judgments can be made. We often rely on others for our knowledge as we work together in a community of practice because if information is someone else’s knowledge, that information may be more reliable. This makes it more useful to others. One justification for believing something is that someone you respect believes it to be true. That is often not a very good justification since unexamined beliefs are merely passed on.

80 

 Chapter 4: Knowledge Work

Knowledge management is about improving the effectiveness and value of knowledge work. “Effectiveness” speaks to the value of the work of the organization in satisfying the needs of the organization’s customer(s). One kind of knowledge worker assumes the responsibility to “manage” the knowledge of an organization or community. The knowledge manager serves as a knowledge consultant to insure that the essential information of a business or organization is preserved and accessible to all who have a need for it. Knowledge marshaling is akin to knowledge management with the added dimension of organizing knowledge for a purpose or aim. Creating a knowledge marshaling capability is essential to transform its work culture so that it can take full advantage of the benefits of technology. This knowledge marshaling capability needs to become ubiquitous in an organization. It requires leadership and example at the highest levels to build this new capability. Roc Myers suggests the term “knowledge marshaling” that might be a preferable to knowledge management, but may be a better because: – Marshaling gathers pieces together for a purpose. – Marshaling (unlike management) focuses on the use of knowledge, not its content or structure. – Marshaling is a more useful term because it describes better than the term management what is done with knowledge. (Myers) In an environment where knowledge is created there are specific tasks for a knowledge manager that go beyond information management. The knowledge manager enables access to information needed to do work. In the pre-digital (paper) environment the information manager collects, organize, stores, and retrieves containers of information. Managing information in a pre-digital environment is primarily about how to move and store containers of information. In a paper environment or a work environment which operates as if it were in a paper environment, information managers function as gatekeepers because they know where the containers are located. They supply users with containers of information, rather than information itself. The knowledge manager: – Does not just supply containers of information, but makes information accessible. – Ensures that access replaces reporting. – Ensures that the owner of information is responsible for its integrity, accuracy, and timeliness. In a pre-digital (paper) environment, information is gathered into collects with custodians in charge of the collections.

Knowledge Management 

– –

– –

 81

Encourages owners of information to share, rather than to hoard, their information. Determines who needs information to do their work and helps them get it. In a digital environment, work is done collaboratively in projects. The information needs increase as the number of people involved in the work increases. The knowledge manager assures that the right information is accessible to the right people in the collaborative process. Provides capabilities and technologies to allow the owners of information to make the information they have accessible to others. Determines whether the work of the organization as a whole is done more productively and effectively, not just whether the parts of work are done efficiently.

From an organizational perspective, there appears to be a continued merging of knowledge management into the regular and orderly patterns of organizational operations. Knowledge management initiatives are funded both as individual change initiatives and as part of a larger information and organizational restructuring. In order to grow and prosper, communities of practice, which create knowledge work, need an integrated digital environment. This is an environment in which information is shared and not hoarded. Communities of practice are where knowledge management and knowledge work take root and prosper, so we turn now to these two important concepts – an integrated digital environment and community of practice.

Chapter 5: Integrated Digital Environment Like “knowledge work” and “community of practice”, the term “integrated digital environment” (IDE) unites concepts that do not seem to belong together. An integrated digital environment is one in which there is immediate access to information needed to do work. In general, while automation in an integrated digital environment are critical to the knowledge worker in the Age of Knowledge, effective automation is about more than wires and computers. It is about how we use it. An integrated digital environment is exactly that kind of an environment. It creates the atmosphere, the conditions, the culture, and the tools that make possible a new way of working as knowledge creators. The term “integrated digital environment” is not as widely used as “knowledge work” and “community of practice” in knowledge management discussions. It is part of the language of information technology. In the information technology world, IDE is the term used to describe the technology (generally understood as the hardware, software, and connectivity tools) of an organization or an enterprise. Depending on the focus, each of the terms “integrated”, “digital”, and “environment” has special significance. – “Digital” refers to the technology that enables knowledge work. It is about the wires and computers that are the tools of the knowledge trade. It includes the connectivity that enables collaborative work to be done. – “Environment” refers to the surroundings, to all of the background that makes knowledge work viable. The terms “digital” and “integrated” both modify “environment”. A digital environment is contrasted with an analog environment. A digital environment is the world of computers and people who are connected together as communities do their work. – The “integration” of a digital environment comes through web technology by linking together communities of practice and disparate individuals and groups within an organization. The web became possible when people adopted protocols and standards for communication. These standards create an environment in which information sharing is the norm. The initials IDE initially referred to “integrated data environment” – a technical environment in which databases could be integrated, generally by intermediate databases (or middle ware) that enables databases created for disparate situations to be accessible from a single source. The integration in a digital environment increases the possibility for knowledge work to become the norm, rather than the exception. A new environment is created by adopting communication standards, open architectures, increased

Technology Scaffold 

 83

communication capabilities, and agreements to share appropriate information among business units. This environment includes technologies, but more importantly, it includes ways of working that emphasize and enable information sharing.

Technology Scaffold Technology is what makes knowledge work possible in a new way. However, we need to remember that technology is not linear in nature. Its development is spiral or dialectical. Progress – a category which has been reduced in existing society exclusively to technology – is never linear as one which occurs in a uniform and hence real way; it proceeds instead in a leap which posits a change of direction. This leap is merely suggested by the ever more highly developed means of production that is the machine. (Bloch II, 899)

In order for a community of practice to accomplish its work, it requires numerous tools and a technology “scaffold” to be properly put together. These tools need to be organized and incorporated into a business and technical architecture. The technical architecture gives a road map for the wires and computers. The decisions about technical architecture are best made with the involvement of the user community. As we go through life we enter, exit, and work within various communities. Businesses and organizations develop as a part of one or more communities. They organize around specific work processes in order to accomplish specific tasks. Communities come together and are constituted through the work done by its organizations and institutions. Communities share a body of knowledge which is the result of their history and work. We can often identify work communities by the knowledge that they share. In order to develop these kinds of communities, technologies need to be available and an integrated digital environment needs to be present. The term integrated digital environment in the United States government was popularized by former Vice-President Albert Gore. This was done as a part of the restructuring of government movement to develop the technical environment necessary for a new way to do government business. The Department of Defense had a formally constituted program for several years to develop an integrated digital environment and the term became widely used. As is normally the case, each of the services used the term in different ways and there was no agreement on what the term means. We describe one of these programs in the Appendix.

84 

 Chapter 5: Integrated Digital Environment

For some, an integrated digital environment is identical with an integrated data environment. It is an environment in which data can be shared among various agencies, contractors, businesses within an industry, and the government. In the industrial world it often refers to ways in which different businesses, both within the same company and among various companies, can share data and information using a common language or set of databases. For others, however, the phrase takes on a more robust meaning. In the US Air Force, the focus in the integrated digital environment project quickly moved beyond developing wires and computers to a new way of doing business. For the Air Force, the term integrated digital environment means an environment in which the information needed to do business is immediately accessible. This is the definition adopted by the Air Force project and was used by a Work Culture Transformation Board established to implement the conclusions of that project.

The Three Principles of an Integrated Digital Environment The Air Force integrated digital environment team developed and implemented three principles for an integrated digital environment: 1. The owner/creator of information/data is the keeper and is responsible for its accuracy and timeliness. 2. Access to information replaces reporting. 3. Corporate memory (the essential evidence of an organization) is retained and is accessible in the “Knowledge Store” for reuse. These principles accurately describe the integrated digital environment in which knowledge work can best be done. The age of knowledge work is shaped and propelled by technological developments. Machines may enable new ways of working, but they do not create new ways of thinking about work. These new ways to work open up new opportunities for a more humane and efficient way to do work since they do not require bringing workers together in an industrial enterprise. Communities can be virtual and digital and need not be space-based. Time and space are transformed in an integrated digital environment. Those who need information in a good working environment also need to know who the owner is, so they can access that information without requiring special formatting, copies, packing, and sending. The two principles of the owner/creator as the keeper of information and replacing reporting with access underlie the proper use of technology. They are, in a sense, a mirror image of each other. It is necessary to identify the “owner” of

The Three Principles of an Integrated Digital Environment 

 85

information in order to replace reporting with access. This is not a trivial process and is the essence of steps II and III in the methodology presented in the next section. Once work is done in a web-based environment reporting requirements can be reduced or eliminated as the same or better information becomes immediately accessible through the web. This single step creates immediate incentives to move to the web-based environment because it reduces some of the most onerous work of an organization. These principles, identifying the owner of information and making the work of the owner accessible to those who need it to do their work, require the adoption of the values of trust, reliability and sharing. These values are the key to the transformation of the work process and are realizable because the technology enables us to open up our workspace so that others can “look over our shoulder as we work”. One specific way this can be done is to adopt the second principle of an integrated digital environment: “Replace reporting with access.” In a collaborative web environment one person can view the work of another as it is being done. This enables authorized persons to have immediate access to the most recent and most accurate information without doing a query and without bothering the person doing the work. The key, of course, is the ability for people to authorize access in order to be assured that the access is not abused. Properly done, this capability implements a trusting relationship where trust is understood as being assured that the available information is the most up to date and is the best available judgment of another person. Access to information replaces reporting once the values that underlie an integrated digital environment are put into practice and work is done in an information-sharing environment,. The reporting function is a characteristic of hierarchical work environments and consumes much of the time when work could be done. Collaboration has two time components. In the short-term view, collaboration implies more than one person is working in unison developing a knowledge product. The long-term view of collaboration concerns the organization’s ability to leverage and maximize ideas and work products to produce future work products, i.e., a present-day worker is collaborating with one who has gone before by re-using the ideas, work, knowledge of the past to meet the needs of the future. When an organization whole-heartedly adopts collaboration concepts, its ability to innovate, create, and reuse existing information rises dramatically. The adoption of records management principles enables the capture of the corporate memory of the organization for future re-use.

86 

 Chapter 5: Integrated Digital Environment

Harry A. Pape11 The Power of Working in a Web Environment Harry Pape is the CEO of Windmill International, Inc., a technology firm primarily serving the defense industry in the United States. He is a retired Colonel in the Air Force Reserve and as a contractor served as the co-chair, along with the author, Ken Megill, of the Integrated Digital Environment project. The Appendix describes this project. He developed the concept of the “three-legged stool” to explain to Air Force staff the importance of the Web. The three principles he identifies describe the basis for an integrated digital environment. The single, most important development in information management technology for knowledge management is the development of web technology. Web technology encompasses both the Internets and Intranets and gives us the ability to store information close to the site where it is created and used and yet be accessible to anyone on the net having proper authorization. It also enables social and work relationships to be fostered widely using social media applications. The current and developing technologies used to create and enhance the web environment enable knowledge work to be done. The Internet is a network of networks and a set of standards that enables networks to talk with one another. A web environment enables work to be done differently from the industrial mode of production, whether the work is done on an intranet, on the internet or as part an environment supported by collaborative tools. It liberates much work from being place bound and enables the development of communities of practice.

Leg 1. Web technology allows us to point to information, rather than copy it. Information has traditionally been shared by exchanging a physical artifact: a copy. Whenever we accept a copy of information, we assume an obligation for its maintenance. When we transmit this information to others, we are responsible for its authenticity. We assume some degree of stewardship. Web technology, however, allows us to “look over the shoulder” of the creator/ owner of the information and to get the “most right” version of the information/data at any given time from the source authority. Web-based forms can collect data, which needs to be collected only once and can then be mined many times by different users for very different purposes. Much data required by forms can be collected from user profiles and does not require repeated re-entry. The technology allows us very easily to create, publish, update, modify, and maintain information and data. A corollary was developed some time later extending this principle to another aspect of traditional work: reporting is replaced by access to information.

Leg 2. Web technology frees us from the traditional publishing cycle. We no longer need to wait for the monthly edition before information can be disseminated to the intended audience. If we have new information that we have discovered, created, assembled, or developed, we can make it accessible immediately without involving intermediaries. The technol-

11 Written for this book.

The Three Principles of an Integrated Digital Environment 

 87

ogy allows us to attach meta-data (information about the information) that enables us to identify information about the document or item, such as which version it is. Web technology enables us to collect, retain and make available corporate memory. Web technology allows us to look over the shoulder of a colleague without disturbing them. It also enables us to emulate easily successful presentations of information by re-purposing information and/or ways of presentation. Etiquette dictates recognizing the source, but the practice of using successful models quickly becomes ubiquitous in a web environment. As one keeper of the corporate memory in an organization said, “I have been around long enough, so I can copy.” This important attitude is shared in successful learning organizations. Having your information or your way of presenting information emulated is a compliment of the highest order. It is flattering for others to rely on you or your information, particularly if they are courteous in attributing their source.

Leg 3. Web technology allows us to interact with our peers, our customers, and our audience. Publishing on the web is not merely a one-way broadcast of information. It provides for the ability to dialogue with the reader, to get instant feedback by way of acknowledgment or comment, and, more importantly, for interaction with the customer that enhances the value of the communication transaction and can customize the information needed by a particular customer. When staff interact with customers in a web environment. they are able to tailor an offering that is most useful to the particular customer. An early example of this was observed when insurance companies used web forms to solicit enough information from an inquiring potential customer to immediately (real-time, in the online session) respond with a tailored quote for an insurance product. A customer does not need to know about the parts of the information that will not fit their needs, so these parts need not appear. Web-based information systems are not flat, two-dimensional databases. They are rich, drillable, collections of information. Web technology encourages collaboration as a way of working.

Since the initial formulation of the three-legged stool, Colonel Pape added an important corollary to the principles described above – dealing with security and confidentiality.

Access to information in the web environment can be managed and controlled so only those who need it can have access to what they need. Confidentiality and security can be protected at least as well, or better, than in the paper world. Information available on the web can be safeguarded so that the creator’s ownership of it is assured. It opens up new ways for owners/creators to make their knowledge accessible without preparing a report or publishing it through traditional channels. As we begin to develop a collaborative way of working, we also begin to make new demands on others. We expect them to make the products of their work that we need accessible to us. We begin to make demands on others not by forcing others, but by taking what they make available on the web, value it against our own standards, and use it in our work. This requires developing virtual relationships with those who have that information. It also requires leadership willing to remove obstacles, support workers with enabling technology, and reward sharing and collaboration.

88 

 Chapter 5: Integrated Digital Environment

In a digital environment much collaborative work is done online. Members of the work community may be dispersed around the world. The challenge in making the transition in the work culture to embrace online collaborative work involves both a comfort with and understanding of how to work together. The social factors, including trust, focused goals and clear responsibilities, must be in place in order for an online work team to function well. A properly developed collaborative environment enables greater, not less, personal interaction and sharing among participants. Much time in meetings is often spent exchanging information and doing household chores that can be done more efficiently within a collaborative online environment. In collaborative environments meetings are places for personal interaction and knowledge sharing, not exchanging information. Sometimes discussions are best done in person so that when a community does comes together discussion is encouraged. The function of meetings shifts from giving reports to sharing knowledge and establishing working relationships. Collaboration replaces serial step-by-step work processes with ones in which work is done simultaneously by a number of different persons who may be involved in a number of different communities. Communities link to other communities into networks when and where it is appropriate. Work becomes network centric instead of system centric. The term and concept of network is imbedded in the term “internet”. The key attributes of a technical environment in which collaborative work flourishes are: 1. Major portions of the community’s work are accomplished within an integrated digital environment with participants utilizing software applications with common functionality. 2. All the players/workers can access the software applications and work together online. 3. The community’s supporting systems are integrated to support the collaborative environment. 4. Training is online and integrated into the business practices. 5. Software applications, often some kind of expert system, collect, organize, and share information. 6. Online reference libraries of applicable documents are built and maintained. 7. Members of the community communicate using many different methods including text, chat, audio, video, shared whiteboard, online meetings, as well as shared or entirely different applications. 8. There are self-evident benefits to the individuals within the community to cause them to use the technical tools in their environment. 9. Innovation is encouraged and supported.

The Three Principles of an Integrated Digital Environment 

 89

People have work related identities in both their operational “homes” as well as within various types of work-related communities. They engage in creative discussions with those from fields that intersect their own in real and virtual communities nurtured by policies that support collaboration, rewards geared to team efforts, and supported by enabling technologies and archivists who store and keep current the information produced in knowledge work. The tools developed within the web environment enable and foster the cultural transformation. Voice mail and e-mail have already led to great changes in organization structures. However this mail is still mail and does not change the old way of working in a paper environment where communications were limited to a single document/paper that moves from one person to another. New forms of communication through social media enable workers to participate in multiple communities, mostly virtual. Various forms of synchronous and asynchronous discussion tools enable real changes in organizational culture and learning. Autonomous agents do everything from reminding us of meetings and tasks to executing stock trades. Instant notifications based on parameters set by the organization become a routine part of our lives. Telecommunication tools such as cell phones and various electronic assistants, along with portable computers, notebooks and other portable devices make the office mobile. E-mail operates as if we were in a paper-based culture, even though mail enabled people to communicate quickly with one another and did enable people to circumvent some hierarchies. Some people manage their files through enormous e-mail in-boxes with multiple copies of e-mails stored in many locations. Discerning the “right” copy to use is often difficult. E-mail is still mail. The work done in e-mail is the same as writing on a piece of paper, going to a copying machine, and sending out copies. It is just faster, but not smarter, and copies can be sent more easily than using a copy machine to make paper copies. Document sharing is another tool that promotes collaboration that functions as if we were working in paper. One person can write a document, put it in an accessible place and then a group (one selected for the purpose or an “open” group) can work on that document, i.e. see what the document says, make changes that are highlighted for all to see, comment, etc. etc. What used to take a meeting is done using collaborative tools. But a document remains a document. It is difficult to determine which version of a document is a “final” version and much work uses “drafts” that never become “final”. Electronic mail, text messaging, document sharing, and social media do not by themselves give us a new culture, but they begin to free us from paper-based environments so we can develop new relationships with information based on sharing and getting the information we need by looking over the shoulder of the owner/creator of that information.

90 

 Chapter 5: Integrated Digital Environment

Social media and text messaging and its various forms of “chatting” in real time replace e-mail They also encourage and enable collaboration on knowledge work. We use many different peer-to-peer connectivity tools for wide range of activities, from sharing music and movie files to enabling project managers effectively to coordinate projects independent of time and space concerns. We are just at the beginning of a process that will determine how we can keep private information private, how we can restrict access to information to those who truly need it and how we can work together collaboratively. The tools are developing to enable us to no longer work as if we were using paper. The tools evolving in the web technology also open much greater opportunities. They enable us to interact with and use the information of those who have gone before us. We can now access books, articles, and records that once required a visit to a repository or for us to wait for the object we need to be shipped to us. The corporate memory of an organization is now recognized as one of the organization’s most valuable assets. Managing information is about more than managing the containers of information, Much information is now contained in databases that include communications among members of a community. Communities can develop and disperse rapidly in response to particular situations. Identifying and preserving the corporate memory of these communities is an important activity for knowledge managers. Knowledge management tools capture tacit knowledge and make it explicit. Records management systems enable us to capture, preserve, and access records within our environment. Search and retrieval tools enable us to organize data and records in entirely unexpected ways. Records management moves beyond being a storage and retrieval operation to becoming a valuable asset of an organization. Social networks enable us to participate in our communities in an on-going basis. Developing the infrastructure of the public utilities for the new work culture is one supporting condition for developing a new work culture. The development of these technologies provides the possibility for developing a new kind of environment for work. This environment can be both digital and integrated. Transforming a work process requires making the information needed to do work accessible and making the products of that work (knowledge) available as information to others. Transforming the work culture goes beyond improving business processes. It requires understanding the work of the enterprise, its communities and the domains of the communities. It also requires a technical infrastructure that makes connectivity ubiquitous. Digital connectivity needs to be as dependable and as widespread as access to water and electricity. Connectivity is the “public utility” of the integrated digital

The Three Principles of an Integrated Digital Environment 

 91

environment. We reap the benefits of technology when the technical infrastructure combines with work culture transformation.

Chapter 6: Communities of Practice The term “community of practice” comes from the world of learning theory. Knowledge work, as we have seen, is collaborative in nature. It is shared. The concept of community of practice helps us understand how collaboration takes place. Etienne Wenger, a computer technologist, and Jean Lave, an anthropologist developed the term communities of practice in collaboration. Wenger, who has written most extensively on the term describes a community of practice as follows: We all belong to communities of practice. At home, at work, at school, in our hobbies – we belong to several communities at any given time. (Wenger 1998, 6)

What interests us here is how the concept enlightens our understanding of knowledge work. Wenger says, Workers organize their lives with their immediate colleagues and customers to get their jobs done. In doing so, they develop or preserve a sense of themselves they can live with, have some fun, and fulfill their requirements and clients. (Wenger 1998, 6)

From the viewpoint of the individual worker this is valid but it is unwise for us to think that “workers organize their lives”. In reality, their lives are generally organized for them. The organization designs the work life down to the tiniest detail in the industrial mode of production. The technical environment also “organizes” our lives. The machines and tools that enable us to do our work determine how that work is done. An integrated digital environment opens up new opportunities and tools for workers to “organize their lives” and increase their productivity. Wenger points out that, No matter what their official job description may be, they create a practice to do what needs to be done. Although workers may be contractually employed by a large institution, in dayto-day practice they work with – and in a sense, for – a much smaller set of people and communities. (Wenger 1998, 6)

What Wenger describes is a community of practice, which is a key element in the work culture. The community of practice to which a worker belongs shapes the assumptions (common sense) of the work environment. Communities are groups of people who work for a common purpose within an organization or across organizational boundaries. The community is an environment in which work takes

Chapter 6: Communities of Practice 

 93

place. Such communities are not restricted to a geographical area, nor are they defined solely by organizational structures, but are connected by their common history and work goals. The work we do to arrive at judgments and beliefs takes place within communities. These communities may be highly formal with settled and organized bodies of knowledge or they may be informal communities without a structured body of knowledge. Every community has a body of knowledge. Sometimes this may be implicit. Sometimes it may be explicit. Most often it is a combination of the two. Knowledge management theorists and practitioners call these communities of practice – communities united by a common work and a body of knowledge.

Evie Lotze The Baobab Tree – How One Kind of Community Shares Knowledge Traditionally the know-how (about what really gets results and which mistakes to avoid) resides mainly in people’s minds. In ancient villages, the elders and early professionals like the midwife, healer, and priest passed on this knowledge through palavers under the baobab tree. Like the elders, the Buddha sat under a tree, the Bodi tree, until he attained enlightenment. We call such an enlightened one a guru, which means one who leads from darkness into light. A guru has a clear vision and serves as a guiding light until the new reality dawns on others, as well. He went from the Bodi tree and shared what he knew to be true. Later, in Western cultures, people met to debate and exchange the best knowledge under the trees of the village square. Only recently, have we eliminated the trees and moved indoors to town meetings that performed this same knowledge-exchange function. In the paper-based culture, such exchanges took place at conferences, workshops, conclaves, professional consultations, and meetings, all functions that enabled individuals to share what they knew and all functions that required bringing people together in one location. The world in which knowledge workers operate continuously changes so rapidly that waiting for the gathering of the best available knowledge at a conference, or meeting the elders under the local baobab tree is hardly practical. We need a new tree, a new way of working together that facilitates the exchange of knowledge that used to happen under the baobab tree, under the Bodi tree, around the village square, or at annual conferences. In the Age of Knowledge, these “trees” are called communities of practice … groups of people brought together through the work they do to capture and spread ideas and know-how in free-flowing, creative ways that foster new approaches to problems. In the digital world, chat rooms, discussion groups, and collaborative work environments are becoming the new Baobab Tree. Emerging technologies suggest that the exchange route is the World Wide Web, the Internet. The tale of Rumpelstiltskin suggests it is communities. Growing Communities of Practice suggest that both are right. (Lotze 2004, 90)

94 

 Chapter 6: Communities of Practice

Knowledge arises not out of the particular activity of one person but from the collective work of the community. Of course, an individual is the source of knowledge. The development of a body of knowledge and how any particular part of that body of knowledge fits together with other pieces is determined within a community. Knowledge is part of a whole picture of reality. Information is a living activity. The information revolution is based on the fundamental fact that the value of information grows with use rather than disappears. Information, unlike other resources, is not depletable. When information is passed on to someone else, rather than being lost, depleted, or “given away,” it is shared and its uses multiply. The more it is used, manipulated, and connected to other information, the more value it takes on. (Megill 1995, 14–15)

We need a new language for this sort of resource. Information is not a depletable resource since it grows as it is used both in quantity and in value. There are other resources that appreciate over time with use, such as money well invested, a well-kept Persian carpet, or energy devoted to rearing a healthy child. Information appreciates in value when it is shared within a community. These are transformable resources. The use and reuse of resources is part of the care necessary to nurture a knowledge community. The management of these information resources is the fundamental task of a knowledge manager. Information exchange is at the heart of the work community. Information, as it grows and prospers, takes on additional meaning and life. New ideas are added, new insights gained, new uses found, as information moves from one creative mind to another within a community. Information gains value as it is used, reused, and exchanged. People who share knowledge are enriched in the process. Knowledge grows in a community. The concept of community of practice is one of the keys to understanding the nature of work in the Knowledge Age. Groups informally bound to one another create knowledge as they do work. Knowledge arises out of exposure to a common class of problems and a common pursuit of solutions. The store of common knowledge grows. Communities are our “home”. It is the place where we can take off our shoes and do our best work. The term “community” comes from sociology and anthropology. These disciplines define a community as groups of any size whose members reside in a specific locality, share a government, and have a common cultural and historical heritage. A shared set of values (a culture, assumptions about how we live) unites a community. The values develop over time in a particular geographic area. Even though the term community of practice has a relatively short history since Lave and Wenger first introduced the term in 1992, it taps into a long tradi-

Chapter 6: Communities of Practice 

 95

tion. The tradition is especially strong in the scientific community. The American pragmatist Charles Sanders Peirce spoke eloquently and often about the community of scientific enquirers. He said that in the long run truth is what that community will believe. One dictionary says: A community can be a collection of people who share something in common... A collection of people who share a geographical territory and some measure of interdependency that provides the reason for living in the same space.12

Another defines community as mutually dependent families living and working together in a given area and usually in face-to-face association.13

A virtual community is not restricted by the necessity to move information captured and stored in physical containers (such as documents, letters, books articles, data bases etc.) from place to place. The digital age enables us to live and work in virtual communities that exhibit all of the characteristics of a community except physical location. Communities of Practice is a phrase coined by researchers who studied the ways in which people naturally work and play together. In essence, communities of practice are groups of people who share similar goals and interests. In pursuit of these goals and interests, they employ common practices, work with the same tools and express themselves in a common language. Through such common activity, they come to hold similar beliefs and value systems.14

When we look at organizations and businesses it is important to remember that organizational units are not normally communities of practice. A particular organizational unit will have workers who are part of different communities, depending on their interests, skills, and responsibilities. Identifying the different communities in which people work and not just the organizational unit in which they work, is an important part of developing and nurturing communities of practice.

12 Allan, Johnson G. 1995. Blackwell Dictionary of Sociology. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 48–49. 13 Winick, Charles. 1956. Dictionary of Anthropology. New York: Philosophical Library. 126. 14 Community Intelligence Labs. http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/index. shtml.

96 

 Chapter 6: Communities of Practice

Ba – A Japanese View of Community The Japanese led the way as they brought the notion of Ba (community) and cooperation to the assembly line. They showed that automation is most effective when done in cooperation with the work force. The Japanese pioneered the concept and use of quality circles to focus on the customer and the product. A next logical step is the use of the concept of Ba which was developed by Ikujiro Nonaka. Ba goes beyond cooperation to collaboration. “Ba” describes the environment in which work takes place. The interactions to which Nonaka refers imply collaboration. Collaboration is more than sharing. It is working together. He emphasizes that it is very important that management work hard to make sure that the proper Ba is nurtured. Ba is the context that makes a safe haven for the creation of knowledge (that intangible, boundary-less, dynamic creation of the human mind in interaction with other human minds). (Nonaka 2001, 18–19)

Nonaka says Ba harbors meaning. Ba is a term that the Japanese understand clearly. It is a very important concept in Japanese social life. It represents both place and situation and also context which includes all relationships. Ba is the lodging place, the shelter which contains meaning. Another Japanese describes Ba as follows: Your role in Japanese society changes according to “ba”. If I behave without knowing in what context I am speaking or acting, I might be regarded to be strange, rude, conceited, foolish or childish. There is frequent checking on and correction to behaving appropriate to each situation. It is often confusing as different people have different criteria for “rightness”.15

Nonaka focuses on the process of knowledge creating a knowledge transfer: Knowledge creation and knowledge transfer (are) delicate processes, necessitating particular forms of support and ‘care’ from management... Knowledge must be ‘nurtured’ rather than managed. (Nonaka 2011, 4) The Ba must be attended, nurtured, i.e. the context, the community, the safe harbor for creating knowledge work must be attended to... The most important aspect of ba is ‘interaction’... Ba is the space where such interactions take place. Ba is a space-time, Nexus or, as Heidegger put it, a locationality that simultaneously includes space and time. Knowledge is embedded in ba, where it is then acquired through one’s own experience of reflections on the experiences of others. If knowledge is separated from ba, it turns into information. (Nonaka 2001, 19)

15 Personal Communication to Evie Lotze from Yositko Higuchi.

Practice/Praxis 

 97

An individual knowledge worker is part of multiple communities and is therefore negotiating the norms and relationships of various “Ba”. Rather than import the Japanese word, elegant though the concept is, we have incorporated its meaning into our own thinking about Communities of Practice.

Since knowledge workers live and work in a number of communities much of their creativity comes from the intersections of the communities in which they participate. Some communities are more important that others and different communities have different sets of values, understandings. and common sense, so when they intersect, tensions arise. Out of these tensions often comes creativity or strife; creativity when a community is open to others, strife when it is not. Biologists and chemists were once in very different fields, but great progress came in human knowledge when the field of biochemistry emerged. Mathematicians and physicists sometimes share the insights of poets and theologians as new ways of thinking about the true nature of the universe emerge. Knowledge often comes from unexpected places and unexpected connections. If we know the answer, then we can let the machine do the work to process the data, find the correlations, make a copy, send a fax and create a microfilm copy all at the same time. However knowledge is about answering questions to which we do not know know the answer. This is the process of discovering whether or not it is a good idea to do something. Creativity emerges and grows through the interaction and interfaces of communities in the work place. The development of knowledge work and communities of practice gives us the possibility for a new work culture. We can begin to envision and perhaps even understand the kind of work culture that is appropriate for knowledge work.

Practice/Praxis The term community, from sociology and anthropology, is one of the key terms in “community of practice”. The other is that of practice/praxis that is a philosophical notion used to describe the process of applying a body of knowledge in work. It is the process of taking data and information and making it into knowledge. Praxis/Practice is the activity of work that combines physical and intellectual labor. It is the fundamental human activity. It is what makes humans what we are. For the knowledge worker, practice/praxis is the transformation of information into knowledge. It is real work. “Real” work is not just activity, not just putting in time. It requires production. The machine or state of the technology does not determine the work. They may be used to do the work more efficiently.

98 

 Chapter 6: Communities of Practice

We speak, for example, of the “practice of medicine” or the “legal practice” – a way of doing something that emerges out of a combination of knowledge learned from a body of knowledge and “practical” experience. In the European traditions, the term “praxis” is used. Germans use praxis for the business lawyers and doctors maintain; it includes all their clients and all the work they do for their clients. Praxis includes more than the English verb to practice, it includes customs and cultural content as well. Praxis is often translated as “practice” in English, but it comes with very different overtones. Praxis implies a combination of theory and action. Karl Marx is the philosopher most clearly identified with articulating the notion of praxis. His writings on praxis and alienation infused generations of thinking about work and the nature of work. The term practical is at the heart of American pragmatism. It has many formulations that boil down to the statement: If you want to know what something means, then you need to know its practical effects. If there are no practical effects then it is meaningless. (Peirce 1934, 5.19)

Since 1878, when Peirce first used the maxim, pragmatism has been woven into the American world outlook. Thinking about something and changing it in practical ways appear at first glance to be two different activities. In knowledge work, thinking and doing are iterative processes. Thought and activity come together to transform the world. The marriage of thought and activity help us understand the nature of that transformation. Being practical means that what we do makes a difference. We do our work in communities of practice. Most communities already exist or merely “come about”. In order to do knowledge work effectively and efficiently, communities of practice need to be identified and nurtured. Identifying and making accessible the knowledge of a community is one of the most important activities of knowledge management. Collaborative tools make bodies of knowledge accessible in new and interesting ways. Much of the power of web technology resides in its ability to make the knowledge of members of a community available to others without going through an exhaustive publication process or traveling long distances for a conversation. These tools enable: – Immediate access to the information needed to do real work. – The automation of non-knowledge tasks. – Payment for production, not for time spent “at the office”. – Knowledge work to be done from anywhere. Offices are no longer places to work, but become places to meet colleagues and clients.

Cultivating a Community of Practice 

–

 99

Management to encourage and support communities of practice, enable collaboration, support the technology necessary for workers to gain immediate access to the information they need, store and make accessible to others the knowledge they create, promote trust, risk-taking, information sharing, and working in a transparent workspace.

The drive behind knowledge management’s use of the term community of practice is to increase productivity and combat the loss of the corporate memory of an organization. By automating the process of knowledge capture and retrieval, the “best practices” of an organization can be identified and replicated. Making the tacit knowledge of a community explicit makes it available to members of the community and to related communities.

Cultivating a Community of Practice The identification, development, and nurturing of communities of practice is becoming an essential task for society to appropriately and productively work in the Knowledge Age. The linking of the notions of community and practice in every-day-life is having profound impacts on the development of our political and social culture and on how businesses and organizations operate. Information professionals, who manage information communities of practice, need to play a key role in development and cultivating communities of practice. Knowledge managers are the “gardeners” of communities because they manage the information that makes up the body of knowledge of a community. Wenger gives the following advice on how to nurture communities of practice: Like gardens, they (communities of practice) respond to attention that respects their nature ... till the soil, pull out weeds, add water during dry spells, and ensure that your plants have the proper nutrients. And while you may welcome the wildflowers that bloom without any cultivation, you may get even more satisfaction from those vegetables and flowers you started from seed. The same is true for companies that grow communities of practice from seed. To get communities going – and to sustain them over time – managers should: – Identify potential communities of practice that will enhance the company’s strategic capabilities; – Provide the infrastructure that will support such communities and enable them to apply their expertise effectively; – Use nontraditional methods to assess the value of the company’s communities of practice. (Wenger 2000, 143–144)

100 

 Chapter 6: Communities of Practice

The recognition, nurturing and development of communities of practice are important activities of knowledge management. The introduction of new tools may enable dramatic changes in the way work is done. However, unless culture transformation and the nurturing of communities are directly addressed, little change in the work takes place. The path to dramatic productivity and performance improvements lies with transforming the work culture from an information-hoarding culture to a knowledge-sharing culture. The transformed work culture focuses energy on the real work of the organization versus the activities that so often consume our time. Creating an environment that integrates tools, people, and productive work attitudes can bring about this transformation.

Section III: The Work of Changing Synopsis: We shall return to our friend Tom Sawyer, who understands that the best work is playful. We have shown that all work is becoming knowledge work as professionals become workers and manual workers become professionals. We have seen how collaboration is one of the major characteristics of knowledge work. Then we explored the concepts of knowledge work, communities of practice, and integrated digital environment. We are now able to sketch out the new work culture that is developing. Developing the new work culture requires a new theory; a way to think about things – new practice – experiments, trials, and new institutions in real life. It also requires a methodology of transformation. Work culture transformation is a matter of transforming the work of one person at a time. We also examine how one country and one society, China, is transforming work to develop an innovation society. Keywords: Abduction A form of logic to describe the process of creating knowledge. Application A set of business processes. The term is also used to refer to an automated tool that may perform these processes or assist in performing the processes. Dialectic A methodology of arriving at knowledge through discussion and examination of alternatives. Faceting A way of describing information that focuses on uses and potential uses and the context information will be used, rather than the content of an information container, such as a book or article. Hermeneutics (Theory of Understanding) The methodology to interpret texts, particularly sacred texts. Spiral Development A methodology that accepts the fact that we cannot plan and lay out exactly where we are going and need to work in spirals.

Chapter 7: Can There Be Joy in Work? We all experience periods of joy in our work, especially when we begin a new job or a new task and hope that this work or this job can be fulfilling, challenging, and creative. For many people, however, work is not a joy. We work so we can be free of work. Our free time is the time when we are not working. When it is thinking work, work is playful in nature. To be done well thinking needs to retain its voluntary character and should even be fun. As Tom Sawyer said, “Play consists of whatever a body is not obliged to do”. Making knowledge requires thinking and lots of it. Thinking is an activity that can be surprising and gratifying but one cannot oblige people to think. People can be encouraged to think by providing incentives, good work environments, making sure they have the right tools, access to the information needed to do their work, and leadership. However, knowledge workers have to want to do their work. Good thinking, like good play, needs to be a pleasurable experience for the person doing the thinking. Labor can be forced, but not thinking. Wasting time can be a deliberate or inadvertent productive activity. Anyone who has ever done creative work knows that sometimes it is best to just stop, listen to music, play a game, take a stroll, or do some other activity so the mind can do its work. Knowledge work is not just mental labor. Knowing what to do is as important for efficient physical work as it is for mental work. The distinction between physical and mental labor begins to fall away once work is not just a matter of following directions from a supervisor or a foreman. Knowledge workers do things. They do not just think about doing things or tell other people what to do. Work becomes more and more complex as teamwork and collaboration replaces the interchangeable individual worker. Workers need to know what to do, understand and the purpose of their work and the work of their colleagues. Knowledge work requires an environment in which failure is not only possible, but is understood as an important part of the work process. Discovering what does not work is often an important part of the work process. An atmosphere of trust and openness makes knowledge work possible. For much of history, people worked to meet their needs within an environment where thought plays little role in the productive process. Tradition and past experience, or frozen thought, dictates how we work. However, if you do work as it has “always” been done, as tradition tells you to do it, there is no reason to think about what you are doing. To challenge the way things are done can be a subversive act, but it is an essential part of doing knowledge work. By using existing and developing technologies and collaborating with colleagues (often only cubicles away), monumental changes can take place. Too Evie

104 

 Chapter 7: Can There Be Joy in Work?

Lotze often co-workers are kept clueless about what others are doing, how they are doing it, and how the work they are doing affects the overall health of the organization. If the information of all of the co-workers were pooled, their efforts aggregated and their solutions shared, their work would be better. If collaboration were encouraged and rewarded, then their culture would change and the work itself will be transformed. And it might even be joyful.

One Person at a Time Evie Lotze is a clinical psychologist with many years of experience working with cultural change in places as different as Saudi Arabia, Washington D.C., Houston, Texas, and Russia. She observes that organizational transformation is not unlike personal transformation. She believes that fairy tales can show us what it can be like to transform ourselves. The first step is to “accept the call”. As she understands the term, it is not a spiritual event, but an acceptance of a call to adventure that requires a change in the mind-set that enables us to face, and overcome, the catastrophic events of life. When Dr. Lotze speaks of a “call” she refers to a dramatically different situation in which we find ourselves. This situation may occur for many different reasons. She calls it a “cosmic 2x4” that smacks us on the head – or other body parts – and gets our attention. In a companion book to this one, she examines and fleshes out the role and function of myth in transformation. Go to work and be a Hero – do the real work of moving the wall – the wall that confines the present work culture. By hero we mean, recognize that you are an ordinary person who has received the “Call to Adventure” – however inelegantly it was delivered. Accept the call; take the next step, realizing that you are embarking on unknown territory. As individuals and organizations, accepting the call begins the journey. It is dangerous, but if we have the right armor and swords and leave markers on the way, we might survive – and even return triumphant. Cinderella through the death of her mother, Hansel and Gretel, through abandonment in a deep and dangerous forest, Ulysses through the Trojan War, or Psyche being thrown out of her marriage were condemned to wander from one impossible task to another. Modern heroes may launch their journeys in response to political oppression, revolution, or the loss of home or business. If you are the recognized leader, prepare others for the journey as well as yourself. Frame the Journey for those who would join you: workers, co-leaders, colleagues, the business community. Write, speak, lead, set the example; this helps others equip themselves for the journey. Each of those affected by your leadership, in your company or in your world will undertake a similar journey of transformation, but be affected by it in their own unique ways. Let them know about the lack of sign-posts along the way in this strange land they are about to enter. Alert them to the existence of trials on the way. Tell them to expect monsters and roadblocks in this wilderness. Give them permission to accept aid from unusual sources – sources they never credited in the past. Hold out the hope of the boon for those who will undertake the journey and stay in the process to its end. In other words, give them a larger perspective than that of chaos from which to view the process on which you are about to embark. In short, engage the community –

Chapter 7: Can There Be Joy in Work? 

 105

remembering it was the community that saved the Kingdom for the Queen in Rumpelstiltskin and rescued from obscurity and entrapment its new leadership. Put yourself forward in time – far enough for the new work culture to be firmly established, for philosophers to be announcing that the Knowledge Age is about to give way to the next revolution. At the end of the Knowledge Age, as yet another emerging age throws its shadow on the horizon, sages of the transformation process may look back and say, “Here is the road map followed by those heroes who led the last transformation”. Just as today, in retrospect, we can look back at the Industrial Age and point to critical bends in the road and shifts in the culture that we now call the Industrial Revolution. Those caught up in the chaos of that transformation often went kicking and screaming into it. Future philosophers and map makers may be able to say in their perfect wisdom: They took path 1, which led to road 2, they avoided the detour through the swamp en route to interstate 3 and so on to successful termination. At this beginning point of the journey, we are still thinking a little, planning a little, deploying a little, learning a lot. However, even with our limited vision of the future, we can find ways to start our journey because we have a destination in mind. We know the potential that technology holds, we know the roadblocks the industrial culture throws up, and we know that the culture needs to be transformed. Furthermore, we know the stages of that transformation. The way might not be straight, we might have to go places for which we do not have a road map. Besides, it is more fun to wander than follow a straight and narrow path – or at least it is a better adventure. The uncharted territories, though, can be the most fun and rewarding ones of all for we will not only be Heroes but Discovers, Explorers and Adventurers. Few are lucky enough to be an explorer, so bringing about a transformation in work culture can be fun, as well as rewarding (and a tad bit scary at times). We set off into uncharted territory with a map marked like the maps of old “Hic sunt animales” – Here lie monsters. The well-armed heroes of vision, like Christopher Columbus or the Vikings of old, will land on the shores of a New World. The leader who would like to transform a work culture to one in which people achieve their highest potential and the company reaches its peak of productivity and profits has a daunting task. Other CEOs and managers may be tweaking the process, providing leadership training to promising new workers, assuring that change management techniques are widely known, and making sure his or her workers have all the latest bells and whistles. They may well be shaking their CEO-heads at our poor hero, thrown into the journey toward transformation; it is so “impossible to achieve”. But in the end, it is the hero who returns with the boon, the benefit, the blessing. It is the hero who has a culture that supports collaboration in communities of practice; it is the triumphant returnee who has cut the Gordian16 knot of compensation for knowledge workers who do not occupy an office or work regular 9–5 daily hours. It is the wanderer of wildernesses who has tapped the creativity of colleagues and workers to design a system of work that works for all – for the company’s profit and the workers’ benefit. It will be the modern hero who has tapped the wellspring of development – and shifted the experience of the basis for reality in the work culture. Workers will bring to work a new set of expectations, a new “common sense” about how things get done; they will see reality differently. (Lotze 2004, 119–121)

16 King Gordius of Phrygia tied a knot that could only be untied by the next ruler of Asia. Alexander the Great cut through it, solving the problem quickly and boldly.

106 

 Chapter 7: Can There Be Joy in Work?

One of the most important tasks of our society today is to discover how to make work meaningful, enjoyable, and playful – all at the same time. There is still widespread poverty and many are desperately looking for work – any kind of work. Perhaps there is no better time than now to create a kind of work that can be both useful and of maximum value.

The Thinking Machine The invention of the computer, the “thinking machine”, was initially heralded as the solution to all our problems. The long hoped for “world brain” enables us to capture all information and knowledge in an encyclopedia and access it with the help of an army of indexers. H.G. Wells articulated that vision in 1938. His optimism and certainty about the rosy future technology shines through: The whole human memory can be, and probably in a short time will be, made accessible to every individual. And what is of very great importance to this uncertain world where destruction becomes continually more frequent and unpredictable is this, that photography affords now every facility for multiplying duplicates of this – which we may call? – this new all-human cerebrum. It need not be concentrated in any one single place. It need not be vulnerable as a human head or a human heart is vulnerable... This is no remote dream, no fantasy. It is a plain statement of a contemporary state of affairs... It is difficult not to believe that in the quite near future this Permanent World Encyclopedia, so compact in its material form and so gigantic in its scope and possible influence, will not come into existence. (Wells 1938, 87)

About the same time, Vannever Bush wrote an article “As We May Think” (first published after World War II) in which he envisioned the impact of the early computers that he and others were beginning to build. (Bush 1945) The vision that a machine can replace thinking failed as did later visions of computers being a single solution to life’s problems. Knowledge and information are in communities, not in some “world brain”. Knowledge is more than an accumulation of information. Perhaps the most surprising part of the move of technology into the thinking realm is the emergence of communities as the location of knowledge. Knowledge lives in the context of a community and involves both knowing and doing. A single world brain to hold all knowledge is not possible, since knowledge depends on the communities who use it. Information, the raw material used to make knowledge, can be stored and accessed. The value of information depends not only on the content of the information, but on the user and users. People are the real “thinking machines”, but their thought, when it becomes thought that is done to make a living, always takes

Work is a Social Activity 

 107

place in a context, within a community. As a part of information management, information can be taken out of context and brought together with information from other, sometimes, unrelated places. Knowledge, however, always requires a context for it to be of value. Context is the bridge that links information together and enable us to create knowledge. New technologies, especially web technologies such as the internet, enable people to find information and bring it into a new context. This is the work of the knowledge worker. However, most people have been (and still are) hired to do work that involves physical labor, to grow crops, forge steel, and move mountains, sometimes mountains of earth and sometimes mountains of paperwork that stream across desks in a bureaucratized society. Even those who are hired to do physical labor are becoming knowledge workers as the machines, particularly the computer, take over and rationalize many of the physical tasks, by making them simpler and more “logical”.

Work is a Social Activity There is no such thing as pure thought. No machine can replace thought. Thought is always done in a context, out of a situation with a history and a culture. Thinking is transformational in nature. Thought and practice are closely related. Thinking is critical. It is an activity that calls into question. As Socrates put it, thinking is examining “those who think that they are wise when they are not – an experience which has its amusing side”. We all, from time to time, think we are wise and then another thinker comes along, examines what we claim to know, and calls into question beliefs that we thought were true and justified. Thinking can rarely be simplified, although it can be elegant. The essence of thinking is complicating, comparing, questioning, searching, and then distilling, discarding, focusing, and coming to a judgment. “Is it a good idea to...?” This question and answering this question is at the heart of knowledge work. Thinking is a social act. It takes place within a context, within a history, and within a culture. Some say thinking is what differentiates us from the other creatures on this earth. Thinking becomes knowledge work when it is done for someone else, who recognizes the work and pays for the work. Not all thinking, of course, is work and not all work is thinking work. However, when we think for a living, we do knowledge work. Labor is a social activity that takes place within communities of practice. It begins and ends in a community or in several communities each of which has a shared culture and a common sense. Creativity reaches its highest level in a well-organized scholarly communities and in artistic communities. Scholars and artists strive to make something or

108 

 Chapter 7: Can There Be Joy in Work?

some things that help us better understand the world in which we live. The artist and scholar does not just portray what we know, but seeks to find and discover new knowledge. A community of skilled artists or scientists apply principles, practices, and standards developed over the centuries by communities of workers who have gone before them to something new. Labor is part of the human condition and an essential human activity. We work to live and, sometimes, we live to work. Work is the process by which man interacts with nature to produce useful products. In the process, both nature and man are transformed. Both activities of creating knowledge and managing information are not well suited to assembly lines and to the industrial mode of production. A playful environment is often an important attribute for successful information management and knowledge work. Knowledge is a synthesis of facts, information and experience within a context/community. It is always a good idea to document knowledge where possible so that someone’s knowledge at a particular point in time becomes someone else’s information for building a new version of knowledge. Records are documentation of knowledge regardless of media. Distinctions between supervisor and worker, between boss and employee and planner and actor often get in the way of truly efficient and effective knowledge work. As the assembly line matures, work becomes more complex as the workers become the operators of machines and not just appendages of the machine. The industrial mode of production is running its course as a global economy emerges that requires new kinds of workers in order for work to be most productive. It also requires an understanding of the nature of work and how to build a society that is both humane and efficient.

Inherently Democratic Labor is organized differently at different times in history and in different places. Work is done in many different social orders. Democracies, over time, are the most efficient and effective social and political environments for knowledge work to thrive and prosper. Democracies give the space to maximize creativity and innovation. Knowledge work, when it is done effectively and efficiently, is inherently democratic because it is done in and through communities of practice. The nature of knowledge work requires a situation in which communities are controlled by those who live and work in them. Knowledge work and knowledge workers will be most productive in democratic communities. Democracy is about working community life being determined by those in the community.

Inherently Democratic 

 109

Democracy is more than a matter of elections and it is more than having an organization or political entity that represents the people. Democracy is about work and who controls how work is done. Knowledge work is best done in creative environments where there is a culture of ownership. Understanding is not just knowing and accepting what someone else tells you to do. It is about knowing and understanding the work that you are doing and being able to exercise effective control of your work situation through the communities of which you are a part. Democracy requires general support by the people. It requires established processes, such as elections or other ways to embody the will of communities. Democracy means that people – living in communities – exercise control over the places they live and work. Communities are the basis for democracy. A community is a group of people bound together by common work, culture or location. Traditionally, a community was bound by a certain geographical area. Today, communities arise out of common interests or common work. Membership in a community is seldom by choice but of circumstance. The common sense which binds communities is not necessarily articulated or understood even by those who are members of a community. Traditional communities were small enough so that members knew one another and that the obligations of the community were understood as part of the common sense of life. Today communities are no longer necessarily small, nor are they place bound. They can exist as virtual communities tied together by a common need, a common body of knowledge and a common set of understandings. Communities are organic. They live, grow and die in relationship to the environment of commonality. Any one community is embedded in a web of communities that each have their own histories and traditions. Most communities existed before we came into this world and will be here long after we pass on or leave the community. However, often through struggle, communities can arise quickly to establish a new set of relationships among the members of the community and also among other related communities. Individuals are normally members of multiple communities – and as communities grow and develop without reliance on a particular location or territory, the possibility for participation in multiple communities increases. The rise of technologies frees communities from being place-bound and enables them to be much more fluid than traditional communities. These communities can include dozens, hundreds, thousands or even millions of members. Much of richness in life and knowledge comes from this cross-participation in communities, each held together by a common store of knowledge and understandings. The development of communities as democratic institutions often

110 

 Chapter 7: Can There Be Joy in Work?

depends on forces beyond the control of the members of the community These political and social forces often determine the conditions in which communities live. Communities are inherently democratic because in order to survive and exist they need to be embraced by the members of the community. Organizations, societies, and political structures associated with communities may not always be democratic, but the very existence of a community depends on the involvement and participation of its members. A democratic society is one in which there is an environment, a community under the control of those who live and work in a community. Communities may also be oppressive and stifling and are often, at their core, conservative in character, for communities are the repositories of our common knowledge, our work culture. Self-management and self-awareness are at the heart of professional work. The self-management of knowledge work is done in and through communities of practice. The knowledge worker, in order to do knowledge work, needs to be conscious (know) how other work fits into the work of the community and the employer. The knowledge worker, to use a military term, needs to know how a particular piece of work affects the “health of the fleet”. If the Knowledge Age is to come to full flower, control will pass from the manager to the knowledge worker, not just because it is a better and more humane way to work, but also because it is necessary for the work to get done efficiently. Closed communities do something because it has always been done that way. The liberating aspect of democracy comes when it is open to other communities, to other cultures, and to new ways of living.

An Anthropologists View of Work John Jerome, an acute observer of human behavior, makes use of the distinction between work and mere effort. If the wall moves, it is work. If it does not, it is just effort, without work. He contrasts this with the definition of work he was brought up with: work is to be avoided. Work is what fulfills us. It is what makes us whole. He also captures the essence of the attitude toward works needed best to do knowledge work. Movement/activity in response to force is work. Work results in an actual product. Rather than expending energy to get out of work, the knowledge worker embraces work, becomes involved in it and works collaboratively with others to answer interesting questions. Although such an attitude may seem idealistic, anyone who has been involved in truly creative work knows that work can be among the most exciting and invigorating activities of life. In a book where he reflects on turning 65, Jerome refers to an anthropologist to sum up what he has learned from life:

Inherently Democratic 

 111

Anthropologist Turnbull’s17 fantasy about work as whatever one happens to be doing at the time seems worth trying to achieve. There is another sense of the word that is similarly cheerful. Work, says the dictionary, is the transference of energy produced by the motion of the point of application of a force. I can’t quite get my mind around that – the language ought to be able to do better with such a subject – but I think I get the idea. Push on something – or pull – and it moves, that was work. If it doesn’t budge, it was merely effort. In this sense – call it Turnbullian – lifting a champagne glass to your lips is work. So is stepping into a hot bath. Movement in response to force is work. Add time to the measurement and the result is “power”. These quantifications are in no way moral. I find such definitions deeply comforting. Somehow in my bringing up I was taught quite another definition: work was to be got out of. Work was our punishment for being born, being alive and only suckers even attempted to expiate that sin. Work was to be kept to a minimum, done as little as possible, dodged, shifted off onto others. And, if all else failed, done in the quickest, easiest, least energy taxing way possible. It wasn’t entirely my parents who were responsible for this perversion. They set chores and expected them to be accomplished, but that was work as duty, not punishment. Perhaps it was the school system, which persisted in laying on empty drills and exercises long after we’d gotten the concept, when the willing part of our attention had gone on to other matters. Teachers demanded the copying down of things, the making of lists, and the filling of pages. It was the same in anything else that adults organized for kids. It was not a scam we could ever have articulated, but we recognized it clearly enough, in our not-so-innocent little hearts; they were keeping us busy. If left to our own devices, whatever we would busy ourselves with would obviously be wasteful, destructive, violent, or sinful. We were being kept in line. On the other hand, work was, always, to be taken full credit for. Verisimilitude – the appearance of working – was therefore desirable. I can still remember the embarrassment I felt at seeing workers spring to their feet and try to appear busy when the boss showed up. Furthermore, work’s result in actual product – acres plowed, bushels harvested, cords stacked – was the ultimate value, worth far more than the money it might bring. I suppose my attitude toward wealth got twisted at the same time as it did toward work. (Jerome 2000, 141–143)

In the Age of Knowledge, the need to access information in order to create knowledge shapes the work culture. Such access depends on the collaboration of other team members. We work in communities where we have sharing relationships with those who create the information we need to do our work. If we are fortunate, we will work in good teams where “team spirit” pervades our environment.

17 Colin Turnbull (1924–1994), was born in England and died in the United States. He wrote several anthropological studies of people in Africa, Tibet and Canada. See http://www. colinturnbull.com/author.html for more information on Turnbull.

112 

 Chapter 7: Can There Be Joy in Work?

We are beginning to imagine and experience new ways of doing work that were once not even thinkable. When we work in a world-wide web of information, we can make our work accessible to others. They can simply “look over our shoulder” and see the latest results of our work. That prospect can be a bit terrifying, but if work is truly collaborative in nature, it can be liberating. We can achieve that degree of intimacy within a community where trust is established. Knowledge work flourishes, when we know one another, when we know how to evaluate the work we do with others, and when relationships have been cultivated. It flourishes when the information others produce is available to us and helps us do our work efficiently and confidently.

Overcoming Bad Habits Creating this new work culture will require us to get a new set of work habits. Some of these new habits will be good and we will need to shed some bad ones. “Good” and “bad” habits do not refer to moral characteristics, but to which ones are effective or ineffective in a given situation. When we say that these habits are “bad” for knowledge work we mean those habits impede the functioning of communities. We have spoken above about the new and improved beliefs and attitudes that promote collaboration. In order to nurture communities, we need to overcome some bad (inhibiting) habits: – We are taught in school that we need to do our “own” work and that when we collaborate we are “cheating”. – We hoard our knowledge. – We don’t trust each other or the knowledge another created. – We think information is power, so we hold it close. These habits are appropriate when we divide work and manage it centrally. These habits may work well in the industrial mode, but impede the development of knowledge work. It is also true that the “good” habits for knowledge work may be good in a moral sense. When work is properly organized, the alienation inherent in industrial production is not inherent in knowledge production. To be done well, there is a sense of engagement and ownership, of sharing and working together. As collaborative work becomes predominant, we need to seek to re-use information rather than to always create new information. Information needs to be documented, preserved and made accessible for future re-use. Proper records

Overcoming Bad Habits 

 113

management brings great increases in productivity because information, unlike other resources, grows in value as it is used. In the late nineteenth century, Paul Lafarge (Karl Marx’s son-in-law) published a little book called, The Right to Be Lazy. Lafarge contrasts the “right to work” to the “right to be lazy” – a right never recognized by any society that we know of. Perhaps as the Knowledge Age matures, we will recognize the importance of the right to be lazy. The development of an environment that fosters knowledge work is not a matter of simply willing it to be so. We need to develop methodologies that enable us to conceptualize how best to do work, document it and preserve the products of our work for future re-use. We need to take concrete steps to adopt the new work habits that encourage sharing information and promoting creativity. Tom Sawyer understood that good labor is joyful labor. Work is joyful if it is done properly and with good friends. There are those who act as if all labor must be forced labor and that people only work because they have to make money. That is not necessarily the case. Work, like play, can be enjoyable. In fact, play often appears to be suspiciously like work, when it is done well.

Chapter 8: Thinking Spirally Many thinkers have struggled to define this new way to approach work. One of the most interesting ways to look at work is to focus on its spiral nature. We could, and no doubt will, use other terms to describe the new work culture. The term spiral development gives us one way to understand a new kind of common sense. The process of knowledge identification includes defining and identifying the “customers” of that knowledge, those who need that knowledge to do their work. Making knowledge involves combining, synthesizing, and integrating information. It involves selecting, sorting, and noting similarities and differences. Knowing involves discarding and assembling. Above all, knowledge work is work of ordering and compiling. The process of integrating is more than simply gathering together. It requires the creation of a new product that is different from any of the parts that go into its making. We make knowledge through integration. We take information from different sources, apply our skill, learning, and judgment to the information in order to make knowledge. Software developers who use the spiral methodology, describe it as follows: – Plan a little, – Build a little, – Deploy a little. This process, thinking spirally, is at the heart of knowledge work. Knowledge work is the work of producing new ideas, solutions, and ways of thinking about problems – old and new. Knowledge work involves solving problems and completing projects. It is more than simply gathering information. It requires creating a product – a judgment that is an answer to a question. Something happens. We make judgments that others can rely upon. The new work culture brings with it a new sense of time and space very different from the one where many of us learned the meaning of work. The work that goes into the making of knowledge is inherently creative. It involves the creation of something qualitatively new within systems and context. Spiral development, a methodology most widely used by software developers, is one way to understand how to do this work. Spiral production appropriate to knowledge work, is done in digital “space” and “time”. Spiral development is collaborative in nature and requires a high level of interaction among the members of a community. Like other collaborative work, where appropriate technology is used, it does not necessarily require spatial and temporal contiguity.

Software Development 

 115

Software Development The work culture of the knowledge age requires a very different view of the world. We need a theory that expresses how we do knowledge work. Part of this new theory involves “systems thinking” – looking at the world and work in terms of systems, with feedback and understanding within a context. This way of thinking underpins the introduction of computer technologies into the work place. When computers were first invented, software developers adopted the ways of work appropriate for industrial production. In this way of doing work, the project manager assumes that either the developers or the people for whom the product or tool is being developed, know what is needed and how to meet their needs. Once the user’s needs are identified through a needs analysis, the requirements to meet those needs are codified. A schedule is laid out to develop software that meets those requirements. The schedule can often take months and years to complete. The project manager “manages” the project through its various stages, with one stage being completed before moving onto the next. Work tasks are broken into pieces, divided up among workers, and coordinated and organized by the manager. The development of software is put on an assembly line. Prior to the development of the spiral methodology, software development proceeded like a waterfall (or an assembly line) with tasks moving from stage to stage. Like a waterfall, once you start going over it, changes in direction or speed are nearly impossible. The waterfall dictates the direction and speed. If developers use the spiral methodology they can avoid being being caught in an irreversible stream of events. A recurring problem with many technology implementation projects is the continually changing requirements over the course of the project. When requirements-creep sets in, it seriously disrupts the project. The initial set of requirements that drove the implementation may not have been clear or they may have changed. More likely, however, the understanding of the problem evolves, either because our world changes or because we understand more as we go along. The waterfall propels us forward, even if we need to go in a different direction. The technologists and developers become isolated from actual users. They end up with different priorities than the users, even if they carry the project to the end that was planned. A more conceptually effective way of developing software called spiral or agile development replaces the traditional assembly line method. We cannot plan and lay out exactly where we are going. We need to be prepared for changes, even though we think we can anticipated all that will happen. As soon as we get to one stage of developing a technical application, new technologies provide new challenges and new possibilities for the succeeding stages.

116 

 Chapter 8: Thinking Spirally

Very practical considerations are the impetus for spiral development. It is simply impossible, given the pace of technological development, to plan and know how a complex project will develop because the very act of creativity makes a new world. In other words, no matter how hard we try, we cannot completely describe the requirements for the “end state”, the finished system. Advances in technology create new opportunities that drive development and a change within one part of a system affects the entire system.

We Don’t Know the End The spiral development way of thinking starts with the proposition that we do not know where the project will end no matter how hard we work to define all of the variables and take all of the “wrinkles” out of the process. No longer can software developers tell people how to do their business. The successful software developer must meet the business needs of an organization that are necessarily specialized and in flux. Previously, many organizations controlled the requirements, and could build exactly what they thought they wanted. Now, however, instead of building products and software from scratch, people integrate components. These components or modules are designed so they can be assembled to meet a particular business need. The world is more complex, and the options for creating software are more diversified. The real driving force in software development is the needs of the customer. The use of the product determines its development. To be done effectively and efficiently, the customer’s needs must be taken into consideration throughout the software development process. The spiral methodology moves problems and risks to the beginning of the development process. What is not known initially is answered first. By focusing on problems first, changes are expected from the very beginning. When we start this work, we have an idea where we are going, but the picture changes as we move forward. Spiral development accommodates change. The customer needs to “play” with the products as they are created to see how they fit into the work and how work processes can be transformed to take full advantage of the technology as it develops. This interchange between the customer and the developers proceeds in a spiral-like fashion. Most problems are complex enough that they are rarely understood in one setting, let alone from all appropriate perspectives. Instead of exerting energy on refining requirements and building something to meet it, extensive effort is spent on researching what is available to meet the “generalized” needs of a community. The software developer, who is one kind of

Agility 

 117

knowledge worker, works collaboratively with the software user to invent new knowledge.

Agility Some of the proponents of this way to develop software call this way of doing work agile. Agile proponents advocate that development occur in smaller, tight spirals. The overall development process of analyze, design, develop, implement, and support repeats in smaller development efforts. Instead of developing final requirements, agile developers do only what they know and understand. Development spirals are built on top of previous spirals. Over time, a quasi-final product emerges which supports user’s needs. Development is an on-going process, agile enough to evolve with the changing nature of the work. Some agile technologies advocate the use of two programmers working in unison to develop a single set of code. This collaborative approach, first advocated by Extreme Programming, integrates the requirements and coding process together as a single work task. Two software programmers work together in unison. One does the coding and the other ensures that the coding matches the previously developed requirements and test plan. While sitting side by side, one programmer always focused on the user requirements, while the other does the actual coding. They jointly write test plans prior to coding. This is far different from the traditional model, in which requirements are handed to an individual programmer, who, working individually, comes back when that piece is complete. In extreme programing, even though each person may be focusing on a particular part of the work process, the work is done together. In order for this work to function well, everyone needs to understand the entire process and how the various pieces fit together. To engage effectively in the agile process, flexibility is built into the coding process. We start with a goal in mind, with an understanding that the software will change. Instead of optimizing the software for today, the goal is to allow the software to grow into tomorrow’s requirements. This requires a “flexible architecture”. This approach to software development meets the needs of today’s work culture. Using this approach, software is adaptive instead of adapted. The user’s (customer’s) needs drive the development. A work culture based on open communication, trust, and collective responsibility. recognizes and makes changes necessary to survive over longer time frame.

118 

 Chapter 8: Thinking Spirally

Noel Dickover18 Moving to the Cloud and Open Data Noel Dickover has more than twenty years of experience as a contractor assisting U.S. Government agencies to take full advantage of technologies. He has worked to develop communities of practice and presently coordinates a program for the U.S. State Department to bring the simplest and least expensive technologies to developing countries. The Technology Boot Camps he coordinates focuses on matching technologists with groups in civil society. He outlines some of the recent developments in software development. The software development world has been undergoing a significant change in the last 5 years toward what we now refer to as cloud-based apps. These involve the delivering of computing and storage capacity as a service, often handled by a large service provider like Amazon or Google, who, with huge volumes of business and data, has optimized their business to the point that the average small to medium sized business no longer would consider managing their own computing and storage. Cloud based apps involve the users data software and processing power over the internet. These apps are usually very simple, cheap and easy to use. They can be quickly developed, and are easily replaced with other similar (but improved) apps over time by the end user. People frequently now have a myriad of apps running on their smart phones and tablets that can be used for a variety of work related aspects. Looking at the design approach in software development over the years, a few analogies can be made: – Waterfall Development methodologies designed for the Industrial assembly line-style organizations – Spiral Development methodologies are designed with adaptive organizations in mind – Cloud-based Apps are designed with self-forming teams or individuals in mind. In looking at their customer and requirements: – Waterfall development assumes a clear customer and a clear set of requirements – Spiral development assumes a clear customer but evolving requirements – Cloud-based Apps assume both an evolving customer and evolving requirements set, who’s direction is determined by real-time customer usage data, especially in tracking new changes that are implemented. In looking at completeness of a work process we might say that: – Waterfall development is a full application, which fully encapsulates the work process – A spiral development increment creates a “feature set”, that supports at least one key application in the work process –

A cloud-based app is often based around a single feature, which a number of simple variables the user can work with. Its use may be completely different for different users.

In making an analogy of software development to writing: –

Waterfall development = Book

18 Written for this book.

Four Philosophical Theories for Knowledge Work 

– –

 119

Spiral development = Blog post, which often spurs additional blog post responses Cloud based apps = tweets, or short bursts of conversation that may be linked in various ways (or not)

For work processes to be supported via cloud-based apps, open data becomes a critical aspect of the environment. In fact we see this, with numerous technologists working with cloud based apps continually asking for and supporting open data.  The results of this we’ve seen on a global scale include the World Bank releasing large quantities their data as open data sets, www.data. gov efforts in many countries, and numerous citizen generated data sets (crowd sourced data sets) created in places where there is no authoritative data set. The movement to cloud-based apps also puts a far greater stress on the awareness of the knowledge worker. While spiral development also increased the awareness necessary to complete a work process, cloud-based apps force the knowledge worker to continually seek out and find the most appropriate app for their needs.

Designing for Flexibility The “current reality” is short-term. However, the world will continue to change, technology will continue to evolve, customers will continue to have changing expectations, theories on management will continue to be refined, etc. To adapt quickly to change, the organization must know what it is offering, how it is currently conducting business, and how this impacts the larger environment. There must be an on-going analysis on the part of the organization, through its communities of practice, to determine how well it currently matches the larger environment’s needs. Effective knowledge work requires some of the same principles as does agile software development: – Work is done within communities of practice. – There is focus on interfaces and integrated units and communication. – Agility of mind allows for changing realities of both the users and the world.

Four Philosophical Theories for Knowledge Work Effective knowledge work follows the same principles as those used in agile software development. Changing needs of customers and workers are met by focusing on interfaces and communication within and among communities of practice. In organizational terms, this means smaller, integrated units instead of large scale, end-to-end processes. Smaller, integrated components may not always be as profitable or high performing in the short run, but they are easier to change or

120 

 Chapter 8: Thinking Spirally

replace. Over time, we can realize significant savings and performance improvements. Philosophers often foresee the development of new ways of thinking long before they enter our common sense. Some of the philosophical concepts that help us understand the nature of knowledge work include: – The process of hermeneutics, now a major force in philosophy throughout the Western world, – The theory of abduction developed by the American philosopher C.S. Peirce, as well as, – The theory of faceting, one of the significant contributions in the field of library science, and – Dialectical Method, one of the contributions of Marxism. These are four different ways to view and articulate the rising new work culture. Each of these theories present ways to understand reality that are at odds with what was once our common sense – the culture that underlay and infused our work in the industrial era. They can help us get our minds around our new work culture.

Understanding (Hermeneutics) There is a difference between understanding something and explaining something. Explanation is linear in character. It is “scientific” in the narrow sense of the term. We can explain what happened and what will happen by carefully determining the facts. We can propose hypotheses, test them out and make predictions. When our predictions pan out, we say that we have explained what happened. What causes a flood in a particular place? What were the elements that determined what happened and what will happen. Explanations are, in their very nature, deterministic. We are satisfied when we can explain what happened. There are no mysteries when it comes to explaining something – simply unknowns. Some events may be unexplained, but that is because we don’t know enough – we need more facts, we need better theories to predict what will happen. To explain a phenomenon we need to be objective. We step outside of our situation and look at all of the factors and seek to explain what happened or will happen. When we have achieved an adequate explanation, we “know” the facts because will not be surprised in the future.

Understanding (Hermeneutics) 

 121

Understanding is very different in character. Understanding a situation, understanding a person, understanding a text requires us to immerse ourselves in the situation. Understanding is always in a context and is seldom objective. Hermeneutics is the traditional study of understanding texts. It was developed by German philosopher Hans Georg Gadamer into a full theory of understanding. Understanding is a process of projecting ourselves from where we are to somewhere new. Understanding is a matter of discovering, of delving into the unknown. We can “deepen” our understanding of a situation, of a relationship, of an object. We don’t explain a work of art (although we can treat it objectively and describe its physical composition, the person who created it, the object as an object). We understand an artistic “object” – a drama, an event, a painting. Understanding is always from a point of view. When we achieve understanding, then we are at a different point. Our view changes in the process of understanding. Understanding, by its very nature, is spiral in character. It is dialectical. It moves from one place to another. Knowledge work is, a process of understanding – of moving from one place to another. We work in a community and the community’s body of knowledge can grow, can deepen and we can “know” in a way that is very different from simply making an explanation of an event. Understanding is an important part of our work life, especially when we are making knowledge. For our discussion, the making “knowledge” is closely related to “understanding”, a process that is different from explaining something. Knowledge requires coming to terms with and getting “inside” the object of knowledge. Understanding is always from a point of view. We come to work with judgments, some explicit and some implicit. We are never “objective”. We need a critical attitude, both toward our prejudices and toward those of others, but we always have prejudices that form the work we do. Making knowledge is, at root, a process of understanding what is happening. It requires determining that one’s beliefs are justified by experience and evidence. The process of understanding, making knowledge, is inherently social. Making knowledge and doing knowledge work involves bringing information together, synthesizing it, criticizing it and coming to a new and deeper understanding. Understanding is a qualitative activity, that “deepens” our understanding and it is “better” than it was before as we make knowledge. Making knowledge is a matter of understanding what is occurring and providing information to others so they can come to a better understanding.

122 

 Chapter 8: Thinking Spirally

Abduction The nineteenth century American philosopher, Charles Sanders Peirce, gives us a concept, abduction, which can help us understand the nature of knowledge work. Peirce was grounded in scientific work and logic. Logic describes how thinking is done. Most of us are familiar with the concepts of induction and deduction, which we use regularly in the process of thinking. Peirce introduces a third term, abduction that is more appropriate for knowledge creation. Creating knowledge requires all three forms of reasoning – deduction, induction, and abduction. Deduction and induction are primarily used in the process of verification. Abduction is the reasoning process of coming to an understanding, a belief. To become knowledge, believes need to be able to stand the test of evidence that validates or contradicts the beliefs that we hold. Peirce is best known for articulating and describing pragmatism, the quintessential American philosophy. He later called his philosophy pragmaticism to distinguish it from the popularized version of his views. He spent much of his time probing the nature of logic – how we think. He pondered about how we can deduct particulars from a general truth (deduction) and general statements from particulars (induction) and noticed that these two forms of logic are not sufficient to describe how we think. Deduction is the favorite form of logic for those who want certainty. Deductive reasoning relies on the assumed truth of previous conclusions and deduces other conclusions because of premises. Deduction enables us to get a particular truth from other, general, truths. A typical example of deductive reasoning is: – All men are mortal. – Harry is a man. – Therefore, Harry is mortal. The conclusion follows with certainty from the first two statements. Induction, on the other hand, does not bring us certainty. The conclusion of inductive reasoning gives us probability, for it relies on particular instances that may be counter indicated later. An example of inductive reasoning is: – Harry Smith is bald. – Harry James is bald. – Harry Easter is bald. – Harry Pape is bald. – Harry Brown is bald. – Therefore, all Harry’s are bald.

Abduction 

 123

The conclusion comes from a number of instances and, depending on the quality and scope of the observations, can often approach certainty. Based on our observations, these are all of the Harry’s in the world and then we could conclude that all of them are bald. Of course, it takes just one Harry with hair to make the conclusion no longer valid. Induction enables us to create new “truths” but these truths suffer from a significant shortcoming. They do not bring certainty to our conclusions and we know that knowledge requires certainty, a least enough certainty so we can act. In one sense, deduction is richer for it brings certainty. In another way induction is richer for it enables us to acquire “new” knowledge through observation and generalization and achieve “enough” certainty to act. Inductive reasoning results in probability, not certainty. For knowledge, we need to have enough evidence for a belief to serve as the basis for action. Truth is not an absolute in the sense that we achieve certainty forever. What we do achieve, through the process of discovery that includes abduction, deduction and induction is sufficient certainty for us to act. Some of Peirce’s most impressive work is in the exploration of probability and how we can get enough certainty to act. We use both induction and deduction to do knowledge work. Peirce perceived that induction and deduction are not enough to understand how we make knowledge. They both work fine, within defined systems, but scientific discoveries and other creative work involve another very different process – one he calls abduction. Abduction is a process not unlike that used by the software developers to do programming, what they call spiral development. It is also similar to the process of those doing hermeneutics to understand a scripture or a situation. In abductive reasoning, we form hypotheses and refining them as the development process goes on brings us to new and, sometimes, unexpected conclusions. Abductive reasoning enables us to achieve relative certainty and is the essence of what we have come to know as the “scientific method”. (Observe, hypothesize, test, conclude and start the process all over again.) Others have called it “dialectical” reasoning. Let us take an example from the industrial world. Henry Ford observed the process of building an automobile. He saw that there was lot of duplication of effort. He developed a hypothesis that work would go faster and the product would be better if he could simplify the tasks and have one person do only one task, again and again. He then tested his hypothesis and thus invented a new way to organize work. He did not work in a vacuum. He brought with him a work culture and a set of assumptions about how work is done. He observed a process and through practice, he invented the assembly line. As a result, a new way of work was born that was invented out of, but went beyond, the old way of doing work.

124 

 Chapter 8: Thinking Spirally

The Community of Scientific Inquirers Peirce recognizes and emphasizes that the knowledge of sciences grows out of and within communities. Understanding of new truths always takes place in a context. That context consists of the knowledge that others have discovered and codified in the past. Every knowledge worker stands on the shoulders of those who have gone before, even when something new may be articulated that contradicts what others may have thought before. Peirce says that truth is the result of the work of the community of scientific inquirers. Abduction begins with assumptions (as does deduction), but not just any assumption, but the beliefs and understandings that we “take for granted”. In other places, he calls this method “critical commonsensism”, an approach that takes “common sense” and applies critical thinking to it. What we take for granted is the result of our work and serves as the backing and evidence that we have for our beliefs. Abduction is not just about what we already knows. It is not what “everybody” in the community accepts as the truth. Neither is it a process of generalizing from a set of specific instances. It is a method to discover new knowledge. Abduction is the process of reasoning and work that puts assumptions and presumptions to the test by looking at reality with one eye toward finding a new truth and, in the process, supplanting the “old” truth. Abduction is the logic of creativity, innovation, and discovery. When we use abduction, we go beyond doing what we now do more efficiently or effectively. When one uses abductive reasoning, the starting point is sometimes called a hypothesis, an idea or a hunch or an understanding of some kind. This understanding may be more or less well formulated or may simply be a set of presumptions that the worker brings to the job. Some of these assumptions/understandings make up what we call culture. Other assumptions may be the results of knowledge work done by other thinkers – the information contained in a knowledge/information domain. This gives us evidence, or warrants, for our work. Abduction is another way to describe the process of synthesis that lies at the heart of system’s thinking. Synthesis is more than simply collecting facts and generalizing. It is more than taking a generalization and drawing conclusions. It is the process of understanding the whole. It is a kind of logic that creates new judgments and products. Synthesis is also the key process in dialectical thinking. This process describes what we call knowledge work. Knowledge work is done out of a set of concepts and presumptions held by a community and, by applying the results of observations, gathering new information and challenging “old” knowledge. The community comes to a new understanding of the truth.

Faceting 

 125

Peirce understood that abduction is a form of reasoning, a powerful way to make knowledge. Induction and deduction are used in the course of doing knowledge work, but abductive reasoning is what brings new knowledge. It is a way to describe spiral thinking. It is also a way to describe the process of understanding.

Faceting Ranganathan is the outstanding theoretician in the history of library and information science. Long ago he identified recognized that hierarchical structures are not adequate to organize and manage information. He said that information should be organized according to “facets” rather than hierarchies. Previous methods of organizing information were developed in nineteenth century schema embodied in the Dewey Decimal system and its derivative, the Library of Congress Subject Headings. These systems fail on many accounts, primarily because they do not account for the richness of user needs. These methods are based on a librarian’s decision describing what a book or article is “about” and then storing the book physically next to works that are “about” the “same thing”. These methods were devised to make more efficient displaying of information contained in physical objects, such as books or journals. Everyone who has ever browsed a library shelf knows that this schema of organization can be very powerful. As we browse a library shelf (either literally or through an online catalog), we discover new and unknown sources of information. But we know that our ability to find unexpected useful information depends on whether the catalogers who initially applied terms to the information in the object anticipated our needs. Working from the Hindu tradition, Ranganathan proposed that information should be organized from the viewpoint of the user, not the content of the object itself. His theory provides a way for us to understand how information in the knowledge age can be organized and accessed by and through communities, each of which sees the same information from differing perspectives. By focusing on the use of the information, rather than on the single content of the information, he provides us with a different way of thinking about information and how it can best be organized. Making information accessible requires identifying not just how the creator of information uses it, but also how the user of information will use it. As Ranganathan defined what he called the five “Laws of Library Science”. (Ranganathan 1988) – Books are for Use – Every Reader his Book

126 

– – –

 Chapter 8: Thinking Spirally

Every Book its Reader Save the Time of the Reader Library is a Growing Organism

Information is organized from and through communities of users, as well as the communities of producers of knowledge and information. There is no one single way that information or knowledge must be organized. We cannot even predict, with certainty, the value of information at the time it is created, for that will be determined by the users. A creator may think of possible uses for information, but many of the most important discoveries will come from using information in most unexpected ways. As use of information changes, the meaning of the information changes as well. A body knowledge grows and develops. There is no way it can be classified and organized once and for all. This is the same situation that we see in spiral development where the outcome is not known and, indeed, the outcome may change as a result of the work done in the spiral process. Meaning grows out of context and the classification of information in a knowledge store, such as a library, an archive or a records collection, needs to reflect these changes. Ranganathan envisioned a way in which we can dynamically “organize” knowledge stores. Ranganathan understands information in an historical and social context. He thinks historically or we might say he thinks socially about information and its uses. It turns out that the way Ranganathan understands how to organize and make information accessible is particularly valuable when it comes to understanding how to make digital information accessible to those who need it to do their work. On the web, we can link one object with another quickly and efficiently. The web allows multiple access points to the same information. It also allows us to organize and retrieve information on the basis of our previous information requests and requests of users who are “like” us. The web does not require us to impose a “catalog” or some other form of entry that describes what the object is “about”. Semantic indexing and indexing by key words enhance the ability to search the full text of documents and collections. Methodologies now exist to search for meanings and not just words. The best retrieval systems combine the best features of indexing with full text searching. Often what a document or item is “about” is not contained in the text of the document. New searching technologies are being developed that link searches to users and communities of user. Searching becomes a process of discovery and not just a matter of finding what you already know.

Faceting 

 127

The hierarchical systems of organizing information require that each object is about one thing, because, at least in the paper world, an object can only be stored in one place. It also assumes that there is a universal classification that can handle all human knowledge. Ranganathan understood that what a book or article is about depends on how it is used and not just on the words in the book or article. The meaning/purpose/ content of the book or article is a result of the interrelationship of a reader and a book. Every book has its reader and every reader its book. Ranganathan’s method of describing and organizing information is called faceting. The practical implications of the theory are mostly of interest to those who are responsible for organizing large bodies of knowledge and large collections of information and make them accessible to readers. His extensive body of works shows how to lay out non-hierarchical information systems. Faceting focuses on the use of a book (its reader) to determine its meaning. A book (or an article or any other container of information) may, therefore, mean very different things to different people. Determining what something is “about” is a complex activity. It grows out of communities and may be used by very different communities. Ranganathan understood, a century ago, that knowledge stores are developed by communities of users. Ranganathan’s work is best known to information scientists who focus on the use of his faceting theory to describe a book or object. What he calls the laws of library science provide us with a way to understand how we can manage knowledge: – Books are for Use. Organizing knowledge around use, rather than the information content of the object, shifts the entire focus for capturing, storing and retrieving information. The customer-centered focus is essential for knowledge work. Knowledge is about how it is used. Its meaning comes from use. – Every Reader his Book. This principle replaces one that was once held by many librarians and information managers – “Books are for Preservation”. Knowledge is linked to the reader, the user, not the object containing the knowledge. Meeting the needs (which sometimes coincides with what someone wants) focuses knowledge development on the needs of a community. – Every Book its Reader. This principle replaces one held by many that “Books are for the Chosen Few”. Knowledge without readers is meaningless. Knowledge serves a purpose – to answer questions that grow out of the work done within communities. – Save the Time of the Reader. The customer of information is king. Everything in the organization must be done to meet the reader’s needs rather than the needs of those who work there. Ranganathan’s book is a manual

128 

–

 Chapter 8: Thinking Spirally

full of specific suggestions to improve library services. A similar approach is instructive to any organization. Library is a Growing Organism. The knowledge store is organic. It grows, ages, and dies. It requires nurturing and use. Knowledge grows with use. Information access is the key to knowledge work. Without access and use, the store withers away.

Information is rooted in communities, not in the information itself. That means, for example, that different communities will use information in very different ways. There is no single meaning that enables us to categorize our information and knowledge. We are just beginning to understand the implications of this view for managing information. Applying Ranganathan’s wisdom will fundamentally transform the information professions (librarians, records managers, and archivists) by focusing on users in communities. These professions currently classify object according to hierarchical systems. They also focus on preserving objects that may or may not be useful. Information professionals can be key players in the knowledge revolution, because they stand at the key crossroads for the new way to do work. They know how to organize and make information to meet the needs of those needing information. Current technologies give them the tools to do that in new and exciting ways. Ranganathan’s theories and understanding are rooted deeply in the Hindu culture and in his desire to build and create a literate and knowledgeable India. He was not only a theoretician, but also a political leader dedicated to creating a modern society out of the ruins of the British colonial empire. He points the way for us to “organize” information for use and orients us properly for knowledge work. A colleague, on reading this description, asked how a Hindu library would be organized. Are there shelves to browse? Where are the books kept? Ranganathan’s writings give a great deal of guidance on these questions and introduced many practices that are now common in specialized libraries. The answer to the reader’s question depends on the temple you are in. The perception and needs of the users of the books determine their arrangement. This arrangement may be very different for different communities. In the digital world, where we are freed from books and shelves, “arrangement” is no longer a physical task, but an activity that enables us to identify different facets that may be of interest to different communities.

Dialectical Thinking 

 129

Dialectical Thinking The process of doing work is spiral or, to use another term, dialectical. Few terms have been more widely abused than dialectic and yet no term can more truly help us understand knowledge work and how it is done. The concept of dialectics has a long tradition in Western philosophy – and the founder of Western philosophy, Socrates, invented the art of dialectics – of discussion and discourse and conflict as a way to come to the truth. Philosophers have not often focused on work. Philosophy, for many, if not most, people is a purely intellectual activity. It is pure thought unencumbered by mundane activities. Mind and body are separate. Thinking and acting are separate. Yet people are skeptical of philosophies which tell them they need to work or that they should find fulfillment in work; and not without some reason,. For such philosophies seem grotesquely at odds with the reality of work as the majority experience it. Work is often routine, oppressive, and stultifying. So, far from offering possibilities of fulfillment and selfrealization, more typically it is alienating and destructive to soul and body. (Sayers 1988, 39)

However, in the last two centuries, a wide range of philosophers – pragmatists, hermeneutical thinkers, phenomenologists and Marxists all question and reject the separation of thinking and action. The primary philosophical tradition that focuses on work and its nature has been the Marxist tradition. Marxism, however, fell on hard times, both theoretical and practically, as a vibrant and creative theoretical tradition. At least in the West, it is treated as a failed ideology, which is of little value to understand the nature of work and society. That is not the case in China where Marxism is enshrined in the constitution and forms the basis for one of the most rapid developments of a society in the history of humankind. We shall look later at some of the contributions of Chinese Marxism to an understanding of how, practically, knowledge work can be organized and how an open and harmonious society can be created. Stalin bastardized and demeaned dialectics. He took a rich and often contradictory Marxist tradition and turned it into a destructive dogma – the dogma of Dialectical Materialism. As Lukacs said, Stalin inverted Marxism and in the process justified some of the most terrifying social institutions of our time. Nevertheless, dialectal thinking is the essential characteristic of knowledge work if it is correctly understood. The philosopher Hegel developed the concept of the dialectic in the realm of what he called pure thought – and, in the process, created a complete philosophical theory. It was Karl Marx, along with others in the nineteenth century who took

130 

 Chapter 8: Thinking Spirally

these concepts and turned the dialectical methodology into a way to do scientific work. The economic works of Marx are primarily scientific in nature, but they are rooted in philosophy developed in the Hegelian tradition. Lukacs described this relationship as follows: These are specifically works of science, and in no way works of philosophy. But their scientific character is reached through philosophy, and never leaves it behind, so that every establishment of a fact, every acknowledgment of a relationship, is not simply critically elaborated from the direct factual correctness, but rather proceeding from this and equally continually going beyond it, all facticity is investigated from the standpoint of its real existential content, its ontological nature. Science grows out of life, and in life itself, whether we realize this or not, we have spontaneously to behave ontologically... Marx’s economics is permeated by a scientific spirit which never abandons this process of making conscious and critical, in the ontological sense, but rather applies it, as a constantly effective critical measure, in every process of establishing a fact or relationship. (Lukacs 1980, 14)

Marx’s methodology, which is fundamentally dialectical in nature, is the methodology Lukacs adopts in his philosophical analysis of work. Marx was ambivalent when it comes to the effects of automation. On one hand he hoped that it would lead to a reduction in manual labor and the freeing of workers to pursue intellectual pursuits. On the other hand he saw automation as just one more way to extract surplus value from the workers. The science he knew and the automation of the time when he lived is very different from what we have today. Science attempts to understand reality, to achieve knowledge of reality. The scientific process relies heavily, but not exclusively, on experimentation. Science today is more often about experimentation, about inquiry, and about making knowledge, not about achieving an understanding of all reality. The development of scientific inquiry through communities of scientific practitioners is one of the most important developments since Marx and therefore any proper application of the Marxist methodology needs to take into account and understand the nature of scientific inquiry. Managing knowledge requires a social order in which automation becomes a positive, not a negative, force as we transform the working process. Marx and Lukacs can help us frame our understanding of the working process that is going on now, but it is up to us to do the analysis and understand the empirical facts of our day. We can learn from them about how to think about the problems we face, not specific lessons we can apply. Lukacs’ Marxism is a humane and moral Marxism that sees the development of a humane and democratic society as a moral imperative. It is more than just

Toward a New Theory 

 131

a philosophy and more than just a scientific theory. Like many other Marxists of his generation, Lukacs attempted – and often succeeded – in connecting his theoretical work with his political practice. Lukacs was not just a philosopher who became occasionally involved in political life. Nor is he just a politician who mulled over philosophical theory. He was both a philosopher and a participant. He combined theory and practice in his life and writings. Lukacs was not alone in promoting a humane and moral Marxism. Many philosophers and social movements have espoused a rich assortment of Marxist positions. However, Lukacs is the one who articulated and developed a theory of work. Another important Marxist philosopher (and a associate and friend of Lukacs over the years), the German philosopher, Ernst Bloch, summed up the view of these philosophers and activists in seeing the: “unadulterated Marx” is “humanity actively comprehending itself”. (Bloch 1986, III, 1357) In a 1971 conversation shortly before he died, Lukacs said this about Marx’s method: “Marx’s method, which Stalin simply inverted, lies in the analysis of the whole of society, its style, its movements, its rhythm of development.” (Lukacs 1989, 208) Marx tried to understand the “whole of society”. Lukacs’ Marx sought to understand its rhythm of development. The world is a rich place for Lukacs, as it was for Marx, but not for the inverted Marxism he criticized. Science plays a central role in each of the theories discussed in this chapter – but each in their own way and from very different philosophical and cultural traditions. Peirce, the logician, Gadamer, the creator of a science for humanities, Ranganathan, the theoretician for library science, and Lukacs, the Marxist thinker and actor, all shared a view that scientific enquiry is a model for understanding how to think about the world. Scientific work, knowledge work, done properly and with joy makes our lives worth living. How we organize work and do work in the most humane way is one of the key issues of our age – as it is of every age. What is different about this age is that we are at the beginning of a fundamental transformation of how work is done. We need to take their common conclusions and observations and apply them to the world of work.

Toward a New Theory When we think spirally, the future is not fixed. It is created in the process of doing work. Things will change as we work. This way of thinking is at the heart of

132 

 Chapter 8: Thinking Spirally

systems theory. It is also found in many other disciplines. Even though Ranganathan, Peirce, Gadamer, and Marx come from very different disciplines, cultures, and traditions and they did not know each other’s works, they have insights that help us understand the nature of knowledge work. Even though they don’t use the term, they all “think spirally” – not just serially. They see knowledge in context. Knowledge is developed out of, through and by communities. They see making knowledge to be a creative act of thinkers in a community. They help us understand the nature of knowledge – how it is created and how it can be accessed and made available. We take what they have created and apply it in an integrated digital environment. Thinking spirally is a key to the new culture of work. It is a way of thinking that enables us to do our work move effectively. The concepts of work, knowledge, and communities of practice grow directly out of these very disparate traditions. The concepts in this book are, we believe, extensions of the ways of thinking of the thinkers who have come before us. If what we say is true (and is therefore knowledge), knowledge can come out of very different traditions and be understood in very different ways. It is in the exchange of information and knowledge that our understanding (and knowledge) of the world we live in grows.

Chapter 9: The Practice of Transformation: Three Practical Steps Changing the assumptions people bring to their work is not a simple or a onetime activity. Sometimes work cultures change imperceptibly over time because of introduction of new tools. More often change comes because of a dramatic (and not always welcome) disruption. A bankruptcy, a take-over by another company, a revolution, a natural disaster, war, or civil unrest. Change comes from many places. It can also be planned and managed. We can learn from others how change is accomplished, but the process itself must grow out of a work place with a vision of the possibilities for new ways of doing work. We can identify as least three important elements to managing change: – Be clear about what we want – the goal of the work. Have a vision and understanding of where we are going and what our real work is, and what is achievable. – Provide leadership. Show the way by trusting and sharing. Set the example and reward those who follow it. – Empower the knowledge workers through transparency and by establishing performance based learning and creating a favorable technological environment. When an organization or society understands and articulates clearly its real work (its mission), when the leadership is dedicated to providing the tools and policies that make immediate access to information possible for the workers, and when workers share and are rewarded for sharing information with their community, then transformation is afoot. A collaborative and information-sharing work culture readily adapts to change. It is nimble on an as-needed basis. Change brings in fresh ideas, allows for and promotes creativity and flexibility. Knowledge work is too dynamic for assembly line planning and execution. Knowledge creation itself embodies change. Collaborative and information sharing work environments are flexible in nature. In order for collaborative work to be done successfully there needs to be clear communication paths over extended durations. In a collaborative environment, flux is the norm. New technologies bring with them possibilities for new work cultures. However, culture has a way of lingering and shaping the way we live. Common sense is built and shaped into experience which builds knowledge to enable us to survive the way we work.

134 

 Chapter 9: The Practice of Transformation: Three Practical Steps

Transforming a work culture requires creating a new “common sense” that is appropriate for knowledge work. It is possible to consciously change a work culture. Convincing people to change their minds and attitudes (although that is important) is not enough. Neither is it a matter of simply introducing new machines into the work place. It requires a new way of behavior accompanied by tools appropriate for knowledge work. A work culture is how people act, not just what they say or say they believe. Change, including culture change, can be fostered, if not managed. A body of theory and practice relating to change management has grown up over the years. The name “change management” often implies that it is someone else’s culture that changes. True culture change means that the culture of the leader must change as well. A leader does not just encourage others to change. Transforming a work culture requires changing the shared attitudes toward work, the shared beliefs, and the common expectations about behavior, etc. In the industrial world the machine determined and drove that work culture and the owner of the machines coordinated the work. Creating a new work culture is about integrating people with disparate ideas into collaborating communities of practice, bringing together apparently disparate trends from different fields, and melding them into a whole. Much has been written about managing change, about technology, about leadership, about responses to change, and about management in the new environment. The focus is on integrating concepts from a variety of disciplines into new concepts that guide and inform the transformation. New concepts integrate with some familiar concepts into new concepts – terms with a twist that create a new way of thinking about transforming work. These integrating concepts embody a new way of thinking and acting, a new culture that develops in a non-linear way, and a holistic view of the world that is spiral in nature. Spiral development is sometimes referred to as a positive feed-back cycle by systems thinkers. Information sharing replaces information hoarding. We collaborate and create knowledge out of information. We have new assumptions about what we do and how we spend our time. All this, taken together, is culture change, or work transformation. Our work is becoming knowledge work. Everyday life is being transformed underneath the veneer of sameness. The work is changing and many people are beginning to adopt very different practices to accomplish their work. As work was brought under the discipline of the machine, industrialization and its work culture permeated the farm, the factory, the office, and the artisan shop. Manufacturing brought people together in large settings to do work they once did in isolated situations. With the introduction of power (initially steam) and machines to drive the process, the nature of work changed and gave rise to

Chapter 9: The Practice of Transformation: Three Practical Steps 

 135

what is called the industrial revolution – an age that divided work into progressively small components of efficiency. The industrial revolution brought with it a new kind of work integrating culture, one built on the principle that: – Work time is a commodity that can be managed. – Production is a matter of using less and less work time to make more and more products. The transformation of the work culture to an information-sharing, collaborative culture brings additional benefits as information is shared more effectively and efficiently. People do know how to transform organizations. We can alter the work culture. Change in work culture often comes from traumatic events outside the organization that sweep away existing ways of doing business. However, leadership can consciously change organizations. This leadership can come from within the organization or it can, and most often does, come from outside the organization. There are methodologies that can be followed to bring about culture change. The Air Force integrated digital environment project developed a three-step “methodology” from business reengineering to create an information-sharing environment: – Step I: Understand the Work and the Workflow. – Step II: Understand the knowledge/information produced doing the work and make it accessible to those who need it to do their work. – Step III: Understand information used (or needed) to do the work and make it immediately accessible to you and your colleagues. This “methodology” is in quotes, because the specifics are not as important as the fact that it is a guide to how a work culture in a specific setting can be transformed. Success is achievable if these three steps are followed. Business reengineering focuses on transforming work processes and the way tasks are done. Work culture transformation focuses on changing the environment in which work is done. These steps need not be done in any particular order and are best done using the spiral or dialectical methodology, but each of them must be done in order to transform a work culture successfully. Transforming work focuses on information accessibility. Making information accessible is the key to work culture transformation. When applying the lessons of business reengineering, it is essential to focus on work (the ends) rather than specific tasks (the means).

136 

 Chapter 9: The Practice of Transformation: Three Practical Steps

We implement the principles of the integrated digital environment. We replace reporting with access. We make the creators of information responsible for making it accessible to others. We preserve the corporate memory of the organization so we can learn from others in the community, including others who are no longer in the community. Information transfer, one of the primary reasons for meetings in the industrial mode of production, is done more efficiently through web-based working environments. Ideally the person needing information should be able to get the latest and best information by looking over the shoulder of a colleague without disturbing the work. The trusting relationship required for this relationship is one of the primary characteristics of the new work culture. Trust here is not a “moral” trust in the honesty of another. It is the assurance that the information accessible is the best available information at any given time. A new work culture requires new set of expectations and a new “common sense” about our work. A new work culture develops over time. It is organic. Changing a work culture is a practical and is not just a theoretical activity. Like all practical activities it requires work to implement. How change comes about depends on a particular situation and its needs. No matter how hard we try, there is no “model” for this transformation. We cannot export a road map developed in one situation to another. We can learn from others, but that learning merely helps us better understand our own situation. The knowledge of others can be information for us, however we must make our own knowledge and do our own transformation. The transformation of the work place is closely linked to technologies. Technology is not the transformation, but it enables the transformation. The world of information technology is littered with failed systems. There are many reasons why most information technology projects fail. Organizations sometimes attempt to continually shift and redesign the organizational lines. Failures, it is said, are a result of “poor communications”, so communication paths are reconfigured. The continual changing of organizational structures leads to a jaded work environment that is reactive rather than proactive. Reorganizations take the place of transformation. Too often we hope that technology can solve our problems. Political decisions sometimes truncate or deflect attempts to transform the work place. Decisions and actions in organizations have a shorter and shorter life span. Shortterm decisions, if they do not take place in a structure that supports flexibility, lead to long-term problems, instability, and ineffective and inefficient work. The user or developer is often blamed for failure in technologies, rather than the lack of collaboration between the developer and the customer. The attitude

Leadership from Above: Change from Below  

 137

often is “How do we get better users?” or “Why can’t we get a developer who can listen and understand?” rather than on “Why aren’t we building products that meet our real needs?” Blaming the customer and the work culture is often the final attempt by information technologists to explain why the expected benefits do not flow from their technologies. Changing a work culture is often about changing expectations that people bring to their work as much as building more and better information systems. Structured organizations have difficulty adapting to rapidly changing environments. They often cannot respond to changes in communications, in required skill sets, to altered customer expectations and to new technologies. These failures are a result of the inability or unwillingness to confront the necessity of change in the work culture to look at new ways of doing work. The industrial model of work fails in the knowledge age because it cannot achieve what it sets out to do. It cannot finish what it starts. The project changes before it reaches the original finish line.

Leadership from Above: Change from Below In order to achieve a work culture transformation, change agents responsible for the culture change for each community can be helpful. These agents will take different forms depending on the history and culture of the organization. What is important is that the change agents come with the authority and power from the leadership of the organization. In order to bring about a cultural change, the leadership needs to embrace the transformation and take on the task of changing their work as well as the work of others. They need to change their expectations as well as the expectations of others. The leadership needs to adopt the sixth value proposed by Marshal for a collaborative workplace: The success of the Collaborative Workplace is most likely to occur when we can move away from the view of responsibility and accountability as being a policing function grounded in a top-down approach to relationships. Instead, we must move toward a view that full responsibility and accountability are horizontal, shared, and grounded in our individual and collective integrity as adults and professionals. (Marshall 2000, 35)

Those who assume responsibility to bring about the work culture transformation need to lead, rather than manage. The experience of business and government shows that transforming a work culture is best done when there is supportive and fully committed leadership from above. It requires leaders, from the very top, to

138 

 Chapter 9: The Practice of Transformation: Three Practical Steps

adopt new ways to do work and to demand the same from those responsible to them. The leader must be: – a champion not a director, – a leader not a manager, – an example, not a demagogue. In other words, good leadership enables change. People change. Change comes from below. Leading an organization to and through transformation is important work. Change management is a set of theories and practices that organizations use to bring about change. Management and business practitioners tend to rely on the presence of a dynamic leader called in to rescue a failed company. The new manager, so the theory goes, brings a new vision and energy to the organization and a new level of accountability. This view has been convincingly challenged by the empirical work done by Jim Collins. He, and his team of researchers, set out to determine what distinguishes “good” companies from “great“ ones, measured primarily by their stock value over a long period of time. One of the “surprising results” of his empirical investigation is that the leader of a great organization combines “a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will”. (Collins 2001, 20) He gives example after example of failures by vigorous leaders who sought to transform an organization by following a clear and compelling vision and insisting on adhering to clear performance standards. The successful leader is a modest, likable, and committed professional who has often been with the organization for a long period of time. Embracing technologies and innovation, provides the possibility for a transformation in the work culture. The work culture of knowledge work is an information-sharing, not an information-hoarding work culture. The informationhoarding work culture underpins the industrial mode of production and treats information as property and power to be protected and kept away from others. To share threatens the very essence of the established work process. The efficiencies come through collaboration within communities, between communities, and among communities. The sharing of information essential for knowledge work makes that work and the work processes associated with the work more efficient and effective. Information sharing is not just a nice idea or a moral imperative. It is a better way to do knowledge work. Let us turn to the three steps that bring about the work transformation.

Step I: Understand the Work and the Workflow 

 139

Step I: Understand the Work and the Workflow The first step is to understand the vision and mission of the business and who needs the products that are made. Once you know that, you can identify what it takes to do work. That is the work of the company. Once the work is identified, then the processes involved in doing that particular work in this particular company can be defined. We need to determine the real work (the sets of business activities that make up that work) as it is done in a particular situation. Going through this process will reveal tasks that do not add value to the work process. Be prepared to learn that functions, offices, and potentially entire departments are extraneous to the mission. Then it is important to identify goals, objectives, and purpose of the work as it is done now. What is the problem to be solved? Do we want to increase productivity, reduce cost, reduce cycle time, improve quality, improve timeliness of reporting etc.? Who uses our products? Who needs them to do their work but does not have access to our products now? Once these questions are answered, at least tentatively, then we need to identify the resources that affect the process. These can be money, time, manpower, information systems, information, etc. A model or chart representing the current work processes can serve as a common reference to communicate and come to a mutual understanding of the work process. Finally define the scope of and establish some boundaries as to what we will be addressing. This will help to keep the analysis on track. The same work can be done in many different ways. Within a community, how work is done can vary dramatically. There can be many different work processes to do the same work. Different businesses and organizations can do the same work in very different ways, i.e. using different work processes. Workflow is the sequence of tasks or necessary steps that comprise a business process. To understand the workflow of an organization, it is important to look at things from a process perspective, rather than from an organizational perspective. In other words, it is not the particular office that does work. Work often cuts across organizational units. Simply laying out the bureaucratic structure of the organization will not give us the workflow. Accomplishment is measured in relationship to the mission of the organization in which you do that work. Improving work processes by improving workflow and transforming the work culture can both increase productivity. Done together the results can be dramatic. Identifying work processes and workflow are the single most important step in changing the work culture. Work is not just activity. It is a matter of moving

140 

 Chapter 9: The Practice of Transformation: Three Practical Steps

walls. We can begin to identify work by looking at the mission of the organization. An organization or business generally has particular purpose(s). Identifying these purposes leads us to the work of the organization. An organization or business may involve a number of different, interrelated communities of practice to accomplish its purposes. Work is what people do that fulfills the organization’s mission. Work is meaningful activity, stemming from and contributing to the mission of the organization. Work is the “business” of an organization rather than the “busy-ness”. It is a matter of making needed products and services. In other words, it is the sum of the activities that cause an organization to accomplish its mission. Real work rarely consists of building briefings, preparing written reports, summarizing paper reports, meeting or traveling to coordinate work. Work is not just doing tasks, jobs, and other things that we do to spend the time at work to get a paycheck for a work week. Work is what we do that makes a difference toward meeting the vision, the raison d’être of the enterprise. Optimizing workflow removes non-value-added tasks from the work process. Workflow may be different from organization to organization, even if all organizations are all doing the same work. Optimizing workflow allows us to leverage advancing information technology into the business practice. For example, every bank processes checks differently. The procedures, the software, and the tools used to accomplish the work can be quite different. The workflow, how tasks are done, can vary from place to place. However, the work of processing a check and passing the information from one bank to another requires an agreement on standard ways to communicate. Similarly, different groups can do knowledge work very differently. It is not necessary to mandate HOW work is done. Freeing up work so that different people can do it differently enables members of a community to determine which work processes are most efficient for them. There need not be only one best way to do work. Conducting a work process analysis requires perspective, objectivity, and an understanding of the business. Ideally, a team composed of “objective outsiders” as well as “intimate insiders” conduct the work process analysis. This analysis must be conducted within the framework of the business information enterprise. One way to identify work process is to determine what information you need from others and what information you provide to others. By identifying these information products and needs, we can often identify work processes. The capturing of AS-IS processes is good for two reasons. One is to determine what is problematic about the current process and the other is to determine the invariants in the process.

Step II: Understand the knowledge/information 

 141

Invariants are items in the current process that cannot be changed from our vantage point. These include political constraints, facility constraints, and other issues outside the change agent’s span of control. Invariants will remain even after new work processes are put into place. Now it is important to look at the work process from the customer’s perspective. Identify what initiates the various business process. Is it a phone call to the help desk? Is there a cyclical pattern? These processes may indicate what the work is. Once the real work (as opposed to the activities) is identified and the work processes are in place to do that work, we can begin to take the necessary steps to transform the way you do work. Even the most perfunctory work analysis reveals that much of what people do when they are “at work” is not work at all. This is not just because people are lazy or avoid work, but because many work tasks and processes were developed to meet the needs of an industrial mode of production, not the work itself. Work analysis and the resulting reengineering of work processes often bring substantial increases in productivity. The real efficiencies come when new, more appropriate, work processes are developing in an integrated digital environment that spawns a new work culture. The knowledge age requires a different kind of work and workflow and a work culture to go with it. It requires a culture based on immediate access to information needed to do work. The second step in bringing about the new work culture is identifying information used to do the work and make it immediately accessible to those who need it.

Step II: Understand the knowledge/information produced doing the work and make it accessible to those who need it to do their work After determining the mission of the organization and its work processes, we then identify the knowledge that is created in the work and begin to make it accessible to others. The products of work are of value to someone or some other communities. Understanding what the customer uses helps inform the work. Once we understand the value of our work, we can change the way we do our work. We begin to develop new work processes based on very different assumptions than those we once had. The most important step in transforming the work culture so knowledge work is done most efficiently is identifying the value of our

142 

 Chapter 9: The Practice of Transformation: Three Practical Steps

products. This is not a simple task and the value that resides in what we do may not be immediate. We identify the value of our work so that we can make our work products of our work immediately available to those who need it. Instead of hoarding knowledge (typical of linear work in an industrial world), we deliberately and openly make information made accessible to all those who need it for their work. We reach out to our customers, the users of our knowledge/information. We open up. The sharing of knowledge as information to those who need it for their work forms the collaborative relationship within and between communities. We do this not just because we are good people, but also because that it is what it takes to do our real work productively and well. In the industrial setting, managers, not workers, control who has access to the product of work. Opening up access to information can be very threatening to managers, especially those who are imbued with the work culture of the assembly line. The role of managers moves from being a controller and director to one of facilitating. Knowledge managers assume a crucial role in the age of knowledge work. They are not managers of people, telling them what to do, instructing them, and evaluating their work. Knowledge managers are facilitators. They identify and encourage the transfer of information products to those who need them. They perform an essential role, but it is important to realize that their management is of information, not of people. Opening up access to what we know, is not often an easy change to make, for there are many who believe that their positions depend on keeping information to themselves. Especially middle level managers are primarily information collectors and disseminators, so making information immediately accessible to those who need it to do their work will be impeded by those who exercise great political power in the day-to-day operations of an organization. Making the product of work immediately accessible to others can feel a bit risky. We are used to dealing with scarce resources. If I give you some money, I have less and you have more. With knowledge/information, something very different happens. A new dynamic takes over. In the process of collaborating, new ideas occur, new solutions appear because two or more people are now considering the same information, and new products are born. Creativity enters the picture. The more minds that are applied to using the same information, the more likely it is that something new will emerge. As we make my knowledge accessible to my customers, we still have our knowledge and the customers have more information now than they had before. We know more and our customers have more information. It is, as they say, a win-win situation.

Step III: Understand information used 

 143

This attitude/belief/work culture flies in the face of some of our most widely held beliefs. For example, “knowledge is power” and indeed knowledge can be very powerful. Knowledge is more powerful if it is shared in the collaborative process. The more it is shared, the more powerful it becomes. The work products of knowledge workers should be stored and developed in such a way that the customers of the community can immediately access them. This means that the owner/creator is the keeper of information. Knowledge gains value by sharing. In fact, just knowing who uses the product of our knowledge work enhances our work – that is the essence of practice/praxis. As sharing becomes a part of work culture, the assumptions, beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes that encompass and inform work change. The culture itself changes. With the new set of attitudes, the work culture transformation process is underway.

Step III: Understand information used (or needed) to do the work and make it immediately accessible to you and your colleagues In Step II we identified our products that result from our work. These products and services are information for other people to do their work. Once we make these products accessible to those who need them to do their work, we need to determine what information we need from others to do our work. Identifying and locating the information we need to do our work is the third step in the transformation process. Just as we make our information available to others, so we need to seek to make the information others own that we need for our work immediately accessible to us. Getting immediate access to information can often be as difficult as making information you have accessible to others. In the industrial work place you do not control the raw material you need to do your works. The parts arrive at your work place. Control rests in management. Knowledge managers play a role in facilitating acquiring information just as they do in making information accessible. For information service professionals, such as librarians, archivists, and records managers, acquiring information is already an important part of their work. Establishing links between those who actually need the information and the information professionals is an essential part of turning information professionals into knowledge managers. Each core business activity has associated information domains. The domains may intersect, overlap, and relate to several communities. The informa-

144 

 Chapter 9: The Practice of Transformation: Three Practical Steps

tion domains used in doing work are often kept in some kind of structured form such as databases of information or collections of material. Identifying which of this information is relevant, and making the connection to the task at hand, is the essence of work within a community. A list of information domains will include some that are very important and some that are used only once in a while. Part of identifying information domains is determining who owns each domain; i.e. who knows what they are doing, and how that information is stored or made available. Some information is tacit and must be made explicit in the process of doing knowledge work. As a part of the process of identifying information that is needed to do the work of the organization, the source and “containers” of that information are also identified. The “Who has it?”, “Where is it?”, and “How can I get it?” questions are asked and answered. Information is organized data which may be contained in documents, databases, reports, or someone’s head. Just as a community of knowledge workers makes knowledge that is information for others, so information is needed to make the knowledge of that community. There may be several related information domains that are accessed in the process of doing knowledge work. In a digital world where communities of practice define the information, each community can access several information domains. In the course of doing work, however, only a few information domains will be regularly consulted. The transformation requires an organization to support the changes in the work culture that allow for optimum knowledge work by: – Adopting policies, procedures and reward structures that encourage collaboration; – Supporting and building communities of practice; – Making the person who creates knowledge responsible for keeping it accurate and up-to-date; – Replacing with access to information.

A Work in Progress Going through these three steps – understanding work, identifying information we create, and identifying information we need – is not a one-time activity. It is the work of the knowledge manager who knows how to recognize, organize, and retrieve information. It is an integral part of the reengineering activities of the organizations. Many organizations are already actively engaged in reengineering and restructuring their work place in order to optimize the technical (cyber)

A Work in Progress 

 145

environment. The uneven development of technology will continue both within organizations and among organizations. That does not mean, however, that the work culture transformation cannot begin until an integrated digital environment is fully created. Neither does it mean that the process of creating an integrated digital environment must await the establishment of a new work culture. Work culture transformation and creating a new technical and working environment go hand-in-hand. They support and enable each other. An important part of the on-going activity of the knowledge manager is to formalize the information strategies of the communities with which he or she works. An information strategy is a process, not an event – a continuing process of setting and resetting direction. An information strategy is done by knowledge managers, business managers, and technologists. It focuses on: – Information content; – Common information; – What information should be common; – How we define common terms; – How we share information; – Information processes; – Information understood in the context of process. There is no single road map, but we can have: 1. A set of directions on how to get from one place to another. 2. A suggestion of where you are within a bigger context. 3. An indication of how you might get from one place to another. In this case, a road map is a strategy to go from one way of doing work (as if we were in a paper environment) to doing work in an integrated digital environment. Transforming a work culture is not a pilot project, at least not in the sense that term is normally understood. You cannot “try out” culture change in one place and then replicate it in others, because the very act of “trying out” changes the situation unalterably. You cannot pick change up and move it to somewhere else, for change comes out of a community with a history and a tradition and becomes embedded in the norms of the community. Neither can you reverse the process once it has started. You can alter it. You can influence it. Change only goes in one direction – forward. We can learn from others, and from ourselves, and make work culture transformation a part of our work. In the end, however, work culture transformation is often something that happens to us. In fact, it is often forced upon us by cataclys-

146 

 Chapter 9: The Practice of Transformation: Three Practical Steps

mic events. We can embrace that “happening” or try to ignore it or resist it. The happening will happen nevertheless. Neither is it completed “once and for all”. The transformation continues as new sources of information are found and new uses for the knowledge produced come forward. The transformed work culture is itself open to change and transformation.

Chapter 10: One Society at a Time Transforming a work culture is about changing one person at a time. It is also about changing the way work is done in a society. Knowledge work is replacing menial labor in our society, but that does not mean that every ditch-digger immediately becomes a knowledge worker nor every sales clerk becomes customer and community focused. It also does not mean that every manager suddenly starts to lead and not direct. For that reason, every individual and every society is faced with the question: How do I respond to this new kind of work? How do I change my assumptions. Assumptions are the hardest things of all to change. There are people who know how to bring about cultural change, and farreaching ones at that. They are not generally those who specialize in “change management”, which focuses on incremental and predictable change within an organization and a culture. Culture transformation is not a change that can be managed. It can, however, be welcomed or resisted. Transformation is often a response to cataclysmic events. Events such as the destruction of the Japanese infrastructure and society after their defeat in World War II. The Open Door Policy in China began, not with a central directive for the entire nation, but with the establishment of Special Economic Zones. It was also in direct response to a decade-long debacle of the Cultural Revolution, which left the economy dormant and the people physically and emotional drained – China was in dire need of systemic change. (WBI Development Studies 2010, 9)

These zones were geographically limited and were intended to be a test bed for the introduction of a market economy. This model of development contrasted sharply with that inherited from the Soviet model of centralized development. China launched its Open Door reforms in 1978 as a social experiment – one that was designed to test the efficacy of market-oriented economic reforms in a controlled environment. Not knowing what to expect from the reforms, Chinese authorities decided not to open the entire economy all at once but just certain segments: in Deng Xiaoping’s words, “crossing the river by touching the stones”... Such an approach was a sharp departure from the country’s then totally centrally planned economy. (WBI Development Studies 2010, 8)

So, even though we may at times take the language of myth or tale, or the language of politics, we are dealing with the nitty and the gritty of life, “What do I do when I get up in the morning?”. Transformation comes in response to real

148 

 Chapter 10: One Society at a Time

problems and real opportunities. It can happen one person at a time and it can happen one society at a time. We used to say, “I will go to work” unless we were on holiday and had made it through another work week to the week-end. If work is no longer something that we “go to”, then our daily lives will become much different. For many, this transformation is already underway. Men and women in all walks of life, of all ages, and in all countries, know they think for a living and are embracing the new way of life. They are accepting the call to adventure. Making a cultural change is more like “accepting a call” than it is “deciding to change”. It is more like understanding that the world we live in is not under our total control and yet it is one that we can influence. We can, indeed, make a difference. For knowledge work is about change. It is the transformation of information into knowledge. The work of culture change is a special kind of knowledge work. It is something that we can set out to do, even though we may not know the outcome when we start. The environment required to do the work of changing a culture is the same environment that is needed to do all knowledge work. It requires trust. It requires courage. Creating a new work culture that enables and enhances knowledge work requires substantial transformation in the work culture and human behavior. Workers need to embrace an ownership culture and learn to work in collaborative environments. They need to learn to value the products of their work, not the amount of time they put in. Workers will need to learn to assume responsibility for their work and to work with colleagues, both near and far, in both physical and virtual worlds. They will need to be innovative. These transformation must, indeed, be done one person at a time. They also require leadership.

Revolutionizing the Nature of Work Many nations and societies recognize the need to provide leadership in order to develop a new environment for productive work. Workers need to be trained and educated and life-long learning institutions need to be established to train and educate workers who can make innovation the essential characteristic of their work. Many societies face a relatively new phenomenon: a large number of highly educated and highly trained people who are either unemployed or underemployed. One nation in particular, China, is moving in a systematic way to dramatically revolutionize the nature of the work force. Although China is not alone

Revolutionizing the Nature of Work 

 149

in emphasizing the importance of encourages innovation and creating a new workforce, they have gone the furthest in establishing work transformation as a national priority and applying resources to achieve that transformation. This transition is recognized by many. Alvin and Heidi Toffler described the transformation as follows: So long as Mao Zedong was alive, China’s economy was divided in two. One part was the rural China of desperately poor peasants. The other was the urban China of smokestacks and assembly lines. What Mao’s successors have done is add a fast-growing knowledgebased sector. Unlike the bisected China of the past, China is now trisected. (Toffler2006, 325)

The program developed to lead the Chinese nation to its next stage is based on what is called “Marxism with Chinese characteristics”. Marxism has played and is playing an important role in its development. An unfortunate term, dialectical materialism, came to embody the popular understanding of what Marxism means, both in China and the West. In the Soviet Union, under the leadership of Stalin, Marxism was turned into a crude and dogmatic set of prescription called dialectical materialism. After World War II, when the Soviet Union dominated many neighboring countries through political force, dialectical materialism, along with the textbooks that codified it, was exported to other countries as the correct (and only) interpretation of Marxism. When the Communist Party of China succeeded in liberating China from foreign colonial domination, they were faced with a monumental task of taking a backward country under the physical threat of war coming at them from nearly ever direction. They were also faced with developing a society and an economy that had been ransacked by Japanese occupation and a bitter civil war. The liberation of China was achieved in the face of hostile forces with only lukewarm support or open opposition from the Soviet Union The initial assistance from the USSR lasted only a few years. However, the soviet understanding of dialectical materialism was popularized. Various text books were translated from the Soviet Union and served as the basis for the broad education of the population into Marxism. Mao Zedong, the leader of the Chinese party, focused primarily on military theory and a series of massive projects to industrialize the economy. The general interpretation of Marxism was taken from the narrow and dogmatic Soviet version. After Mao’s death, under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping, the Party developed policies based on openness and harmony. The economy and the culture were opened up and technologies and capital flowed into the country. A market economy was introduced, which had been anathema to the Soviet Union. Unlike Russia and the nations which were once associated with or dominated by the

150 

 Chapter 10: One Society at a Time

Soviet Union, the Chinese continued to look to Marxism for the theoretical basis of its society. The Party continued to use the Soviet model, but began a serious re-evaluation of dialectical materialism as an adequate and correct understanding of Marxism. As part of the opening up process, the Party finished the formidable task of creating authoritative texts of the works of Marx, a process that began in the 1920’s in the Soviet Union, that was halted as Stalin consolidated his power. The importance of this scholarly work for the development of the Chinese society cannot be underestimated, for it opened up a view of Marxism based on the actual works of Marx and not on the textbooks imported from the Soviet Union. In addition, the Party, through its Central Compilation and Translation Bureau, is reaching back into the history of Marxism and translating theoretical works by Marxists that had been suppressed or ignored in the Soviet Union. The opening up of philosophical and theoretical discussion with Marxists and other philosophers is an important part of the development of Chinese society. The scholarly work on Marx is paying dividends in the Chinese understanding of Marxism. They invited a large number of Marxists of many varieties from around the world who had been ignored or repressed by the Soviet Union to participate in their re-evaluation of Marxism. Like so many other things, the interpretation of Marxism is very much in flux in China. The re-evaluation of Marx is based on a growing understanding of the works of Marx and the rich and broad tradition of Marxism that extends far beyond the rigid dogmatism of the official dialectical materialism. The astounding development of the economy and culture of China in the last generation is, as a Marxist would say, not “an accident”. It is based on using the methodologies of Marx and Marxists to focus on developing a modern and rapidly improving society. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and its rejection of dialectical materialism, many in the West rejoiced in the ending of what they called a failed ideology. But the ideology that failed was the Soviet model of dialectical materialism, not Marxism. Marxism is alive and well in China and Marxism focuses on the nature of work and the various historical forms of work. Understanding, the essence of Marxism is to look at society and culture from the viewpoint of how, to use Marx’s terms, men and women transform nature and nature transforms women and men. This dialectical process underlies the scientific methodologies and views science as broad enterprises that encompasses an understanding of nature and society. The Chinese development of Marxism seems odd to many Westerners. When they see the development of a robust market economy, encouraging foreign capital and investment, the promotion of entrepreneurship with a rapidly rising

Revolutionizing the Nature of Work 

 151

standard of living, many want to assume that the Chinese have seen the light and become a capitalist society. That is not the case.

Hu Jiantao Marxism with Chinese Characteristics Hu Jiantao, the Chairman of the Communist Party and the President of China, laid out the theoretical basis for the transformation to the new society in a speech on the ninetieth anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party on July 1, 2011. The Party should free up the mind, seek truth from facts, advance with the times, take a scientific approach toward Marxism, use Marxism as an evolving theory to guide practice in new realities, uphold truth, correct mistakes, blaze new trails, and maintain the motivation that enables the Party to forge ahead in a pioneering spirit... We must continue to free up our minds, seek truth from facts, advance with the times, adapt Marxism both to China’s conditions and to the current times, and make it known to the general public. President Hu echoes the concepts presented in this book and emphasizes that Marxism must be constantly enriched and developed as practice changes, and we never take Marxism as an empty, rigid, and stereotyped dogma... Any actions that stick to dogma, ignore practice, or overstep or lag behind real life will not succeed. We made mistakes and even suffered severe setbacks in some historical periods... We must never forget these experiences and lessons. The development of practice, cognition of the truth, and innovation of theories know no boundary... The path of socialism with Chinese characteristics... will certainly open up broad prospects for theoretical innovation... We should … create new theories with the focus on major issues concerning economic and social development.19

Over the past decade, The World Bank and similar organizations issued reports on Finland, China, India, and Japan giving specific recommendations on how a society can build a knowledge economy. In the forward to one of its early reports (on Korea), a knowledge-based economy is defined as one where knowledge is created, acquired, transmitted and used effectively by enterprises, organizations, individuals and communities. It does not focus narrowly on high-technology industries or on information and communications technologies, but rather presents a framework for analyzing a range of policy options in education, information infrastructure

19 The English translation of the text of his speech is available at: http://news.xinhuanet.com/ english2010/china/2011-07/01/c_13960505.htm.

152 

 Chapter 10: One Society at a Time

and innovation systems that can help usher in the knowledge economy. (WBI Development Studies 2000, 3)

In 2001, at the request of the Chinese government, the World Bank Institute issued a study on China and the Knowledge Economy: Seizing the 21st Century. (WBI Development Studies 2007) The report laid out a plan for China to catch up with advanced countries and go on to build the foundations for the knowledge economy. It emphasized the importance of investing in human capital, building the information infrastructure, raising the technological level of the economy, diffusing technology throughout the economy, improving the research and development system, and exploiting global knowledge. In 2007 in the preface to another study which focused on developing lifelong learning in China, a vice-mister of China endorsed the earlier study, and laid out the many challenges facing China. He concluded: Given the many daunting challenges that China faces in leveraging its human resources, I believe the analysis, examples, and suggestions offered in this report provide a very useful framework and sound guidance for building an effective life-long learning system for China in the 21st century. (WBI Development Studies 2007, xvii)

In the Twelfth Five-Year plan adopted in 2011 by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, creating an innovation country was made a national priority and the transformation was laid out: Scientific progress and innovation will support the transformation. Through comprehensively implementing the strategy of rejuvenating our country through science and education and talents, we will give full play to the role of science and human resources. China should upgrade its capabilities in indigenous research and innovation in science, technology and administration, train more innovative talents and improve education for workers. In a word, we will strive to speed up the construction of an innovation country.

The current plan builds on important Chinese traditions and policies, which were described by one American consultant to major business firms as follows: Leaders in China seem to see innovation as a solution to many issues. Importantly, the current innovation drive builds on a history in modern China of valuing scientific and technical development. Deng Xiaoping, for instance, initiated a bold drive to advance China’s technology sector with his ‘863 Program’. Since 1986 (863 stands for March 1986–86/3), Beijing has funneled billions in 863 funds to hundreds of projects, some of which are starting to pay off. Similarly, China’s ‘Informatization’ strategy, articulated under President Jiang Zemin, defined a key role for technology in accelerating national development. The Five Year Plan is the central planning document for China’s government, laying out key objec-

One Transformation Among Many 

 153

tives by which success will be measured five years hence. Authorized by the State Council (highest organ of Government) and drafted by the National Development & Reform Commission guides all Ministries and agencies in ongoing work.20

One Transformation Among Many The transformation to a knowledge economy is just one of many transformation happening in China that are identified in the plan. It is clearly the center piece for its education, scientific, and investment policies. The transformation is taking place in a society where industrialization has proceeded and is proceeding dramatically, where there are massive movement of populations into urban areas, where a market economy, which was unknown two decades ago, is now becoming fully developed. The process of introducing market forces into the economy is still underway, with the dramatic increase in the use of information technologies in all areas of life. Each of these transformations has immense impact on the kind of society that China is developing. They have achieved a dramatic growth in per capita national income and a robust accumulation of capital that can be used for further development. What began as a social experiment, in the best sense of that term, resulted in a dramatic transformation of China into a major industrial society. The Plan identifies several difficulties with their current situation, which they call “non-sustainable elements” including: – resource allocation and environmental problems, – an imbalance between investment and consumption, – a large disparity in incomes, – a lack of technological innovation, – an “unreasonable” industrial structure, – significant problems in agricultural development, – a gap between rural and urban development, – pressure to maintain full employment, – an increase in social conflicts, and – institutional obstacles that restrain scientific development.

20 Rebecca Weiner writing in a 2006 report for the perception management firm BursonMarsteller. Ms. Weiner and the author have had discussions over the years on the issues covered in this book. She lived and worked in China for many years and served as a consultant to numerous multi-national firms who do business in China. The conclusions are those of the author.

154 

 Chapter 10: One Society at a Time

Each of these problems itself is enough to make a transformation to knowledge work difficult. The fact that they are recognized up-front gives us some hope that the ambitious plans for work transformation may succeed in China. Innovation plays a fundamental role in addressing all of these issues and is not limited to promoting economic growth. The creation of an innovation society can be as momentous as the development China as a major industrial and political world power.

Learning from the Chinese Experience The Chinese experience is particularly instructive because the developments in that society are being carried out within the Marxist tradition. The exact character of Marxism with Chinese characteristics will be determined by the Chinese. However, what we can learn from them is that a society can, indeed, set about to transform its work. This transformation will take many different forms in different societies depending on their historical and political situation. But the societies that recognize the importance of knowledge work and innovation will be the ones to create an efficient and effective work force. The Chinese are well on their way to implement these programs and past experience indicates that when, as a society, they focus on a particular development they can be remarkably successful. They will be able to continue to develop both a theory and practice fitting to the Knowledge Age.

Some Specific Suggestions Some of the specific things which any society can do to achieve this transformation include: 1. Develop an ownership culture in which workers embrace their role in the places where they work. Various forms of ownership can bring about such a culture. The important point is that those who perform work know and understand the work that they do prosper as the place where they work succeeds. 2. Encourage the development of virtual and physical communities around work. Recognize that most people will be members of several communities – they may be making cars, but are also engineers or assembly people. Fostering communities and enabling information exchange among communities will provide the technological structure needed for knowledge work.

Some Specific Suggestions 

 155

3.

Pay for the value of the products of labor, not the amount of time put into work. Since work is, by its very nature, social and collaborative in nature the value of labor is communally determined. A market enables the exchange of the products of labor and it determines its value. 4. Require that work products are clearly defined and establish ways to prevent abuse in the work place. 5. Assure that workers are paid properly for they work they do and participate in the successes of the work place. 6. Resolve conflicts about pay and working conditions using mediation and arbitration rather than individual or collective bargaining based on antagonistic relationships. 7. Minimize the role of managers, supervisors, foreman and their counterparts in the unions, where they exist, and eliminate pay differentials for managers, supervisors, and foremen. Make work as lean as possible and rotate managerial tasks. These are practical suggestions that are being put into place in many societies and many communities. These are some of the steps that can be taken to make work joyful and productive.

Epilogue: Work Becomes Play Tom said to himself that it was not such a hollow world after all... If he had been a great and wise philosopher, like the writer of this book, he would now have comprehended that Work consists of whatever a body is obliged to do and that Play consists of whatever a body is not obliged to do. (Mark Twain. The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. Chapter II: “The Glorious Whitewasher”.) But how is it that some people enjoy spending a great deal of time in my company... It is because they enjoy hearing me examine those who think that they are wise when they are not – an experience which has its amusing side. (Socrates, Apology, 19c)

At the front of this book we put the above quotations from Mark Twain speaking through Tom Sawyer and Plato speaking through Socrates. These two observers of human life captured the essence of work and knowledge. For both of them, the kind of work we call knowledge work is fun, something we are not obliged to do. As we turn our attention to how we create this new environment, assuming that is what we want to do, we need to keep the thoughts of Mark Twain and Plato in mind. The outlines are emerging of what that life might be like when we accept and promote knowledge work. Decisions need to be made by many people, both leaders and followers, to promote a playful environment appropriate for knowledge work. These decisions are the essence of what makes up the work culture, the rules that govern the communities in which we live and work. The drive to a new culture comes from new tools we use to do our work – tools that enable us to manage, transmit, and share information. It enables us to free our work from a particular space and (often) a particular time. Playing is at the heart of knowledge work. Creativity and play often merge, and the emergence of knowledge work means that we are faced with a nice new problem, how do we free people to play? To take risks, to create new toys, to put together things in unique new ways, to make up rules as they go along, to be inventive? How do they accept the call to a new way of work? So we come back to Socrates, the Hemlock Drinker. Knowledge workers need to adopt the attitude of questioning that he displayed in both his theory and practice. He described himself as a stinging fly. Human beings as works in process are animated by dreams of a better life, and by utopian longings for fulfillment. The German philosopher Ernst Bloch, describes this as the principle of hope and examines how daydreams, fairy tales, myths, popular culture, literature, theater, and all forms of art, political and social, utopias, philosophy and religion contain what he calls “emancipatory

Epilogue: Work Becomes Play 

 157

moments” that project visions of a better life. Bloch closes his monumental three volume that explores the principle of hope with on the following hopeful note: True genesis is not at the beginning, but at the end, and it starts to begin only when society and existence become radical, i.e. grasp their roots. But the root of history is the working, creating human being who reshapes and overhauls the given facts. Once he has grasped himself and established what is his, without expropriation and alienation, in real democracy, there arises in the world something which shines into the childhood of all and in which no one has yet been: homeland. (Bloch III, 1375–76)

The German word for “homeland” is “Heimat” – a term full of meaning that extends far beyond a physical place. Homeland (Heimat) is closely related to the German word for community (Gemeinwesen) and embodies the full richness of the term community of practice used by knowledge management. A community is not the beginning of a process, it is the end of people working together to create a homeland where they can freely develop and be creative. Is it any wonder that in a culture in which people spend 40–60 hours of a week trying to figure out how to make work less onerous, that many of the dreams for a better life revolve around ways to get out of work, not how to transform that work? Much of our hope for a better life includes the hope that our work can be filled with meaning and reward. That it can be “elevated work,” work that makes a difference, work that at the end passes the “so what?” test. Work that lets us answer with pride the “What will you do with your one UN-replaceable life time?” question. Thinking for a living seems to be a desirable goal for many as it holds the possibility of replacing a life of drudgery with one of creativity. When we bring our full one-pointed focus onto our work, make meditation of it, we re-enter the child-like state of play. When we bring our creativity and the power of our imagination to bear on a work problem, we again enter the childhood realm of play.

What about Knowledge Management? We started our discussion with a description of knowledge management. In light of what we have said, what is the role of knowledge managers? Knowledge management will, no doubt, continue to be of interest to a number of different professions. Information professionals (librarians, archivists, and records managers) will play a role in making information available. Their role will be even more vital as information is no longer in containers, such as books, articles, or documents, but reside in communities, some of which exist for only a

158 

 Epilogue: Work Becomes Play

short period of time. These professionals can play a traditional role – to identify, store, and make available information for future users. Technologists are just beginning to find ways to mine the vast amount of information in digital form and making it available for purposes quite different from those envisioned by the creator of information. Existing and new ways to formulate searches so that users will get what they need and now just what they want are becoming a part of our every-day lives. Business theory and practice already largely adopts the principles of knowledge management and already recognizes that fundamental changes are necessary in the ways businesses, organizations, and governments are necessary in order to make knowledge creation more effective. Many questions need to be answered – and many more will be raised. In the meantime, individuals and societies need to answer the call to make work more like play. Play is the way children prepare to enter the adult world. It is the serious work of childhood. Children try on roles, they learn the rules of games that help them to gain mastery, they practice skills, and they invent worlds and enter them whole-heatedly. They know with the openness of a childhood mind that they are not the “ones who know”, not yet. They are still open. Their cup is not so full it can hold no more. As we enter a new Age of Knowledge, what better quality could we hope to bring to it? For in the end – and at the beginning – life is about work – and work is about play. Tom Sawyer and Socrates got it right.

Terry Balven

Appendix The Air Force Project: From Computers and Wires to a Culture Change Terry Balven provides the context out of which many of the conclusions presented in this book were developed – a multilayer project to create an integrated digital environment for the Air Force, which concluded that a transformation in work culture from an information hoarding to an information-sharing work culture is required to take full advantage of digital tools. Terry Balven was the Air Force Colonel in charge of the project. Ken Megill led the contractor team assigned to develop the project. When Al Gore was Vice-President of the United States (1993–2001), he played a major role as a proponent and sponsor of what was called “re-inventing government”. One of the thrusts involved taking full advantage of technology to improve business practices within the government. This particular theme was broadly embraced and resulted in a large number of initiatives that focused on the application of information technology in a variety of ways to “streamline” government operations. Within the Department of Defense this manifested itself in a number of Defense Reform Initiatives built on a theme of moving to “digital” or “paper-free” processes. For their part, the acquisition community stepped up to this by deciding to build an integrated digital environment within which to manage the acquisition and sustainment of weapons, weapon systems, and equipment. At the level of a one paragraph description, the concept was clearly attractive though difficult to crisply define and impossible to create in anything like the term of a single administration. While well intentioned, the resulting work constituted an array of essentially non-coordinated activities, each of which could produce automated systems or tools, many of which could produce improvements in performance of a process or activity, and few of which would contribute to the integration of the business environment. Like many such initiatives, the proposal called for new actions beyond the scope of things currently being done by anyone in the existing organization. This was not simply a matter of doing more of what was currently being done (though much current activity was targeted at the same or related purposes). So, while the appropriate response to the proposal was debated, staffed, and fleshed out by

160 

 Appendix: The Air Force Project

government people at many levels, doing the new work would mean contractors hired to do that job. Of course, such initiatives are always accompanied by pressure to demonstrate progress and results. That pressure is felt by people executing projects, but also by people in the chain of command between those executors and the senior leadership with grand expectations. One result of this pressure is the tendency to define and measure success in terms of things that can be built or bought and that can be scheduled and counted. While abstract purposes must always be converted into an understanding of what has to really be done to produce the desired capability, that conversion sometimes is not followed up by an assessment of whether the delivered things actually deliver the initially envisioned capability – an assessment that’s often more qualitative than quantitative.

How it came about The National Performance Review (NPR) proposed numerous initiatives on the use of technology to improve business practices. The approach built on the business process reengineering (BPR) movement that played an important part in industry and government in the early nineties. In the Department of Defense, the NPR direction took the form of Defense Reform Initiatives (DRIs), many focused on moving to paper-free processes. In acquisition, this took the form of Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) direction to the Service Acquisition Executives to create an integrated digital environment. The focus of that direction was on individual program management offices (PMOs) or system program offices (SPOs – the term used by the Air Force for the organizations responsible for the management of a weapon system or a group of related programs). The direction was passed to the various Services, each with its own tradition and its own way of solving problems. The Army took the initiative as an opportunity to advocate for some substantial increases in funding for automation and advances in computerization. Within the Army, automation had proceeded at a slower pace. The Army was in the process of redefining itself and its future vision in terms of the digital battlefield, and the emphasis in the project was on the digitization in the “integrated digital environment”. The Navy, in its tradition, took the initiative as an opportunity to promote and develop a single, service-wide network. The thrust was on integration and controlling, from a central location, the flow of information and work. The Navy has long had to deal with far-flung operations executed by people needing to make

How it came about 

 161

decisions well within the cycle time of communications with higher headquarters. The Navy’s counterpart to the Air Force image of the pilot (skilled, goodlooking, and cocky) is the image of the ship’s captain who is weeks sailing time away from his chain of command and needing to respond to the serious implications of a local incident. As technology makes better support to those people possible, we want to take advantage of it. The Air Force, in keeping with its culture and tradition, emphasized the environmental aspects of the integrated digital environment. The work of the Air Force focuses on the people (stereotypically the pilot, but by extension every person on the team that operates or maintains a complex weapon system, such as an airplane). The importance of the person in the work is never doubted, within the Air Force tradition, despite those who claim that drones and rockets can replace a plane piloted by a skilled and trained professional. (The Air Force objection is less that drones aren’t useful, but the concept seems to ignore the human element of making a drone available and productive.) Several people have commented that they are surprised that the military would undertake such changes at all. The thinking is that the military’s rigid, hierarchical approach is at odds with even thinking about such a new environment. The military has recognized for centuries the chaos and unpredictability within military operations (the fog and friction of war). The structure that it puts in place is an attempt to minimize those effects to the degree possible. The right balance between rigor and flexibility better equips the organization and the individuals for the challenge. The individual platoon leader must make his own decisions, but will have a context within which he can judge his position and the likely actions of other platoon leaders also making their own decisions. When viewed in isolation (as in peacetime) the military structure can seem overly rigid. While that is an understandable misconception, the fact is that military people are bright, flexible, and innovative and see the need for constant adaptation. The work of the Air Force has been digital for half a century. The Integrated Digital Environment Project was directed from the highest levels of the Acquisition and Sustainment part of headquarters. (In this context, sustainment is defined as the management of a weapon system that has been introduced into service. This is distinct from the management of the wholesale logistics processes that provide a supply system and depot maintenance capabilities, and from the operational logistics associated with the operation and maintenance of those weapon systems. In other words, it’s the part the “System Program Office (SPO)” plays in the set of processes required to support the operational Air Force.) In the mid 1990s the office in charge of the project (SAF/AQ) manages a $25 billion dollar budget each year that focuses on developing and producing weapon systems. It is also responsible for the systems engineering and manage-

162 

 Appendix: The Air Force Project

ment of those weapon systems for which the logistics community spends another $20 billion on maintenance and supply requirements. This activity includes contracting and financial activities to manage Air Force weapon systems as well as testing facilities, engineering enterprises, and the largest research and development laboratories in the world, Though acquisition and logistics remain separate functions at Headquarters Air Force, system development and wholesale logistics were integrated into a single major command in the early 1990s. Within Air Force Materiel Command, the leadership of acquisition and sustainment activities has been aligned. In the Air Force, there is a firm commitment, still being worked out in practice, to see and implement development and sustainment as part of a single, coherent activity. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Air Force part of the IDE project focused on the environment. The basic premise of the Air Force response to the original “Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)” direction was that the integration of SPO and contractor digital systems for individual program would not constitute the creation of an integrated digital environment. The Air Force argued that the real goal is not digital operations. The real goal is increased effectiveness and efficiency in the acquisition and sustainment community, reflected in 1. better informed decision making, 2. reduced cycle times, and 3. increased productivity. Unlike the other services, the Air Force contractors charged with developing the project were not from within the service. They came with a fresh perspective which often challenged many of the assumptions – although the leadership of the team from within the Air Force was, throughout the project, in the hands of an experienced professional rooted in the world of logistics who was familiar with the intricate decision-making procedures of the Pentagon. The project went through four distinct phases: – Phase 1: 1998 – Identification of the problem and development of a strategy. The team, through a wide-ranging discussion with a large number of participants, defined an integrated digital environment as one in which information needed to do work is immediately accessible. From the beginning, the team emphasized that creating an integrated digital environment is not about wires and computers, but about how work is done. – Phase 2: 1999 – Identification of offices where local initiatives to establish an integrated digital environment were underway. Small teams visited a number of selected “System Program Offices (SPOs)” to identify how information sharing, process integration, and communication were being accomplished. (The approximately 100 SPOs effectively constitute individual “businesses”,

How it came about 

–

–

 163

each headed by a Colonel [a few Generals head the most significant programs] with the authority to manage a business of anywhere from 50 to 500 employees with an annual budget in the hundreds of millions of dollars [but perhaps as much as $3 or 4 billion].) The team found that, almost without exception, those involved in leading edge automation projects identified the cultural impediments as their greatest hindrance to achieving an integrated digital environment. The team encouraged the development of innovation centers and called them together for a symposium in Seattle, Washington in September 2000. As a result of the work done during this phase, the team identified three principles of an integrated digital environment: 1. The owner/creator of information is its keeper, 2. Reporting replaces access, and 3. Essential evidence is preserved for re-use in the organization. Phase 3: 2000 – Introduction of principles. The three principles were introduced, with varying success, and tested in innovation centers. The most successful principle, replacing reporting with access, was particularly welcomed. This principle flies directly in the face the of the traditional working relationships of an hierarchically organized military – where information is fed up through a chain of command through reports, generally in the form of briefings, to increasingly higher levels. The leadership makes decisions on the basis of information contained in these reports. A number of different offices embraced the principle that immediate access to information should replace reporting and that the leadership should be able to “look over the shoulder” of those doing the work in order to get the most up-to-date information that is available. The other two principles were also, in varying ways, carried out. Phase 4: 2001 – The project concluded with the establishment of a Work Culture Transformation Board formally established by the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force to “make use of the knowledge and experience gained by the Air Force integrated digital project as applied to the acquisition and sustainment community.” The envisioned transformation of work and work culture will require: 1. changes in business processes, 2. investments in information technology as enablers, and 3. a different mental model about how work is done.

While all these are essential components, the culture change was recognized as the most difficult part – and the one deserving the most attention. This is, in part,

164 

 Appendix: The Air Force Project

because it is the least likely to be properly addressed (if at all, as most projects move quickly to process redesign and tool development).

Andy Nodine

The Role of Leadership It is perhaps not surprising that a discussion of the role of leadership in cultural change occupied a great deal of time and energy in a project for the Air Force. Military organizations rely on leadership to bring about change. They are structured to achieve specific goals when called upon. As one observer said, the work of the military is to wait and be prepared. Once called upon, leadership is needed to mobilize and move people. A view of leadership is contained in a paper written by one of the participants in the project Colonel (ret) Andy Nodine shared his views on how a cultural change comes about in the following piece that he wrote as a participant in a symposium as a part of the project. My basic premise is that you can’t build a plan in the conventional sense (i.e., a progression of tasks and milestones with dates connected to them) for cultural change. And my concern … and motivation for writing this piece … is that, if we go into this conference thinking that this is our objective and believing that it is achievable, all we are going to wind up with is frustration. Here is my rationale: Let me begin by positing a definition for the term “culture”. I would suggest that culture is the corporate behavior pattern that emerges among a population based on the decisions made independently and autonomously by the individual members of that population about how they choose to behave. I would further suggest that these individuals generally make their decisions about how they are going to behave based on certain widely accepted norms of behavior and conceptions of self interest, which can often be identified and defined as the essence of the culture. If we accept this definition, then it should be obvious on the surface that you can’t change culture using any process based on central control or hierarchical authority. There is no one individual or even collection of individuals within our system who have enough control or authority over enough of the population to mandate cultural change. And if you can’t mandate cultural change, it is pointless to try to build a plan in the conventional sense for doing so. That said, then how are we to approach the challenge of bringing about the cultural change needed to make IDE an accepted norm of behavior? I would suggest that we need to approach this challenge by attacking and redefining the accepted norms of behavior that define the culture we have today. As we consider how to achieve this end, it will be useful to consider that bringing about the cultural acceptance of IDE is a bit like religious evangelism. You can’t mandate that people believe in God. The Spaniards attempted this once upon a time, and even under the threat of torture and death, they failed to render their population uniformly Christian. The decision to become a Christian is made only by individual people as they choose to accept the tenets of this faith. But once an individual has become a Christian, they generally comply with the set of behavioral norms expressed in the Bible. Accordingly, the only way to make Christian behavioral norms the norms of the society as a whole is to individually convert each soul in the population.

How it came about 

 165

In other words, the way to bring about the cultural change needed to make IDE the generally accepted way of doing business in the Air Force is for each individual in that population to make a decision to act in accordance with the norms which define the IDE culture. And if that is the case, then I would further suggest that the best possible outcome of this conference would be a consensus among all of the attendees concerning a new set of behavioral norms. A second outcome would be a commitment from each of them to behave in accordance with those norms and to influence all those within their spheres to do likewise. Of course, it would also make sense for us to do what we can to create incentives for ourselves and everyone else in the population of concern to behave as we would like them to. Accordingly, I would suggest that our specific purposes at this conference should be to: Define the attributes an DIE-based culture should exhibit, Define the behavioral norms which, when complied with by the members of the population, will bring about that culture, Obtain a commitment from each conference participant to behave in accordance with those norms and to influence those around them to “Go and do likewise”, and finally, where possible, create incentives for ourselves, and those around us, to choose to behave in the desired manner. It is my hope that this view of our challenge will enable us to define useful and achievable goals and to make real progress toward their accomplishment. As fuzzy as this approach may seem, I really do believe that this is the most direct route feasible toward bringing about the cultural change that is our ultimate objective.

With the creation of the Board, the external project team withdrew its participation. Since that time, despite the increasing strains that come from more active war fighting, the commitment to work culture transformation remains. A change in administration came in 2001 with an increased emphasis on transformation. The integrated digital environment proposal was started under the Clinton administration, but it dovetailed with many of the sentiments of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. In his confirmation hearings he emphasized, “The legacy of obsolete institutional structures and processes and organizations does not merely create unnecessary cost. We are in a sense disarming or ‘under-arming’ by our failure to reform the acquisition process and to shed unneeded organization and facilities.” Two points deserve to be emphasized. First, we can’t directly change culture, but we can change behavior. We need to focus on desired behaviors and work to have people behave in that way – finding ways to encourage, facilitate, and incite the change. Only after behavior changes will people begin to internalize an adjusted set of values (the unwritten rules) that would ultimately be recognized as culture change. Second, good citizenship requires not just service, but leadership. While we all recognize the importance of the people we think of as great leaders, we are often content with “following” and “doing our part”. But that’s not enough – change can’t happen without leadership. We all need to provide leadership, it’s part of our responsibility to each other for the environment within which we live and work.

Afterword A decade has passed since the first edition of this book was written. It is legitimate to ask why another edition is in order. Many believe that the world is changing so rapidly that anything ten years old must be out-of-date and irrelevant. This is particularly true, so many think, about books such as this one that rely on the state of automation and technology. The basic technologies that now underlie the information professions, such as library science, records management, and archival management, were in place ten years ago. In the past decade, these technologies became the norm and not the exception. The growth of social media, which enables the replacement of many work processes that were developed when the printed page was the primary technology to record, preserve, and access information, is the latest manifestation of technologies that enable new ways to do work. We are seeing the development of a digital environment for our work. The integrated digital environment discussed in this book is not fully yet in place, but the pieces are there. We are increasingly digital. We are not yet integrated. Ten years ago, the claim made in this book that a fundamentally new kind of work is developing to replace the industrial mode of production was not unique, but it was not widely accepted. Now, however, nearly everyone recognizes that we are living in a knowledge economy where the production of knowledge is key to the development of every society. The situation today is not fundamentally different than it was ten years ago. What is clearer is that we are in a digital world and work is transforming. The first edition of this book was written primarily for information professionals, those who spend their lives trying to figure out how to organize information and make it useful to others. We believe and hope this edition will appeal to them as well as to a broader readership, especially philosophers and those interested in political theory and practice. This book has been forty years in the making, long before anyone linked terms such as “knowledge” and “work” and “community” and “practice”, or “integrated”, “digital”, and “environment”. The book started in 1972 when I set out to investigate the role and function of intellectuals. I wrote a series of articles, some of which were published, in the tradition of the continental thinkers in the 1920’s – Gramsci, Korsch and the man who most influenced my intellectual and personal development, Georg Lukacs, with whom I was privileged to work as a young philosopher in Budapest in 1968. These writers were all activists as well as thinkers. They did much of their most creative work in the post-World War I period. Monarchies had passed away

Afterword 

 167

to be replaced by democracies and socialist regimes of various kinds, new political and social cultures bloomed around the world, and a lively and vibrant intellectual life thrust intellectuals into the very center of political life. It looked as if a bright future for freedom and democracy was developing, but in only a few years their hopes and dreams were crushed by the rise of fascism, a social and political movement which relied on the support of the working class. One of the major questions of these thinkers, and for all progressives of that era was the proper function of the intellectual. These thinkers were all intellectuals and the answer to the question of what intellectuals should do was intensely personal as well as theoretical. I believe the problem of the role and function of intellectuals is best understood as a problem of knowledge management. Forty years later, in the 1960’s, many intellectuals were once again thrust into the political world and struggled to answer the question: “What form of organization is appropriate for knowledge and action to be effective?” We were politically active and intellectually curious, two traits which we went hand in hand. In 1968 for eight months and again for a visit in 1970, I had the privilege and honor of meeting and talking with Lukacs. When I met him, and sat at his feet, he was over eighty, and as a very young man he welcomed me into his home for conversations on a weekly basis. And later I was honored to accompany him on a stroll through the woods of Hungary. During the stroll I asked him questions, much as the students of Socrates asked him questions. He gave few answers and those he gave raised even more questions. As we discussed a particularly abstract philosophical question, he said something like: “Whether or not we solve this problem will not determine whether or not we have a revolution, but it might make a difference as to the kind of revolution we will have.” Lukacs was a revolutionary who insisted that Marx is about a way of thinking, not about a set of conclusions. And his philosophical work was not just idle speculation, but was a search for understanding that had real import in life. Like many other young people of the time I was involved in both intellectual work and political activity. In l970, I published a book which summed up the conviction held by many of us that a new democratic theory was developing in both the East and the West. (Megill 1970) The new democratic theory would replace the outmoded theories of dialectical materialism and liberal democracies – or so we believed and hoped. Although the political changes did not happen as we thought and hoped, the next forty years brought profound changes that left us with a very different and new world in which to live. For the next two decades, after writing the book on political theory I was involved in very practical political and organizational activities, and later I developed an increasing fascination with the role and func-

168 

 Afterword

tion of information and information technology as an enabler of a new way to do work. In 1983, I walked away from a tumultuous, frustrating, and satisfying life as an activist and union president. I had come to know power first hand, how to gather it and how to exercise it. I returned, for a while, to a life of study and contemplation. In the early 1980’s, like many activists of the sixties, my prospects for employment in the academic world were slim. I spent nearly a year in the Library of Congress reading room trying to integrate the theory and practice of the transformation of professionals from free-standing thinkers to employees of institutions. I began writing a book that would be based on empirical studies of what some in the sixties called the “proletarianization” process: the premise of the proposed book would have been that professionals are becoming, not a “new class”, but part of productive labor, i.e., part of the working class (the proletariat). The same process of proletarianization and industrialization that Marx described in Capital would, so I thought, apply to these new members of what we called “the working class”. The same process that peasants went through when they entered the working class applies to intellectuals as they left their freestanding status and became a part of industrial firms as workers. In the midst of doing theoretical work, because I needed to make a living, I found myself responding to a request by a group of tow truck operators to help make them into professionals. The practical problem of the tow truck operators was one that I could solve. I thought I knew what a professional does – think for a living. What surprised me was seeing new professions emerging just as the “thinking” professions took on jobs in companies and institutions and became what we now call knowledge workers. The tow truck operators taught me a very important lesson: the proletarianization of the thinker is but one side of the process. Perhaps more important and more interesting is the rise of many new professions where thinking is an integral part of work. These new professionals are paid to think, paid to take the knowledge of others, use it as information, and formulate new knowledge. They are often people who did not think of themselves as doing intellectual work, but over the years through practical experience they are developing professions with bodies of knowledge, communities of practice and other characteristics of traditional professions. As one of the towers explained to me as I watched him teach others how to haul a large truck out of a deep ditch, “It is just physics”. Their knowledge takes others’ information, processes it through their skills and experience, and answers the question: “Is it a good idea to...?” Workers who were once in “menial” jobs are now professionals, a process that we examined in the first chapter.

Afterword 

 169

In 1988, I was invited to return to Florida, where I had been organizer and president of a union now representing over 30,000 faculty and professional employees, to speak at a conference sponsored by the University of Florida – an institution that had fired me (and many others) fifteen years before for our political and social activism. The title of my talk was “Thinking for a Living” – and much of the second chapter of this book is taken from that talk. After that talk, I launched a new career in information management. By the late 1980’s, I had already begun to become familiar with and fascinated by the development of information technology. I became a part of the growing field that worked to bring technology to the workplace. It was only then that I came to use the term “knowledge worker” to describe the people who are paid to think, whether they were professionals who had become workers or workers who were becoming professionals. As I worked I thought from time-to-time about that unwritten book with the title “Thinking for a Living”. In 1999, I fell into one of my most interesting jobs, to create an integrated digital environment for the United States Air Force. Working with members of the military introduced me to many new worlds and to some of the brightest people I have ever met. We came from very different cultures, but we all worked together to try to figure out how to make appropriate use of technology. This project brought me deeply into both the theory and practice of knowledge work. I was able to bring gifted people together to think and work practically. We concluded that creating an integrated digital environment (one in which we have immediate access to the information we need to do our work) requires a transformation in the work culture. When that project ended I returned to the Library of Congress reading room to immerse myself in the literature of knowledge management, change management, and the new “fields” that developed in the last decade. I revisited the topics I considered a generation before, armed with some new language to help understand a new way to do work. The immediate impetus for me to write this book a decade ago came from this three-year project to create an integrated digital environment for the United States Air Force. Terry Balven, a wonderful military professional provided the direction for the Air Force and writes about that project in an appendix to this book. Colonel Balven and I came from two totally different worlds. As sometimes happens when cultures from different professions and bodies of knowledge collide, an environment emerges where there is great creativity. We did some wonderful things together as we tried to figure out how technology can best be used to create a new environment for work. The work we did a decade ago had an impact on the work of the Air Force, which takes the lead in using information technologies in the United States mili-

170 

 Afterword

tary. It also emphasizes the importance of leadership and cultural transformation in order to properly using technologies. Many of the ideas which seemed new at the time are now taken for granted. Working digitally in an integrated environment is now the norm, not the exception. After ending my participation in the Air Force project, I invited some of my colleagues to write about what we learned and had come to know. One of these, Evie Lotze, has wrote a wonderful companion book to this one called, Work Culture Transformation. (Lotze 2004) She looks at the problem of work transformation from the world of psychology and myth. As she points out, the left side of my brain is particularly active as I struggle to make logic and sense out of our world, a task she prefers to undertake using the tools of myth and fairy tales. I ended this book by pointing you to hers. When I was freed from the day-to-day demands of the Air Force project, I was able to delve into the literature of business and management theorists, the anthropologists and learning theorists and the technologists who speak of knowledge management and the knowledge age. When I tried to make sense out of these disparate, yet related, views I returned to my original discipline, philosophy, and to my experiences over the years seeking to transform organizations and the social order. This second edition includes discussions of philosophical and political concepts that were not explicitly treated in the first edition. This edition makes explicit some of the principles that I used a decade ago. Nothing is taken away from the original book, but new material is added and errors are cleaned up. The new material makes use of some of the philosophical analysis on the nature of work done by Georg Lukacs, the Hungarian philosopher with whom I was privileged to work in 1968. A final chapter is added which draws on some of the principles being adopted in China today. The initial impetus for this second edition came from a request from China to translate a philosophical article I published over forty years ago. On a visit to Beijing, I met with the people who made the request and came into contact with a remarkable institution, the Central Compilation and Translation Bureau (CCBT) of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China. The scholars and translators at the CCBT did the kind of textual analysis and scholarly work to create authoritative texts of Marx that did not exist when I worked on my dissertation in East and West Germany in the 1960’s. In addition, the CCBT reaches out to identify and translate a wide range of Marxists. I am honored to be among them. In 2011, I returned to China to present lectures on Georg Lukacs and the Budapest School (Agnes Heller, Mihaly Vajda, Gyorgy Markus, and Ferenc Feher). To prepare for these lectures, I re-established contacts with the colleagues with

Afterword 

 171

whom I had worked in Budapest in 1968 and revisited many of the concepts and ideas which we shared in the 1960’s. We all believed and hoped that a new democratic reality and theory was being made in both the East and the West. East and West for us meant Eastern and Western Europe and although we were all active politically in those heady days, we had almost no knowledge of what was developing in China – and only a spotty knowledge of Marxism as it was being applied in China. I tried to use Marx’s methodology when I wrote the first edition of this book and again in this new edition. And it is this way of thinking that is being implemented in China, which has embraced Marxism as its official theory and is searching for a deeper understanding of what the call “Marxism with Chinese characteristics”. In my discussions with the members of the Budapest School, whom I visited before my lectures in China, we revisited our dreams and hopes we had in the 1960’s. They no longer share my conviction that Marxism is still a vibrant and valid philosophy. As a result of their political and philosophical activities in the 1960’s they were not able to pursue philosophy in Hungary, just as I was not able to pursue philosophy in the United States. Despite our differences today, however, we all share a continuing admiration for Lukacs and his profound contributions to philosophy and I have added a discussion of Lukacs’ analysis of the nature of work to this edition. I believe the ideas I put forward a decade ago are still relevant today. There is a new age of work, an age where work will be honored and understood as a primary human activity and a source of value, where the needs of women and men are recognized and fulfilled. These concepts were first elucidated by Karl Marx and deepened in the work of Lukacs and his colleagues, especially Georg Markus, who understand that work exists to meet our needs, and information is one of the primary things we need to do knowledge work While in China, I held several discussions where we explored the state of Marxism in China and the West and found that we share a broad consensus that Marxism is a powerful theory that had been corrupted and misused in the dogmatic version formulated in the Soviet Union that was imported into China in the early days of its revolution. We also agreed that Marxism is not a failed ideology, as it is often described in the West. As a result of my visits to China, I decided to return to the roots of the concepts that I presented in Thinking for a Living. I hope the additional material added to a book on information management can show how Marxism, when it is understood as a methodology to conduct scientific work and not as a set of dogmas, is one

172 

 Afterword

sound theoretical basis for developing a theory for information and knowledge management. Since the days of Ranganathan, not much theory has been done in library and information science. Philosophers have, by and large, ignored the profound impact of the information revolution that is taking place, a revolution in technologies and methodologies that are providing us with the tools necessary to do knowledge work. In earlier books on Corporate Memory and Document Management, I proposed a theoretical and practical basis for preserving corporate memory – the information of value for re-use. And I tried to give some practical and useful advice on how that information might be identified, kept, and made available to those who need it for their work. Most of my practical work as an information professional has been in records management, and the first edition of this book was a direct result of trying to figure out how to identify, preserve, and make available information in the digital age – also called the information age. As we worked with the project that is described in the appendix to this book written by Colonel (ret) Terry Balvin, we came to the conclusion that making digital information available is not about computers and wires, but about transforming the culture of work. The basic argument of the first edition of this book is that information professionals are one kind of knowledge worker. They create works of value to other knowledge workers by preserving, organizing, and supplying information they need to do their work. And they are one of a multitude of knowledge workers. Since writing the first edition, an opportunity came my way to try to make practical what I wrote about in the first edition. My partner and I formed a company called Knowledge Applications Services which provides the full range of information management services, from consulting to software to data hosting to archival, library, and records management activities in a totally digital environment. We have been able to put many of the ideas in my books into practice at the National Mediation Board, an independent US government agency charged with regulating labor relations in the airline and railway industries. We continue to have a contract with that agency, which now operates in a complete electronic environment and continues to make practical use of technologies to improve the way they do their work. This work confirms what we learned in the Integrated Digital Environment project of the Air Force – technologies are essential to create an environment where knowledge work is fostered, but in order to fully use technologies, work needs to be transformed.

Afterword 

 173

Some who read what I wrote a decade ago said things like – It would be nice to have a new way of working, but that it is just not practical. In the decade since then, we have seen that the coming age of knowledge work is well on its way. Now we can be a little clearer about the new age of work that is a dawning, an age in which the true nature of men and women as productive and thinking workers can be revealed. In a prosperous and cultured society, philosophers are paid to think and question. Socrates remains the paradigm of the philosopher for anyone trained the Western way of thinking and he understood that wisdom comes through questions and that understanding is not just an intellectual enterprise, but a way of living a virtuous life. This same attitude infuses the great thinkers and actors of the Eastern world, a world in which I now have the privilege to spend time, but which still remains as inscrutable as ever to me. I hope that new readers and old will find what I have added to his book to be of value and of interest. The return to this book has strengthened my belief that we are indeed living in an age where knowledge work is becoming the primary kind of work that we do.

Acknowledgments Thanks go to the many people who endured my exposition of thoughts and ideas that eventually made it into this book. Some who read the first manuscript as it developed include Clare Imholtz, Marilyn Barth and Deb Marshall, three former students and colleagues. These three read a much earlier version of this book and told me to start over. I did. What is here is hopefully better for their honest and brutal (although nicely said) advice. They even had the stamina to come back and read this later version and have said that it is all right if I send it off to the publisher. I returned to them again for this second edition. Deb Marshall has been especially helpful in helping me articulate my thoughts about records management. Barry Wheeler, my colleague and friend for many years, made me emphasize that work, if it is thinking work, can only be done for a living if someone else finds it of value. His engineering mind-set managed to wipe out some, but surely not all, of the sections that caused him to say, “I think Rosie Scenario has stepped in.” From my perspective, Barry has always had a much rosier scenario than I have about where this world may be going. Barry now deals with the nuts and bolts of digitizing information from his current position as a project manager at the Library of Congress. Working on this second edition gave us a chance to think again about how information professionals can go beyond managing containers of information to managing information. The three years I spent working with the United States Air Force Integrated Digital Environment Project provided the sandbox to play in where I tried out some of my ideas on how to preserve the corporate memory of an organization and in the process we came to the conclusion that managing information is as much about changing work culture as it is about better technologies. Terry Balven, who wrote the appendix for this book, represented the Air Force in this project and provided me the space and encouragement to let my mind go. His constant question, “So if what you say is true, what do we do on Monday morning?” provided a backdrop for all of our work. It has been good to revisit the work we did together and to agree that we were on the right track and even marvel a bit about how many of our ideas are now taken for granted in the work place. I met many wonderful people of all ranks during the Air Force project. They are, as the saying goes, too numerous to mention. During my first visit to an Air Force facility at Hanscom Air Force Base outside Boston, I encountered Harry Pape and we worked closely together throughout the project and we have continued our discussions and our work to this day. For this edition, Harry contributed a discussion of the power of the web. He also gave me lots of insight into the importance of creating a culture of ownership in order for knowledge managers to do

Acknowledgments  

 175

their best work. He is now the CEO of a technology company that is transitioning to being an employee owned business. My early visits to Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque allowed me to work with some very creative persons, including Marsha Dreier whom I consider a model librarian. The folks at Kirtland struggled with (and sometimes conquered) the task of bringing knowledge management to the Air Force Research Laboratories, said to be the largest research lab in the world. Warner-Robins Air Logistics Center, south of Macon, Georgia, was the place where I got to see up front and close the awesome use of technology to manage fleets of complicated flying machines. My description of the airplane mechanic as a knowledge worker came directly from my visits there. Many people at the sprawling Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton received me with courtesy and opened up their offices and work places. Visits to the Space Center in Los Angeles, the Centers at Edwards Air Force Base in California and Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, and Arnold Engineering Development Center in Tennessee showed me another whole side of the complex world of applying science to making things. At the Logistics Centers in Oklahoma City and Ogden, Utah, I was able to test and confirm my conclusions from Warner-Robins. I came to what the Air Force calls its acquisition and sustainment community as an outsider and, I am sure, was often regarded as somewhat of a curiosity. I admired the professionalism of those I worked with and their desire to do the best possible job. In the end, I admired those in the professional military environment without altering many of the political views that I learned from my pacifist father. During many of the early visits to the facilities I was accompanied by Major Bill Richards, who wore the “Blue Suit” that gave me access to the Air Force world. As we traveled around the country and sat through many frustrating and some enlightening meetings, my respect and dedication for the working Air Force officer mounted. I met Colonel Roc Myers toward the end of the project.  I found his paper on Knowledge Marshaling that he wrote as a Harvard research fellow to be the most insightful writing on the subject of Knowledge Management that I have seen. And of course, I must mention Andy Nodine who was the last person at Kelly Air Force Base when it closed. I watched him lead the Automated Test Equipment Center over a two year period as they struggled with the practical issues of how to capture a corporate memory and move it to another place. In the, he played a central role in the development of our understanding of a work culture and how it can be transformed. Some of his analysis and advice is contained in Terry Balven’s appendix. In addition to the military professionals, I was able to work with many civilian employees and contractors who provide varied and valuable service to the

176 

 Acknowledgments

community. John Rosenfeld introduced me to the real San Antonio in our tour of local eateries following days of working together. I was able to see over a period of time how he built a wonderful work environment in conditions that would only depress most people. I was fortunate to gather some creative and innovative staff to work on the project. Dave Burnett, who then worked at Dynamics Research Corporation, took a chance by hiring me. Dave introduced me into what was a new world for me and encouraged me to give honest advice. Bob Nawrocki, a leader in the field of records management,and Mary Beth Clarkson became colleagues on the first IDE team where we worked to invent a new work culture, sometimes with patience and sometimes with exasperation. Dean Harris, who had been one of my students, in his quiet way made some of the very best observations and analyses of the work situation. Anthony Adamson showed me the practical side of work process reengineering as well as hours of discussion that helped me shape many of the ideas found in this book. Betsy Woods was a regular lunch companion who helped me work my way through the new world I was in. Guy St. Clair played an important role in his six months with the project as we transferred our focus to work culture transformation. Herb Schantz, the colleague who wrote the Document Management book with me continued to be one of my closest professional colleague and friend. I was pleased to be able to bring him into the project. We collaborated closely on everything produced by the project and it is impossible to tell which ideas are mine and which are his – except that he thinks like an engineer and I think like a philosopher. I am sorry that he is no longer available to discuss this new edition with me. Noel Dickover introduced me to the concept of Performance Centered Learning Modules and provided many hours of insightful discussion. I turned to him again to do this second edition and he supplied an insightful addition in his report on recent developments in software development and uses of social media for transformation. In addition to giving comments on my manuscript, Charlie Montague, Bill Larsen, and Susan Brown helped me develop a business model for a service that would provide knowledge applications that would further transformation of work cultures. John Hodge, a philosopher and friend for many years noticed some obvious errors in the manuscript and gave me many suggestions that may grow into the next book. It is always good to do philosophy with John. John wrote some interesting philosophy on the nature of racism and went on to a career as a lawyer in a government agency working to get medical care for those who need it. He has

Acknowledgments  

 177

a very interesting blog at http://johnlhodge.blogspot.com/ or http://johnlhodge. com. Rebecca Weiner brought the perspective of an accomplished writer and a business consultant – as well as her friendship and support. Her practical advice before, during, and after my visits to China were invaluable. Two other friends, Roger McFadden and Gail Gouvea, served as my “general” readers and made helpful comments and suggestions. Gail was especially helpful in bringing some sense to the second edition. Evie Lotze joined the Air Force team as we began to develop the Work Culture Transformation Board. We worked together for two years as we brought our two companion books to the light of day. It is an honor to be published by the same house and at the same time. Do read her book, Work Culture Transformation. (Lotze 2004) A host of new and old friends and colleagues contributed to the second edition of this book. My friends and colleagues at the National Mediation Board, with whom I still work, provide daily instructions into the problems and possibilities of transforming work. Dan Rainey, the Chief of Staff, guides me through the arcane world of government bureaucracy that he knows so well. An old friend, Charlie Montague, who came to NMB turned many of the ideas we dreamed about into reality. All of this is not possible without the support of the Board members of NMB, especially Harry Hoglander, a good solid trade unionist and pilot who was appointed by Presidents of both parties to serve on the Board for over a decade. Without his unwavering support and critical eye, the practical work we are doing there would not be possible. The world-class professionals at the Central Compilation and Translation Bureau (CCBT) of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China welcomed me with warmth and hospitality and opened my eyes to some of the transformation that is going on in China. Nick Miller, an Australian/American, whom I met in Beijing and again in Washington, provided a careful reading from the viewpoint of a young scholar with a broad perspective of transformations in this world. Bill McBride, a colleague in graduate school with a distinguished career as a professional philosopher, provided thoughtful insights in conversation and through his reading of the manuscript. The reading room of the Library of Congress has been my refuge for forty years. In its magnificent space, I think about Karl Marx working away in the reading room of the British Museum to develop theories that have had and are having tremendous impact. Fifteen years ago when I was a faculty member in the School of Library and Information Science at the Catholic University of America, I

178 

 Acknowledgments

had the privilege to teach several courses to staff members of the library who were becoming professionals. They served as practical examples of workers becoming professionals. As I returned to the Library to work on this new edition, I was pleased to see some of my students are working as professional librarians in one of the great libraries of the world. Special thanks goes to Hong Ta (now Hong Ta-Moore), a Library of Congress professional, whom I tracked down to help me with a reference request. He volunteered to help with this second edition and the professional state of the citations (in sharp contrast to the first edition) is his doing. His friendship and encouragement while I was working on this edition have been invaluable. It is a joy to be a colleague with a former student. And, finally, thanks go to the editor of the first edition, Geraldine Turpie, for encouraging me to publish this book and for welcoming us to her home near London to bring thoughts to a page. She is a true professional who thinks for a living. I was fortunate to find another wonderful editor, Alice Keller, who encouraged me to take on the second edition and lived up to her commitment to give me the best of her German critical thinking. Christina Lembrecht read every word of the manuscript and corrected many errors, especially in comma usage. She has been a joy to work with and the fact that she graduated from the University of Mainz, where I had my first introduction to Germany, makes the relationship even sweeter. To my partner of nearly thirty years, Lawrence Tan, I cannot say how much it means that he gives me the personal space to follow my ideas wherever they lead.

Glossary If there is one thing that embodies a culture – it is a language. Language lets us communicate and the more similar our language is, the better we (generally) communicate. In this book, we use several terms in a particular way. We hope that the Glossary will help the reader understand how we use some key terms and give us a common language to foster our communication. This glossary is not an attempt to give “standard” definitions, but a help to the reader to know what the author has in mind when he uses a particular term. Abduction: A form of logic identified by the American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce to describe the process of creating knowledge. Abduction is the process of reasoning and work that puts assumptions and presumptions to the test by looking at empirical reality with one eye toward finding a new truth and, in the process, supplanting the “old” truth. See dialectic and hermeneutics. Application: A set of business processes. The term is also used to refer to an automated tool that may perform these processes or assist in performing the processes. Ba: A Japanese term used by Ikujiro Nonaka to describe the environment and culture in which work takes place. Ba is the context that makes a safe haven for creation of knowledge. Collaboration: Working together with others with a high degree of inter-dependency and trust to achieve a common goal. Community: Communities are groups of people who work for a common purpose within an organization or across organizational boundaries. A community, traditionally, is understood, has a shared place or geography, a characteristic which is not necessary for digital communities. Community of Practice: One of the terms that help us understand and conceptualize knowledge work. A community of practice is a group of people bound together by a common class of problems, common pursuit of solutions, and a store of common knowledge and understanding. Cooperation: Working together side-by-side to do work in a manner determined by management. Culture: A culture embraces the common understandings, language and ways of acting and other assumptions shared by a community. A work culture is the “common sense” that pervades the work place. Data: Data are the “facts” or raw material that makes up information. Dialectic: The term dialectic plays an important role in Western philosophy. It originated with Socrates methodology of arriving at knowledge through discussion and examination of alternatives. It is a methodology widely used to come to conclusions through discussion. See abduction and hermeneutics. Dialectical Materialism: A dogmatic interpretation of Marxism that was imposed in the 1930’s by Stalin. This “official” version was explicated in textbooks that were adopted in countries under the influence of the Soviet Union. Faceting: Faceting is a way of describing information developed by the Indian theoretician and practitioner Ranganathan that focuses on the various ways in which information may be viewed, depending on its possible uses. Faceting focuses on uses and potential uses and

180 

 Glossary

the context information will be used, rather than the content of an information container, such as a book or article. Hermeneutics (Theory of Understanding): Hermeneutics is the methodology to interpret texts, particularly sacred texts. It has been expanded to be a methodology and theory of understanding by the German philosopher Hans Gadamer. Industrial Age: The industrial “revolution” came when machines began to drive the productive process. Manufacturing brought workers together in large factories. With the steam engine and other machines (including computers) production began to be driven by the machines and the needs of the machines. A new kind of work took place based on cooperation. Information: Information is processed data: it is the building blocks used by people when they create knowledge. Information generally requires data to be managed and processed – just as knowledge requires information to be managed and processed. But managing data and information are not identical. Information Management: Information management is concerned with the acquisition, documentation, arrangement, storage, retrieval, and use of information. Integrated Digital Environment: An integrated digital environment is a work environment in which there is immediate access to the information needed to conduct business (to do work). Such an environment requires an information-sharing work culture, digital tools, connectivity, and corporate memory. Knowledge: The traditional philosophical definition of knowledge is that it is justified true belief. Davenport and Prusak, two developers of knowledge management, define it as “A fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information”. (Davenport 1998, 5) Thomas H. Davenport, Thomas H. and Lawrence Prusak, Working Knowledge (Boston: Harvard Business School Press 1998, 5) Knowledge Age: The “fourth wave” – The age of work in which the production of knowledge is the chief productive activity. The Age of Knowledge follows the Information Age, which is the final stage of the Industrial Age, the Manufacturing Age, and the Agricultural Age. How we name the ages is not as important as recognizing a fundamentally different way of doing work is becoming a reality. Knowledge Management: A methodology for making comprehensive, relevant information (current or historical) available in a timely manner for users (knowledge workers) to make timely valid decisions that increase the productivity of a business application (where a business application is a set of work processes). Knowledge Manager: A knowledge manager is someone knows who the experts (knowledgeable people) are, and how to access their knowledge. A knowledge manager is not the same as an expert. An expert functions within a community. An expert is recognized as the one who “knows” more than other people do about a particular topic. An expert is the creator and developer of knowledge. A knowledge manager knows who the experts are and how to access their knowledge. Knowledge Marshaling: A term used by Colonel Roc Myers to describe the process of gathering knowledge together for a purpose and delivering it to those who need it. Learning Organization: A term developed and popularized by Peter Senge and widely used in the knowledge management world to emphasize that an organization needs to have learning imbued into its culture. Learning should be centered on performance and done in the work place – not through training which takes people away from work into a class.

Glossary 

 181

Manufacturing Age: Factories brought people together to do work which was once done at home or in small shops. By bringing workers into an urbanized environment, great efficiencies were gained by controlling and disciplining the work place and dividing the labor. Work, in a factory before industrialization (when machinery began to change the nature of work), was still done in the same way as before, only now under the discipline of a foreman. Praxis (Practice): Germans use “praxis” for the “business” lawyers and doctors maintain; it comprehends all their clients and all the work they do for their clients. Praxis includes more than the English verb to practice, it includes customs and cultural content, as well. Praxis is often translated as “practice” in English, but it comes with very different overtones. Praxis implies a combination of theory and action. Rationalize: The application of “scientific” principles to work. This rationalization is the basis for the industrial mode of production where automation replaces physical labor. Work is divided into pieces and each piece is made as “rational” (efficient) as possible. Management oversees and coordinates the process. Record: The best available evidence. Spiral Development: A methodology first developed and used to make software but now widely applied to other activities that accepts the fact that we cannot plan and lay out exactly where we are going and need to work in spirals. Standards and Connectivity: A decision by a community to conduct business in a certain way. Standards arise, normally, when it is necessary to communicate. Standards do not, however, mean standardization. There is no need for everyone to do things in the same way, as long as they can communicate. Systems Thinking: A methodology developed by systems theorists that emphasizes the importance of looking at actions within the context, rather than isolated activities. Transformation: Transformation is a change that is profound enough to cause a change in the physical, mental, or cultural form of the object or institution. Understanding: Understanding takes place within a context – out of a history and community. Understanding contrasts with explanation which is ahistorical in nature. Work: Work is Force times Distance. It is production, not just activity. Work focuses on those activities that lead to an organization accomplishing its mission. Work is organized through tasks that are linked together in an application – a set of related work activities. Work Culture: Work Culture is the environment in which Work is done. It encompasses the attitudes, beliefs and presuppositions that we bring to our work. Work Culture Transformation: A transformation of the work culture is evidenced by observed and qualitatively measurable change in behavior – from an information hoarding to an information-sharing environment. Workflow: The sequence of tasks or necessary steps that comprises a business process. Two groups may perform the same Work, but use entirely different work processes or workflow. Optimizing workflow removes non-value-added tasks from the work process in order to improve productivity. Work Process: Work Processes are comprised of a series of tasks to deliver value to a customer. It is not a department (e.g., Accounts Receivable), nor is it simply a collection of activities or tasks. The tasks must be held together by a mission: delivering value to a customer. Work Tasks: Specific activities which when combined form the work process.

182 

 Resources and Citations

Resources and Citations Alberts, David S., John J. Garska, and Frederick P. Stein. 1999. Network  Centric Warfare: Developing and Leveraging Information Superiority. 2nd ed. Washington DC: National Defense University Press. If you wade through the words used in the defense community, you find an insightful and thought-provoking book on knowledge management. Further information about the Command and Research Control Program of the U.S. Department of Defense (CCRP), as well as an on-line copy of the book, is available at http://www.dodccrp.org. Alberts claims we have moved beyond the Information Age to a new Age, an Age that he terms the Age of Interactions, one that is characterized by an explosion of interactions, enabled by networking, that has dramatically increased complexity. Apel, Karl-Otto. 1984. Understanding and Explanation: A Transcendental-Pragmatic Perspective. Translated by Georgia Warnke, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Originally published in German in 1979, this book describes the distinction between understanding and explanation. Not a quick read, but for those who persevere, lots of insights. The author was a student of Professor Apel when they were both young men (in 1961). Many of the ideas in this book come from Apel, who introduced the author to Gadamer and Peirce (as well as Heidegger and a range of other philosophers). Barton, Thomas L., William G. Shenkir, and Thomas N. Tyson. 1998. Open Book Management: Creating an Ownership Culture. Financial Executives Research Foundation, Inc. Chapter 3 is about ComSonics, Inc., an employee-owned company. Baumand, Philippe. 1999. Tacit Knowledge in Organizations. London: Sage. Much of the best theoretical work in knowledge management comes from Europe. This translation of a French book focuses on the nature of knowledge in an organization that is not explicit. The book develops a theory for tacit knowledge and then tests the theory through four very different organizations: Quantis, the Australian Airline, Indigo, a publishing company selling information through specialized confidential newsletters; Indosuez, a bank operation in international finance, and Pechinery, an aluminum production company active in Guinea. Bloch, Ernst. 1986. The Principle of Hope. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. A monumental classic of German philosophy in three volumes written between 1938 and 1947 and published in Germany in 1959. Bloch, like Lukacs, lived much of his life in exile and his own search for a homeland was a frustrating one. From 1949–1961 he held a chair in philosophy in the German Democratic Republic (East German) until the wall was built separating the two parts of Germany. He then held a chair in Tubingen (West Germany) from 1961 until his death in 1977. Boudieu, Pierre. 1998. Practical Reason. On the Theory of Action. Cambridge, Mass.: Polity, 1998 (translation of French book published in 1994). “The New Capital” (Chapter 2) is a particularly interesting discussion of the production of cultural capital. Braun, Warren L. 1992. On the Way to Successful Employee Ownership: Enhanced Human Relations in the Workplace. 2nd ed. Privately Printed. Available from ComSonics, Inc., P.O. Box 11 06, Harrisonburg, VA 22801. Of use to those who want to explore the world of employee-owned companies.

Resources and Citations 

 183

Bush, Vannevar. 1945. “As We May Think.” The Atlantic, July, http://www.theatlantic.com/ magazine/archive/1945/07/as-we-may-think/3881/ Bush wrote this article in 1939 and it was published shortly after the end of World War II. This is one of the first descriptions of the impact that computers would bring to our lives. Bush had invented an early version of the computer and was a leader in the scientific research world in the United States. His article is one of the most important every written about computers and their role in creating a new world. Cohen, G.A. 1978. Karl Marx’s Theory of History: A Defence. Princeton: Princeton University. A scholarly defense of historical materialism using methodologies developed in English analytical philosophy. A useful book for philosophers who do not come from Hegelian or continental philosophical tradition. Cohen interprets and defends Marx’s theory of history, which is quite different from the official Marxist position developed in the Soviet Union. Collins, James C. 2001. Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap – and Others Don’t. New York: Harper Business. A brilliant report on statistical and empirical research of great companies to identify what distinguishes them from good companies, defined purely in terms of stock values over a fifteen year period. The research debunks many notions of what makes good change possible. His research team concludes that leaders of great organizations (as contrasted with good ones) generally come from within the organization and are shy, modest, and focused in their work. They are not the “charismatic” leader put forward by many change theories. The salary paid to leaders in a corporation has little correlation to success. He urges companies to preserve core values and core purposes while changing culture and operating practices. Davenport, Thomas H. 1993. Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through Information Technology. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press. Davenport, Thomas H. and Laurence Prusak. 1998. Working Knowledge. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School. Davenport and Prusak made many contributions to knowledge management and business reengineering. Davenport’s work is particularly good because he has a sound understanding of the role and function of information and knowledge and how technology is transforming work. Dierkes, Meinolf, ed. 2001. Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press. A hefty compendium of nearly a thousand pages of articles by the leading contributors to the development of a theory of learning as a part of knowledge management. A valuable resource that attempts to identify the “state of the art” in the field of knowledge management. Dixon, Nancy M. 1999. The Organizational Learning Cycle: How We Can Learn Collectively. Brookfield, VT: Gower. Dixon, Nancy M. 2000. Common Knowledge: How Companies Thrive by Sharing What They Know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Practical advice for working within and fostering a learning organization. Begins with the assumption that “it is certain that the Knowledge Age is here”. A description of the process of knowledge transfer in large businesses. Specific examples are given how businesses have learned to transfer different types of knowledge from one place to another. The emphasis is on the interrelationship of people and tools (databases, etc) that enable knowledge to be shared.

184 

 Resources and Citations

Drucker, Peter. 1954. The Practice of Management. New York: Harper & Row. Drucker, Peter. 1972. Concept of the Corporation. New York: John Day Company. Drucker, Peter. 1998. “The Coming New Organization.” In Harvard Business Review on Knowledge Management. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press. Drucker was one of the first management theorists to explore the nature of knowledge work. Gadamer, Hans Georg. 1989. Truth and Method (Wahrheit und Methode). 2nd rev. ed. New York: Crossroad. An epoch-making exposition of the theory of hermeneutics, the theory of understanding, originally published in Germany in 1960. Gavin, David A. 2000. Learning in Action: A Guide to Putting the Learning Organization to Work. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. A good, solid book that goes beyond the earlier work by Senge and Nonaka. “A learning organization is an organization skill at creating, acquiring, interpreting, transferring, and retaining knowledge, and at purposefully modifying its behavior to reflect new knowledge and insights.” (p. 11) He comments on Senge and Nonaka, “while uplifting, lack a framework for action and thus provide little comfort to practical minded managers.” (p. 5) Hagel, John. 1997. Net Gain: Expanding Markets through Virtual Communities. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Infused with an unbounding faith that technology will solve all of our problems. It does give us some interesting ways to think about the nature of communities in a digital age Hammer, Michael, and James Champy. 2001. Reengineering the Corporation. A Manifesto for Business Revolution. New York: Harper Business. Originally published in 1993, this classic book popularized the notion that a new kind of work is emerging. Chapter 4 “The New World of Work” describes the reengineering that “entails the radical redesign of a company’s business processes … Jobs evolve from narrow and track-oriented to multidimensional. People who once did as they were instructed now make choices on their own instead.” (p. 18) Jerome, John 2000. On Turning Sixty-Five: Notes from the Field. New York: Random House. A delightful book to read and full of important insights about work. Especially interesting is his discussion of the anthropologist Turnbull. Johnson, Spencer. 1998. Who Moved My Cheese? An Amazing Way to Deal with Change in Your Work and in Your Life. New York: Putnam. A brilliant little tale of how mice and humans react to change. Enough lessons in this story to keep all of us thinking for a long time. Joos, Ernest. 1983. Lukacs’ Last Autocriticism: The Ontology. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press. The most significant discussion of the Lukacs’ final work. Kelly, Kevin. 1998. New Rules for the New Economy: 10 Radical Strategies for a Connected World. New York: Viking. Clever slogans describing the new work culture. The assumption underlying the “new rules” is that the technological advance is the sole driver of organizational change. But the “new rules” do help articulate the collaborative and non-hierarchical working environment of the Knowledge Age. Kruse, Douglas L., Richard B. Freeman, and Joseph R. Blasi, eds. 2010. Shared Capitalism at Work: Employee Ownership, Profit and Gain Sharing, and Broad-Based Stock Options. National Bureau of Economic Research Conference Report. An insightful report on employee ownership.

Resources and Citations 

 185

Lafargue, Paul. 1999. The Right to Be Lazy. Translated by Len Bracken. Ardmore, PA: Fifth Season Press. This delightful little book was written by Karl Marx’s son-in-law who debunked the Victorian notion of labor being virtuous for its own sake. This Victorian notion of the sanctity of labor provided a popular justification for the industrial mode of production based on the sale of labor time. Lave, Jean and Seth Chaiklin. 1993. Understanding Practice, Perspectives on Activity and Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lave, Jean and Dorothy Holland, eds. 2001. History in Person: Enduring Struggles, Contentious Practice, Intimate Identities. Santa Fe, NM, School of American Research Press Oxford: James Currey. Lave, Jean and Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated Leaning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brilliant books by people who much of what is good research and theory in knowledge management today. Logue, John. 1980. Toward a Theory of Trade Union Internationalism. University of Gothenburg Department of History Publication No. 7. Kent, Ohio: Kent Popular Press. Logue, John. 1982. Socialism and Abundance: Radical Socialism in the Danish Welfare State. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. Logue, John, Donald M. Hancock, and Bernt Schiller, eds. 1991. Managing Modern Capitalism: Industrial Renewal and Workplace Democracy in the United States and Western Europe. New York: Greenwood Press. Logue, John and Jacob Keremetsky. 1991. Perestroika: Privatization and Worker Ownership in the USSR. Ken, Ohio: Kent Popular Press. Logue, John, Richard Glass, Wendy Patton, Alex Teodosio, and Karen Thomas. 1998. Participatory Employee Ownership: How It Works. Kent, Ohio: Worker Ownership Institute. Logue, John and Donald M. Hancock, eds. 2000. Transitions to Capitalism and Democracy in Russia and Central Europe. Achievements, Problems, Prospects. Westport: Praeger. Logue, John and Jacquelyn Yates. 2001. The Real World of Employee Ownership. Ithaca: ILR Press. Logue, John and Eric S. Einhorn. 2003. Modern Welfare States: Scandinavian Politics and Policy in the Global Age. Westport, Connecticut and London: Praeger. Logue wrote about and worked actively for worker ownership in the United States and other countries. His earlier works on worker control in Europe show his theoretical grasp of the issues that consumed him. He founded and directed a center at Kent State University in Ohio that played a central role in develop employee ownership in the industrial area of the United States. Lotze, Evie. 2004. Work Culture Transformation: Straw to Gold – The Modern Hero’s Journey. Munich: Saur. A companion book to this one written by a clinical psychologist who applies her knowledge of personal transformation to the world of organizational change. Lukacs, Georg. 1978. The Ontology of Social Being. Vol. 2: Marx. London: Merlin. Lukacs, Georg. 1980. The Ontology of Social Being. Vol. 3: Labour. London: Merlin. Lukacs, Georg. 1983. “The ‘Vienna Paper’: The Ontological Foundations of Human Thinking and Action by George Lukacs.” In Lukacs’s Last Autocriticism: The Ontology. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.

186 

 Resources and Citations

Lukacs, Georg. 1989. “A Conversation with Georg Lukacs.” In Georg Lukacs: Theory, Culture, and Politics. Edited and with an introduction by Judith Marcus and Zoltan Tarr. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers. Lukacs (1885–1971) is one of the outstanding Marxist philosophers and political activists. Markus, Gyorgy. 1978. Marxism and Anthropology: The Concept of ‘Human Essence’ in the Philosophy of Marx. Translated by E. de Laczay and G. Markus. Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum. Markus, Gyorgy, Ferenc Feher, and Agnes Heller. 1983 Dictatorship Over Needs. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press. Markus, Gyorgy, Ferenc Feher, Agnes Heller, and Mihaly Vajda. 1983. “Notes on Lukacs’ Ontology.” In Lukacs Revalued, ed. Agnes Heller. Oxford, England: Blackwell.. Markus, Gyorgy. 1986. Language and Production: A Critique of the Paradigms. Dordrect: D. Reidel Publishing Company. Markus is one of the four members of the Budapest School that include Agnes Heller, Ferenc Feher, and Mihaly Vajda. They were close associates of Lukacs and each have voluminous publications after they were forced into internal and external exile by Hungarian officials after Lukacs’ death Marshall, Edward M. 1995. Transforming the Way We Work: The Power of the Collaborative Workplace. American Management Association. An excellent book that shows the power of collaboration from the viewpoint of management. Marshall, Edward M. 2000. Building Trust at the Speed of Change: The Power of the Relationship-based Corporation. New York: American Management Association. Marx, Karl. 1867. Capital: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production. Moscow: Progress Publishers. Marx, Karl. 1971. Grundrisse. Translated with a foreword by Martin Niclaus. London: Macmillan. Karl Marx (1818–1883) was a German philosopher, economist, sociologist, historian, journalist, and revolutionary socialist. The analysis of work and the various forms it has taken is at the heart of his writings and activity. McLellan, David. 2006. Karl Marx: A Biography. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. David McLellan is a British scholar of Marx and Marxism. His discussions are among the clearest and most accurate discussions of Marx in English. McLellan, David, ed. 2007. Marxism after Marx. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Megill, Kenneth A. 1970. The New Democratic Theory. New York: The Free Press. Megill, Kenneth A. et al. 1995. Making the Information Revolution: A handbook on federal information resources management. Washington, DC: Association for Information and Image Management. Megill, Kenneth A. 2004. Corporate Memory: Records and Information Management in the Knowledge Age. 2nd Edition. Munich: K.G. Saur. Megill, Kenneth A. and Herb Schantz. 1999. Document management: New technologies for the Information Services Manager. London: Bowker-Saur. Previous books by the author. Myers, Roc. 2000. Strategic Knowledgecraft: Operational Art for the Twenty-First Century. Harvard University website, http://pirp.harvard.edu/pubs_pdf/myers/myers-p00-4. pdfRoc Myers is a career Air Force officer who now works for Bluemont and Research. The paper on the concept of knowledge marshaling was written when he was at Harvard University.

Resources and Citations 

 187

Nonaka, Ikujiro. 1998. “The Knowledge-Creating Company” in Harvard Business Review on Knowledge Management. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press. Nonaka, Ikujiro and David Teece, eds. 2001. Managing Industrial Knowledge: Creation, Transfer and Utilization. London: Sage. Nonaka, Ikujiro and Toshihiro Nishguchi. 2001. Knowledge Emergence: Social, Technical and Evolutionary Dimensions of Knowledge Creation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nonaka, Ikujiro, Patrick Reinmoller, and Ryoko Toyama. 2001. In Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press. One of the most influential writers in knowledge management in the business world. Of particular interest is his description of “Ba” and Leadership – themes found in every one of his writings. Ortega, Bob. 1998. In Sam We Trust: The Untold Story of Sam Walton and How WalMart is Devouring America. New York: Times Business. A chatty biography of the founder and inventor of Walmart. The biography draws heavily on Sam Walton’s autobiography, but does recognize that not every human need is met by ruthlessly applying the profit motive. Peffer, Rodney. 1990. Marxism, Morality, and Social Justice. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. A book for philosophers from the tradition of analytical Marxism, relying on the works of Rawls.  Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1934. Collected Works of Charles Sanders Peirce. Edited by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Charles Sanders Peirce is the founder of American Pragmatism. Ranganathan, S. R. 1988. The Five Laws of Library Science. Bangalore: Saranda Ranganathan Endowment for Library Science. A brilliant book full of wit and good advice for anyone who is entrusted with managing information and conveying knowledge. It is at once both practical and wise. Rosenbloom, Richard S. and William Spencer, eds. 1996. Engines of Innovation: U.S. Industrial Research at the End of an Era. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press. A collection of articles grappling with how industrial research and development is done in the United Statues. No answers are given to what the authors see as a serious problem in the way research and development is organized in an industrial setting. Sayers, Sean and Richard Norman. 1980. Hegel, Marx and Dialectic: A Debate. Sussex, UK: The Harvester Press. One of the most incisive English interpreters of Marx and Marxism. Sayers, Sean. 1985. Reality and Reason: Dialectic and the Theory of Knowledge. New York: Basil Blackwell. Sayers, Sean. 1988. Marxism and Human Nature. London and New York: Routledge. Sayers, Sean. 2011. Marx & Alienation. London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Solid scholarship on Marx and Marxism. Very readable. Senge, Peter M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency. The inventor and popularizer of the term “learning organization” – a powerful concept now part of the knowledge management field. Steup, Matthias. “The Analysis of Knowledge.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta, ed. forthcoming, http://plato.stanford.edu/ archives/sum2012/entries/knowledge-analysis/

188 

 Resources and Citations

Stewart, Thomas Al. 2001. The Wealth of Knowledge: Intellectual Capital and the Twenty-first Century Organization. New York: Currency. Focuses on the concept of intellectual capital – how to measure it and account for it. St. Clair, Guy. 2003. Beyond Degrees: Professional Learning for Knowledge Services. Munich: Saur. St Clair is on the forefront of those pushing librarians into the knowledge age. This book calls for the creation of a “knowledge services” profession. Thompson, Michael J., ed. 2011. Georg Lukacs Reconsidered: Critical Essays in Politics, Philosophy and Aesthetics. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. A collection of articles on Lukacs. Of particular interest is chapter 13 by Thompson “Ontology and Totality: Reconstructing Lukacs’s Concept of Critical Theory.” Toffler, Alvin. 1970. Future Shock. New York: Random House. Toffler, Alvin. 1980. The Third Wave. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc. Toffler, Alvin. 1990. Powershift: Knowledge, Wealth, and Violence at the Edge of the 21st Century. New York: Bantam Books. Toffler, Alvin and Heidi Toffler. 2006. Revolutionary Wealth. New York: Currency Doubleday. A futurist who understands the impact of technology and it s effects on society. Very popular and very readable. Walker, Royce 1988. Software Project Management. A Unified Framework. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. One of several text books on software programing and development. Wells, H.G. 1938. “A Permanent World Encyclopedia.” In World Brain. London: Methuen & Co. An early and classic description of how computers could affect our lives. Wendling, Amy E. 2009. Karl Marx on Technology and Alienation. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. A solid description of Marx’s discussions of Technology and Alienation. Wenger, Etienne. 1987. Artificial Intelligence and Tutoring Systems. Computational and cognitive approaches to the Communication of Knowledge. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufman. Wenger, Etienne. 1998. Communities of practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, Etienne and W. M. Snyder. 2000. “Communities of Practice: The Organizational Frontier.” Harvard Business Review 78 (February–March): 1, 139–145. Wenger, Etienne, Richard McDermott, and William Snyder. 2002. Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press. The best writings on communities of practice – readable, provocative, and thoughtful. Truly groundbreaking works.

World Bank Studies WBI Development Studies. 2007. Enhancing China’s Competitiveness through Lifelong Learning. Washington, DC: World Bank Institute, The World Bank. WBI Development Studies. 2000. Korea and the Knowledge-based Economy: Making the Transition. Washington, DC: World Bank Institute, The World Bank.

Resources and Citations 

 189

WBI Development Studies. 2007. China and the Knowledge Economy: Seizing the 21st century. Washington, DC: World Bank Institute, The World Bank. WBI Development Institute. 2010. Building Engines for Growth and Competitiveness in China: Experience with Special Economic Zones and Industrial Clusters. Washington, DC: World Bank Institute, The World Bank.

Web Sites Basque Mondragon Cooperative. http://www.mondragon-corporation.com/ENG.aspx The largest worker-owned enterprise in Europe with 83,000 employees. It is based in the Basque country in Spain but has plants around the world. Community Intelligence Lab. http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/index.shtml Many examples of how the term community of practice has developed and is used within the knowledge management world. Communities of Practice. http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/index.shtml A useful web site with lots of practical advice on nurturing communites of practice. Comsonics in Harrisonburg, Virginia. http://www.comsonics.com/index.html An employee-owned company. European Federation of Employee Share Ownership. http://www.efesonline.org An organization of European companies where employees own shares. Fastener Industries, Inc. http://www.fastenerind.com An employee-owned company. Hodge, John L. http://johnlhodge.blogspot.com or http://johnlhodge.com A blog of social and political inquiry concerning democracy, human rights and ethical values. King Arthur Flour Vermont. http://www.kingarthurflour.com Became 100 per cent employee owned in 1996. National Center for Employee Ownership (NCEO). http://www.nceo.org Corey Rosen is the founder ([email protected]) and Loren Rodgers is the Executive Director.  This web site has much of the good research on employee-owned companies. Ohio Employee Ownership Center. http://www.oeockent.org Bill McIntyre is director of the and the successor to John Logue, who founded the center.  The Ohio Employee Ownership Center (OEOC) is a non-profit, university-based program established at Kent State University in 1987 to provide outreach, information, and preliminary technical assistance to Ohio employees and business owners interested in exploring employee ownership. The OEOC provides ownership training on a single and multi-company basis to existing employee-owned firms and is funded by grants from a range of public and private agencies and foundations, program income, and fee-for-service work.

About the Authors Ken Megill is a transformer of organizations and people. He is a published professional philosopher and teacher and a forty year member of the American Philosophical Association. He spent his last thirty years in the practical pursuit of knowledge management. He is a certified records manager, a certified archivist and holds a master of library and information science degree. He was an organizer and president of the trade union now representing 33,000 faculty and professional employees in Florida. He has studied and worked in Germany and Hungary. His philosophical writings are translated into Chinese and he has lectured at the Central Compilation and Translation Bureau (CCBT) of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China. His previous books include a consideration of how corporate memory can be preserved in the electronic age, a discussion of the management of a large number of documents, a handbook on managing information for government agencies, and a book on democratic political theory. His records management book, Corporate Memory, is translated into Serbian. Terry Balven is responsible for the Appendix. He is currently working for the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition. His charter is to build an organization and methodology to organize and direct an array of improvement initiatives associated with information, knowledge, and their uses. The goal is to align process change, investments in information technology, and change in how people think about work in order to deliver transformational improvement in how the Air Force and Department of Defense acquire weapon systems. He served thirty years in the United States Air Force, retiring as a colonel after a wide variety of operational and staff assignments. Colonel Balven directed the integrated digital environment project for the United States Air Force, which was led by Ken Megill.

Other Books by Kenneth Megill Corporate Memory. Records and Information Management in the Knowledge Age. 2nd edition. Munich. Saur. 2004. Document Management. New Technologies for the Information Services Manager (DM). London. Bowker-Saur. 1999. Making the Information Revolution. A Handbook on Federal Information Resource Management. Silver Spring, MD: Association of Information and Image Management. 1995. The New Democratic Theory. New York: Free Press. London: Collier-Macmillan. 1970.

Index Abduction 15, 65, 101, 120–125, 179 Access to information 48, 59, 80, 82, 84–87, 90, 133, 141, 142–144, 163 Adamson, Anthony 176 Air Force, United States 23, 84, 86, 135, 159, 160–165, 169–170, 172, 174–175, 177, 186, 190 Alberts, David 22–23, 182 Alienation 26 Anthropologist 3, 6, 18, 92, 110–111, 170, 184 Apel, Karl-Otto 182 Application 3, 13, 37, 86, 88, 101, 111, 115, 118, 130, 159, 172, 176, 179–181 Apprentice 33, 73 Archivist 3–5, 89, 128, 143, 157, 190 Assembly line 12, 18–21, 28, 32, 35, 42, 45, 48, 50, 53, 70, 96, 108, 115, 118, 123, 133, 142, 149 Automation 2, 12, 15, 18–19, 19, 42, 44–46, 50, 53, 61–62, 77, 82, 96, 98, 130, 160, 163, 166, 181

147, 157, 159, 162–163, 166, 175–176, 179–182, 189 Community of practice 6, 18–19, 37, 52, 59, 65, 73, 79, 81–83, 92, 94, 97, 99, 157, 179, 189 Connectivity 73 Cooperation 22, 25–26, 34, 36–37, 39, 42, 46–47, 49, 50, 96, 179 Corporate memory 48, 51, 84–85, 87, 90, 99, 136, 172, 174–175, 180, 186, 190 Creativity 32, 46, 57, 62, 72–73, 97, 105, 107, 108, 113, 116, 124, 133, 142, 156–157, 169 Critical commonsensism 65, 124 Critical thinking 124, 178 Culture vii, 5–7, 9, 12, 14–15, 19, 22–23, 33, 36, 39–42, 47–56, 59, 61–63, 68, 70–71, 80, 82, 84, 88–94, 97, 99, 100, 101, 104–107, 109–112, 114–115, 117, 120, 123–124, 128, 132–139, 141–150, 154, 156–157, 159, 161, 163–165, 167, 169–170, 172–177, 179–186

Ba 7, 9, 96–97, 179, 187 Balven, Terry 23, 159, 169, 174–175, 190 Baobab 93 Bloch, Ernst 83, 131, 156–157, 182 Bush, Vannever 106, 111, 183

Data 1, 3, 5, 9, 13–14, 17–19, 48, 63, 67, 82, 84, 86–87, 90, 95, 97, 118–119, 144, 172, 179–180, 183 Davenport, Thomas 65, 180, 183 Deduction 122–125 Dialectic 14, 75, 83, 101, 120–121, 123–124, 129–130, 135, 149–150, 167, 179, 187 Dialectical materialism 129, 149–150, 167, 179 Dickover, Noel 118, 176 Ditch-digger 11–13, 24, 43, 62, 147 Division of labor 26, 35, 46, 53, 77 Document 3–4, 18, 29, 62, 65, 87–89, 95, 108, 112–113, 126, 144, 152, 157, 172, 176, 180, 186, 190 Document Management 172 Domains 39, 90, 143–144 Drucker, Peter 6, 34, 184

Chaiklin 185 Change agent 137, 141 Change management 105, 134, 138, 147, 169 Collaboration 9, 20–21, 25, 32–33, 35–37, 39, 41–42, 46–47, 49–50, 52, 56, 85, 87–90, 92, 96, 99, 101, 103–105, 111–112, 136, 138, 144, 179, 186 Commodity 15, 16, 21, 25, 36–37, 135 Common sense 6, 47–48, 65, 92, 97, 105, 107, 109, 114, 120, 124, 133–134, 136, 179 Communities 107 Community 1, 6, 9, 14–19, 21–23, 25, 27, 29–30, 35, 37–38, 44, 49, 51–52, 59, 63, 65, 67, 72–73, 77, 79–83, 88, 90, 92–99, 104–110, 112, 114, 116, 121, 124, 127, 132–133, 136–137, 139–140, 143–145,

Evidence 1–2, 4, 6, 9, 40, 48, 50, 61, 63–67, 71, 73, 84, 121–124, 163, 181 Facet 42, 101, 120, 125, 127, 128, 179 Ford, Henry 19, 123

192 

 Index

Gadamer, Hans-Georg 121, 131–132, 180, 182, 184 Gore 81, 159 Gramsci, Antonio 166 Hegel, Georg 26, 40, 129–130, 183, 187 Heidegger, Martin 96, 182 Hermeneutics 68, 71, 101, 120–121, 123, 179–180, 184 Hero 104–105, 185 Hierarchical 20–21, 23–24, 46, 51, 70, 85, 125, 127–128, 161, 163–164, 184 Hodge, John L. 176–177, 189 Index 76, 106, 126, 189 Induction 122–123, 125 Industrial age 19, 61–62, 105, 180 Industrial mode of production 19, 36, 44–45, 47, 49–50, 53, 69, 86, 92, 108, 136, 138, 141, 166, 181, 185 Information ix, 1–7, 9, 11, 13–20, 22–25, 32, 35, 43, 46, 48–51, 53–54, 56, 59, 61–68, 71– 73, 76–77, 79–90, 94–101, 103–104, 106–108, 111–114, 121, 124–128, 132–146, 148, 151–154, 156–160, 162–163, 166, 168–169, 171–172, 174, 177, 179–183, 186–187, 189–190 Information age 22, 61–62, 172, 180, 182 Information management 2–6, 72, 79–80, 86, 107–108, 169, 171–172, 180, 190 Information technology 3, 5, 7, 13–14, 16–17, 54, 82, 136, 140, 159, 163, 168–169, 183, 190 Innovation 56, 88, 101, 108, 124, 138, 148–149, 151–154, 163, 183, 187 Integrated digital environment 5, 7, 9, 23, 48, 59, 73, 81–86, 88, 90, 92, 101, 132, 135–136, 141, 145, 159–163, 165–166, 169, 172, 174, 180, 190 Japan 7, 12, 14, 16, 20, 96–97, 147, 149, 151, 179 Jerome, John 110–111, 184 Justified true belief ix, 2–3, 59, 62, 64–67, 180 Knowledge v, ix, 1–3, 5–7, 9, 11–17, 19, 21–29, 32–41, 43–50, 52–54, 56, 59,

61–69, 71–73, 75–90, 92–94, 96–101, 103, 105–115, 117, 119–138, 140–149, 151–154, 156–158, 163, 166–176, 179–180, 182–190 Knowledge age 21, 24, 28, 59, 61–62, 69, 73, 94, 99, 105, 110, 113, 115, 125, 137, 141, 154, 170, 180, 183–184, 188, 190 Knowledge management 1–3, 5–7, 14–17, 53, 63, 79–82, 86, 90, 93, 98– 100, 157–158, 167, 169, 170, 172, 175, 180, 182–185, 187, 189, 190 Knowledge manager 79–81, 90, 94, 99, 142–145, 157, 174, 180 Knowledge store 73, 79, 84, 126–128 Korsch, Karl 166 Lave, Jean 6, 33, 43, 92–94, 185 Leadership 21, 23, 80, 87, 103–105, 133–135, 137–138, 148–149, 160, 162–165, 170, 187 Learning 3, 6, 20, 31–33, 40, 68, 73, 87, 89, 92, 105, 114, 133, 136, 148, 152, 154, 170, 180, 183–184, 187–188 Librarians 3–5, 125, 127–128, 143, 157, 175, 178, 188 Library science 4, 120, 125, 127, 131, 166, 187 Licensing 14, 30 Logic 24, 28, 50, 64, 74, 76–79, 84, 96, 101, 107, 116, 122, 124, 130–131, 133, 152–154, 170, 179, 184–185 Lotze, Evie 93, 104, 105, 170, 177, 185 Lukacs, Georg 73–74, 76–78, 129–131, 166–167, 170–171, 182, 184–186, 188 Manufacturing Age 62, 180–181 Marshaling 73, 80, 175, 180, 186 Marshall, Edward 51–52, 137, 174, 186 Marx 26–27, 42, 44, 74–79, 98, 113, 120, 129–132, 149–151, 154, 167–168, 170–171, 177, 179, 183, 185–188 Marxism 74, 76, 120, 129–131, 149–151, 154, 171, 179, 186–187 Mechanic 13 Medicine 3, 29, 34–35, 65, 98 Megill, Kenneth xi, 18, 86, 94, 159, 167, 190 Military 21–24, 110, 149, 161, 163–164, 169, 175

Index 

Network Centric Warfare 21–24 Nodine, Andy 164, 175 Nonaka, Ijuitsu 7, 14–15, 96, 179, 184, 187 Pape, Harry 17–18, 80, 87, 89–90, 93, 107, 127, 140, 145, 159–160, 164, 175, 186 Patents 37 Phenomenolog 129 Phenomenologists 129 Plato ix, 64, 156 Play vii, 4, 14, 16, 31, 33–34, 42, 44, 48–50, 70, 73, 76–77, 88, 95, 99, 101, 103, 106, 108, 113, 116, 125, 128, 131, 143, 149, 152, 154, 156–161, 174–176, 179, 185 Praxis 59, 97, 98, 143, 181 Professional associations 29, 30, 32, 38 Prusak, Lawrence 65, 180, 183 Quality improvement 12 Ranganathan, S. 4, 12–128, 131–132, 172, 179, 187 Rationalize 20, 36, 62, 107, 181 Record v, 3–5, 62, 67, 85, 90, 108, 112, 126, 128, 143, 157, 166, 172, 174, 176, 181, 190 Records manager 3–5, 62, 85, 90, 112, 128, 143, 157, 166, 172, 174, 176, 190 Reengineering 12, 68, 133, 139, 143, 158, 175, 182–183 Reengineering, business process 12, 70, 135, 141, 144, 160, 176, 183–184 Sawyer, Tom vii Scientific enquirers 2, 38, 95 Senge, Peter 6 Snyder, William 188 Socrates ix, 40, 107, 129, 156, 158, 167, 173, 179 Spiral development 101, 114, 116, 118–119, 123, 126, 134, 181 Spiral method 114–116 Standards and Connectivit 181 St. Clair, Guy 3, 176, 188

 193

Stein, Frederick 182 Systems thinking 115, 181 Tacit knowledge 1, 7, 14, 90, 99, 182 Teacher ix, 24–25, 31–32, 40, 190 Technicians 26, 28, 34–35 Toffler, Alan 61 Training 6, 29, 32, 34, 55, 65, 88, 105, 180, 189 Transformation 7, 9, 12, 14, 16, 19–20, 22, 30–31, 35, 43, 47, 50–51, 62, 68, 76, 79, 84–85, 89, 91, 97–98, 100–101, 104–105, 107, 131, 133–138, 143, 144–149, 151–154, 159, 163, 165, 168–170, 176–177, 181, 185, 190 Trust 13, 48, 50–52, 85, 88, 99, 103, 112, 117, 133, 136, 148, 179, 186–187 Truth 33, 62, 64, 66–68, 95, 122–124, 129, 151, 179, 184 Turnbull, Colin 111 Twain, Mark vii, 156 Understanding 1–2, 6–7, 9, 11–12, 14–15, 21, 23, 32, 35, 43–45, 49, 59, 65, 67–68, 71–72, 76, 78, 88, 90, 92, 94, 97, 101, 108–109, 115, 117, 120–122, 124–126, 12–133, 139–141, 144, 148–150, 160, 167, 171, 173, 175, 179–185 von Humboldt, Alexander 33 Walmart 14–17, 61, 187 Web 5, 18, 23, 82, 85–87, 89–90, 93, 98, 107, 109, 112, 126, 136, 174, 186, 189 Wells, H.G. 105 Weiner, Rebecca 153, 177 Wenger, Entienne 18, 33, 67, 71, 92, 94, 99, 185, 188 Wisdom 2 Work v, vii, ix, 1–3, 5– 7, 9, 11–57, 59, 61–101, 103–190 Workflow 18, 70, 135, 139–141, 181 World brain 106