Codification of knowledge operations

The pile of bus reading continues…

In the article lean knowledge work in October 2011 Harvard Business Review Staats and Upton argue that knowledge operations can be codified in many aspects making them into lean systems similar to those that tend to be identified with manufacturing processes.

This would give measurable benefits in terms of increased speed, better quality, reducing costs, and  in reducing repetition and so increasing job satisfaction.

Much of the article is a case study that illustrates key points the authors wish to make around six principles they identified.

I’m just going to comment on a couple of things within the article.

The Nub of the Argument

This falls into three parts. They argue that “a substantial amount of knowledge assumed to be tacit doesn’t have to be; it can be articulated and captured in writing if the organisation makes the effort to pull it out of people’s heads… all knowledge work includes some activities that have nothing to do with applying judgment and can be streamlined… Even when knowledge is genuinely tacit, creating systems and rules to guide workers’ interactions can lead to more-effective collaborations.”

Putting the Effort where the Value Is

I’m cautious about the above. I think the key bit about it for me from that quote is indeed ‘if the organisation makes the effort’ and doing it in a way that aligns it to business benefit so time is only being spent on area’s where it is actually going to improve organisational performance rather than be an abyss for taking up additional time. So I’m not hugely arguing against  the theoretical basis of it, but I am wondering about the extent to which it would be practical or desirable. For the tasks with oft-repeated elements a more functional approach to streamlining that would free up time for other things would be valuable for however.

And What Chimed With Me Specifically

There’s some interesting discussion about the need to periodically review structure and content of all jobs.

They say “Many knowledge jobs are unstructured and broad. They tend to expand gradually as one activity after another is added. People can end up with too much on their plates and too much time devoted to low-value tasks.”

This resulted in “task creep, inadequate prioritisation of assignments, and a lack of understanding of what made up a full workload”.

Over-committed people thus ended up under-performing as it was impossible to get everything done they were committed to in the timescale that had been set for it. Workloads were thus reduced. “This meant that not all the work that had been planned could be scheduled, and managers had to make hard choices. However, employees’ productivity and satisfaction increased.”

What are we Doing Specifically and Why is it Important?

All of this makes sense to me. We tend to add new services and tasks in but a lot more seldom to review and delete existing ones or look at things in the round. This can lose focus in the process. Important to review what tasks are important (and why), what’s nice to do (if possible), and what’s just not earning it’s keep in terms of value back. And keep to that if you want any chance of keeping to preferred timescale and budget on things.