From the monthly archives: October 2012

The networks that (don’t) work

The effective use of knowledge and learning require culture and technology. Although the existing technology today is more than enough to transmit and store data, the resulting information has meaning only when inserted in a cultural context.

The explicit information can be easily inserted in a database, however, this information is often not the most relevant to the effectiveness of an organization. What is truly relevant to the Organization exists in the form of a complex system, context-sensitive.

This is knowledge, which we found in individuals, groups or organizations and that result of the connections between them.

The networks as seen through the prism of machines and accessories, just support. However without a proper management of these tools we cannot monetize the exchanges of information resulting from the activities of individuals involved in the networks, whether they are internal to the Organization, whether they are external and global.

An organization has to be seen from various perspectives and, since then, by the way as are formed their groups and power relations.

A careful mapping of an organization allows us to view internal and external flows of information, as well as the spaces not touched by these flows.

In a time when information flows were more focused and with less volume, almost only raised the question of the cost of transmission and storage, today given the amount of information available and their accessibility, it is important above all assess their quality and relevance.

Want to know about something has a lot more impact than trying to learn about it.

Knowledge requires validation, as well as the ability to anticipate and work results.

The networks and the technology that is inherently, allow the mass collection and transmission of information, but that alone is not enough.

It is necessary that “communities of know” face new data collection forms, new tools to handle and store information, including more effective filters and fundamentally new forms of collaboration in knowledge that meet over distance and time.

The great advantages anticipated that we can predict, with these new tools, are given a greater meaning to the knowledge resulting from collaboration between interdisciplinary teams that becoming cohesive, enable treating complex problems that usually are treated with teams of convergent disciplines.

Interdisciplinarity found in networks, in addition to promoting openness to new concepts and frameworks, allows the approximation, the traditional “knowledge centers” to natural internal users, organizations, and who are an active part in the validation of the information supplied and collected.

“In internal communications between co-workers the emphasis is on the presentation and interpretation of facts, requiring an interconnected system of communication methods that enables easy sharing of information. Effective communications should be linked to the objectives and culture of your business. These are the four steps to developing an internal communications strategy for your business:

1. Identify the strategy’s objectives

2. Audit current communications practices

3. Identify the communications audiences

4. Determine the communications methods to be used” – Elvis U.

Knowledge always ends up by being centered in the interests of the people, these being inclusive, almost always, the targets for validation of this knowledge.

Do you want to comment?

Tagged with:
 

The reminiscences of the past

Have you ever thought that: “The emotion associated with a future simulation is the glue that binds together the details of the scenario in memory”?

According to António Damásio, everything that we remember or “each memory” has an emotion attached to it. Often, when we find an answer to a problem or challenge we remember not only what this challenge suggests to us but the emotions associated with our memories related to this “something”. These exercises of memory and of the future are something that is steeped in design thinking.

Remembering!

“Design thinking is a human-centered innovation process that emphasizes observation, collaboration, fast learning, visualization, and rough prototyping. The objective is to solve not only the stated problem at hand, but the real problems behind the obvious. The best way to do so is to involve consumers, designers, researchers, and businesspeople in an integrative process, which can be applied to product, service, or even business design. It is also a tool to imagine future states and to bring products, services, and experiences to market. “

I think, speaking of memories of recent events, what we experience in this century, the various events and emerging social practices that mark it, confirm that the society has reached a point of no return on the influence of information technology on social structure and formation of their practices.

This influence has its consequences in what tomorrow will be our memory. These changes require significant adjustments in how we design and develop our knowledge, our products and our services.

Information technologies are instruments of preserving memories and eventually record the data, based on “static” situations and not considering the environment in which they operate.

For a good preservation of our memories is important to take into account the location of everything that have registered in a context so that the decisions that are taken are a function of the situation and the way in which the situation is constructed or interpreted.

This means that each time that we interpret a situation we are revamping and build memories with new structures, because new values or variables are introduced.

In this way not only this constructive memory produces new memories, as allows us to reinterpret our previous experience illuminated by current conditions.

“This behaviour has been seen in empirical studies of designers. For example, Suwa et al (1999)describe how an architect during the designing of a museum emerged a visual axis and then used that visual axis as the driving idea. He did this not only for all his future designing activity but also by reinterpreting his past design ideas on the project in terms of this visual axis”

Episodic memory, the system that allows people to recall past experiences, it is widely understood as a fundamentally constructive dialogue instead of a reproduction of the past, but this process is prone to various kinds of errors and illusions.

An important function of a constructive episodic memory is to allow people to simulate or imagine future episodes, events and scenarios.

Since the future cannot be ever an exact repetition of the past, the simulation of future episodes requires a system that can extract from the past, flexibly, and recombine elements of previous experiences.

But as we often do not need to remember all the exact details of our experiences, our system has adapted and need not preserve all details, noting only those details when the circumstances indicate that it is likely to be required.

Cognitive scientists are very interested in people’s “remembered futures.” The whole idea seems contradictory in a way, as we tend to think of memory in connection with the past—recollections of people and things gone by. The fact is that we all imagine the future, and from time to time we recall those imaginary scenarios. Recent research has shown that the same brain areas are active when we remember past events and when we think about the future. Indeed, some scientists believe that these “memories” are highly adaptive, allowing us to plan and better prepare ourselves for whatever lies in store. If we can remember the actions and reactions we thought about in the past, our future behavior will be more efficient.”

Remember past events are associated with sensory details richer, contextual and alive that were imagined in future events.

 

Do you want to comment?

 

Tagged with:
 

“Simplicity is about subtracting the obvious, and adding the meaningful.” – John Maeda

This notion of simplicity seems to me to be extremely useful as guidance when we want to build something new and with value.

Such a thing must have real importance to us and is a perception that we have of an experience but it is not in the product or service with which we relate.

When we talk with someone, we hear or read news, often we find that a lot of people expressed unmet needs that are part of a world visible and identifiable.

But behind this field of articulated needs, there are many other needs that people still do not have or have not yet been identified because these people have not yet been confronted with environments that require more of themselves and that makes those needs be highlighted.

For example: the people who are part of my ecosystem initiated a communication path that will awaken in me new needs. This is, now, if I want to communicate with my friends and partners, it is important that I am a user of certain technologies and its applications, otherwise the communication becomes difficult.

Observe and test in context, means change!

Observe the behavior of people in their environment to understand person/environment interaction is one of the best ways to start a desirable process of change.

The change in people always implies an acceptance more or less difficult when this change does not arise on its own initiative, that is, to leave the comfort zone without resistance people have to look for a bigger comfort.

I think that, if people cannot follow the pleasure principle, and the reality requires an effort, they will seek to expend as little effort as possible.

So when we offer new experiences to people we should check their effectiveness and efficiency in the context where these experiences must happen and not try to test them in chosen groups as representative of trends.

So in order to reduce the resistance to change we have to observe the daily life of people and analyze the interactions that people have with their environment and determine what are the limits of intensity of change that we think will be acceptable.

The ways to find solutions to people’s problems begin with the observation of interactions and these problems may be unmet but clearly identified, articulated, not by difficulty of framing in the context or difficult to verbalize and hidden needs that may not be felt today but will exist as a result of something introduced.

To observe the needs of the people are not restricted to the identification of goods or services that lack, it is in particular, observe the behavior of people when they interact with their environment.

Empathize with people that we want to observe is the only way to get a result that satisfies our intentions.

To facilitate the observation of these interactions questionnaires and informal conversations or even the ancillary frameworks of observation with relevant items may not be enough.

To capture the information transmitted with the help of new technologies, videos and other types of records becomes crucial to get good results, because this allows the preservation of natural environments, i.e., unfiltered environments by our intervention, in addition to allow viewing via different angles (different observers).

Understand and observe potential users of innovative products and services that solve many of the problems of the people requires an interdisciplinary work and a lot of creativity because the solutions have to be desired by consumers/users, be achievable and economically viable for the supplies.

These solutions are found in the universe of “what might be” and not in the universe of “what is”.

I think observation has two important moments in the course of the development of an idea, to feed the creation of a solution and the observation of the interaction of people with the prototype of the solution.

It is this second trip to the world of interactions that might arise some questions:

Does the product or service created fully meet the needs of the people?

Once in interaction with the solution which is the desirable and consequent behavior?

The extent to which the observation held allows me to predict future behaviors?

Why create prototypes to test?

Prototyping to test is the iterative generation of low-resolution artifacts that probe different aspects of your design solution or design space.  The fundamental way we test our prototypes is by letting users experience them and react to them.  In creating prototypes to test with users you have the opportunity to examine your solution decisions as well as your perception of your users and their needs.”

Final note: We know how important it is to the notion of conformity bias in people and the weight that the culture has on choices so here is the question:

Does the proposed solution that we see often are in fact the solution to the problems or just part of a route to a destination suggested by others?

Do you want to comment?

Tagged with:
 

To reconcile old and new knowledge

“Innovations occur when individuals with high degrees of existing creativity or knowledge make new and novel combinations of this knowledge with new insights observed or learned through spillovers.” – Desrochers

When I think of creativity and exchange of ideas (knowledge), I immediately think in connectivity and imagine a universe of complex relationships and connections, full of attributes and many surprises.

There are the connections that can create exchanges of ideas and innovations. These connections exist between individuals and do not create necessarily equal benefits to all involved, but are somehow beneficial to all parties.

But does connectivity generates creativity?

The intellectual capacity, the knowledge, the styles of thought, personality, motivation and environmental context are elements that must be considered to assess the creative potential of each one of us.

People who are more creative, are more prone to think divergently, exhibit higher levels of cognitive complexity and flexibility, and are better at handling unstructured and ambiguous situations.

This could mean that a creative person has some salient features, as tolerance for ambiguity, self-confidence (in his creative activity), independence and autonomy in decision-making, persistence and self-discipline, a very peculiar narrative and belief in its activity.

Above all, one might think that underlying all of this is an empathetic attitude in an environment that we wish of diversity.

“It is the “unexpected” and previously undocumented connections that are of the most interest, specifically connections that are only possible under conditions of diversity.”

But sometimes we heard or read stories about creative people where the self-examination, the retreat and the alienation from the world stand.

Does it make sense to think in this way?

Today the world is connectivity, relationships, even if virtual, where knowledge is a strong currency in the exchanges between individuals and groups that promote creativity through connections.

The role of creative people is connecting things that apparently does not relate.

With a world that is increasingly connected through the networks on the internet the amount of loose ends in information, increases every day, and the opportunities of generating ideas accompany this growth.

“So how do you go about creating a context where people can think and work, where they can be creative and productive?  Anyone who’s ridden a horse knows that the secret to success is getting the horse to think that it’s doing what it wants. I believe that when people feel like somebody else is telling them what to do, they’re likely to resist. Whereas, if they think it’s what they themselves want, they’re more likely to sign up. Lao Tzu said something like this 2,500 years ago: when the best leader leads, the people say we did it ourselves.” – Tim O’Reilly

The environmental context where people fall is of course a factor that we must consider when we speak of richness and quantity of ideas either by their “quality”, i.e. comprehensiveness, complexity and effectiveness of resolving problems or needs.

Does, so that an idea is valid, or to have really value, it needs to fit into an existing need, even if it is hidden?

Is it necessary to have an empathetic attitude with people to solve the problems?

I have no doubt that only a deep understanding of the problems allow generation of ideas capable of meeting the real needs of consumers/users, but there are hidden, so needs unmet, who will only be satisfied if there is an environment of broad connectivity in the creative process.

Do you want to comment?

 

Tagged with:
 

The difference between what we have and what we want

It is good to remember that many times, just because some of us are solving a problem does not mean that we are solving the most important problem.

Our ability to create ideas is amazing but we are often faced with the difficulty of attributing meaning.

An idea is a purpose for an action whose meaning is closely connected with the definition of a problem, which can go from clarification of an aspect or situation to the solution of a delicate problem as the distribution of drinking water in areas of difficult access.

To solve a problem begins with the definition of the problem which is the most important part in the process of resolution, that is, to correctly identify the problem to be solved.

If we want to have creative ideas, we need not to invest heavily directly in ideas but in the understanding of the problem and from that understanding enunciating real challenges to our status quo. We need to leverage our capabilities!

The problem definition should not be seen as an individual act and requires the participation of a team eager for answers to questions that throws in thick and fast. Often what is called problem is nothing more than a consequence or a particular aspect of the problem because this is represented by a hidden or unexpected need.

My ideas will eventually be “good ideas” if in fact they fit into problem set.

If we want a clear identification of a problem it does not succeed without resorting to observation because this allows us to differentiate what is said from what really makes.

Often when we try to follow a given functional stream to identify any problem we do not find meaning in what we are told and once again the observation and systematic questions are enlightening. For example:

Why is it a problem?

Why has this happened?

This is really urgent?

In these circumstances the diversity inherent in a team observes and explores the environment where supposedly is a problem, facilitates cross-a vision that allows us to enjoy the various perspectives of understand the problem including their contextualization.

Meanwhile our idea has yet to wait to apply the resolution.

It is only truly valid when identifying the problem is finished and this is possible when what we say is what we think or want to say. The identification must be clear.

Have an idea, the better, have a fair amount of ideas often seem frustrating, because the momentum of the want to put into action is caught by the need for a clear definition of the problem.

But also for this reason the definition of the problem helps to refine our ideas, allowing for rapid deletion of proposals full of individualism, romanticism and failure, leveraging more environments conducive to our creativity. In most cases sooner is the failure faster is success because we don’t uses time looking for minor improvements.

A team that identifies a problem correctly became owner of a more comprehensive knowledge and problem-solving facilitator.

It is then that the good ideas appear but that are “good” only after evaluation. Only after we check that correspond to the interest of the organization, where they will be developed and that have the desired solution requirements, i.e., satisfying the needs of people linked to the problem, is that they come in.

Good ideas are good ideas only if they can get in action.

How much more interdisciplinary is a team better the result expected with a proposed solution. It is on the borders of several disciplines which often are high resolution potential solutions.

The way I see a problem may seem correct to me, but how a team sees a problem is certainly more appropriate to its resolution.

Do you want to comment?

 

Have will and be empathetic

Last week I and some friends decided to postpone the realization of an event because we thought there was an amount out of normal range of events over the next 45 days.

The events are not all about creativity, innovation, service design or design thinking, lean, entrepreneurship or art (most dear to me), but all of them demonstrate the willingness of new and older people to do things and do it well.

This environment puts me, however, some interesting points to think about:

How is that different generations cohabit and collaborate to produce these new, useful, memorable things and true levers for the construction of a better world?

Is it just the younger generation who are able to develop the creativity to produce so many actions of value?

I think different generations represent different lenses to see the problems and different ways to find solutions, that is, the way we think, perceive or percept our well-being differs from generation to generation but is always the result of our participation in creative activities.

The ideas come up and we’ll grasp them, whatever our age, and when we talk about organizations, the very conducive atmosphere of creativity that people eventually find depends largely on their attitudes and beliefs.

As we advance in age, it may happen that our idea of change is crystallized and gives rise to a dominant thinking that is convergent in the sense of “old school”.

There is room for reflection and construction of the story of our life, to which we add some creativity to bridge memory leaks or scenes more or less submerged.

In these ways of organizing events is sometimes necessary to demystify the idea that creativity is on younger generations and focus the cases which show that “older workers not only had great ideas for making procedures and processes more efficient, but their innovations also produced significantly higher returns for the company than those of workers in younger age groups…

Given these sorts of results, why is the notion that older people are less productive or innovative so entrenched? Part of it is because there are deep stereotypes and cultural narratives at play.”

Research details a number of ways in which the brain actually improves with age. And what’s even more interesting is that many of these advanced abilities correlate with key conceptual elements of innovation and creativity

This is particularly true for the human-centered design process — empathize, define, ideate, prototype, test — as outlined by the Institute of Design at Stanford, also known as “the d.school”…

First there is empathy, “the foundation of a human-centered design process.” Empathy is critical to design because of the need to understand the people for whom you are designing.

Older people have a greater capacity for empathy because empathy is learned and refined as we age….

“Because of their greater capacity to empathize, older people can have a better sense of the things that may charge up another person’s brain and get them excited.”

Older people are also highly capable when it comes to the “define” aspect of human-centered design — that is, the unpacking and synthesizing of empathy findings into compelling needs and insights.”

Despite these complimentary findings for the older ones, we know that there are periods in our lives when we feel more encouraged to accept challenges and to which we replies based on our dominant concern in these moments.

Can any of these periods explain the quest for the impossible?

Is it possible a period where creativity is fostered to entrepreneurship?

Is there a period where creativity is guided to complex things?

Anthony Storr writes: “Actually, according to some psychologists, the work of all artists typically passes through three phases, provided they live long enough. Third period works have certain characteristics. First, they are less concerned with communication than what has gone before. Second, they are often unconventional in form, and appear to be striving to achieve a new kind of unity between elements which at first sight are extremely disparate, Third, they are characterized by an absence of rhetoric or any need to convince. Fourth, they seem to be exploring remote areas of experience which are intrapersonal or suprapersonal rather than interpersonal. That is, the artist is looking into the depths of his own psyche and is not very much concerned as to whether anyone else will follow him or understand him.”

Do you want to comment?

 

A climate of creativity involves behaviors, attitudes and feelings

We know that inventions and innovations rarely come up when we’re in our comfort zone or status quo.

The solution for many problems can be reached through some regular reading (learning), a bit of observation and creativity. By a systematic improvement as a result of targeted review processes we can resolve some problems incrementally.

However it is often necessary to resort to other processes, such as intuitive and creative solutions, not incremental or radical.

Troubleshooting incrementally is a systematic process that begins with a given problem to a particular solution. This involves a problem definition and a set of appropriate operations to solve the problem, but dependent on the description of this and making its execution limited to a restricted number of people.

This approach that seems simplistic is frequent in companies that develop their activity within the limits of “enough” and usually create a problem with the problem statement. That is, when the lack of responsibility and the lack of motivation for problem solving in time leads to poor service and the collapse of proper functioning of companies.

At these times we have to look for another way!

When an organization is committed to the resolution of problems, but for which the departments fail to respond, they must widen their horizon and develop a culture of creativity.

In today’s business world, product cycles are becoming shorter. There are increasingly obsolete and discontinued products that result from an attitude of creative laziness installed in the organizational culture.

The creative potential exists but is not released! There is no place for confrontation of ideas with reality!

Organizations to monitor demand, have to be fast and be awake, have to be innovative and constantly adapt to the new market.

The need to develop a culture of creativity becomes a reality, but it is not easy to achieve. Actually the intention is that the visible result can be plenty of ideas backed by a solid structure.

The culture has to do with maintaining assumptions, meanings and beliefs in an organization and that are deeply rooted, feeding and giving security to the Organization, such as the roots of a tree.

But, for people to develop creativity, they must work in environments that are inspiring and where it manifests a welcoming climate, without fear of failure or fear of the ridicule.

This climate is the manifestation of behavioral patterns and practices that are grounded in the culture.

In an organization when the strategic vision is shared, we are providing a guidance framework that serves as a compass, but when employees are given a GPS your creativity boils down to turn on and off any switch to dump solutions not worked.

The deep motivation for generating ideas and pass these to the final product is the result of forces that constitute the organizational climate.

Organizations must allow employees freedom and sense of responsibility. When an organization offers time to be creative is developing an atmosphere of closeness, trust and recognition.

People who feel challenged, feel that there is somewhere to extend personal boundaries, develop latent talents and explore new possibilities, living a climate of creativity (and happiness).

People who have a smile on his lips, that face the fun as a form of experimentation and telling jokes about unexpected things, are inserted in an atmosphere of creativity.

Organizations that invest in an atmosphere of creativity create conditions to face the risk and develop an environment of trust.

People know they are not punished for failing when they are involved in activities of experimentation, which is fundamental in the way of ideas.

People who live in a climate of creativity are in constant conflict of ideas which provides new opportunities and broadens the scope of knowledge.

 

Do you want to comment?

Observe how people experience the world

We know that there is a classical distinction between experimentation and observation, but that can easily be translated differently.

Traditionally, we can say that to try we need to isolate, prepare and handle things hoping to produce useful evidence.

And observe would meet the interesting details of things perceived in more or less natural conditions, or, by extension, the things perceived in the course of an experiment.

This made me remember the words of Tim Brown:

“The design thinkers must act as anthropologists or psychologists investigating how people experience the world emotionally and cognitively.”

Observation is the fundamental food to creativity and innovation. However in this feeding process of ideas and ways of thinking often appears the “blind spot”.

Blind spots occur due to peculiarity of design in the architecture of our eyes. Cells at the back of the eye, in a layer called the retina, gathering light through a lens of what’s in front of us.

Just out of sheer curiosity, a recent study suggests that the visual system of the brain may create a physiological representation of visual information, around blind spots, painting a coherent scene, i.e. filling the void.

What about business? Are there blind spots that could potentially be fatal to the success of companies?

Interestingly the blindness disappears often when we talk about a business that is not ours and we are able to change our radar and identify a number of small things that “jump ahead”.

If this happens in relation to the activities of third parties why it does not happen with our activities?

It is essential that we are able to see the blind spots in our business and then do something for them. The best way to minimize the negative impact of blind spots is to seek the advice of those who think differently from us.

For example, for large organizations the unknown is always uncomfortable and for this reason there is a tendency to “illustrate” and justify with data anything that is not seen. On the other hand design thinkers, instead, have enviable curiosity and looking to explore intersections of information and possibilities, so they see the technologies and social networks as an enabler of innovation and new business models, and not as a way to make the current model more efficiently.

This is collaboration and this is at the heart of today’s business processes but most organizations are still using hands as if they were in the dark or blind.

Often there is a misinterpretation of the term focus and when it says that the greatest successes of entrepreneurs are due to focus on business processes we can’t forget informal networks that gravitate around the companies.

The new architectures for business processes and total quality management have been effective to measure and improve the effectiveness of people and organizations.

But, what about the invisible networks that help to develop the business?

The ease and low cost of communications, globalization and the growing specialization of knowledge work based on collaboration within and among organizations are more important than ever.

We should not forget that “Focus is the core reasons for blind spots. Through constant scanning and reading weak signals, we can then recognize and seize upon that moment when luck aligns the forces of the universe to unite need and opportunity in such a way that the connections between unconnected dots can be seen.  Strategic Innovation is not about creativity or design, it is about organization agility and constant organization realignment.” – Idris Mootee

It is not in the modes of thought that most distinguished design thinkers, but in their actions. Design thinkers act differently from traditional decision-makers and analysts. Design thinking is an activity of extremes and borders and tends to recur at all faculties of the people who are in each context.

The design thinker uses the mind and the body, the left and right brain, hand and heart, the analysis and the like.

Experience Design Thinking is participating in a dance between four states of mind: analysis, synthesis, divergence and convergence!

Do you want to comment?

 

–          This article is a review of a previous post of this blog.

The role of creativity in organizations

I think the agility of an organization depends largely on the nature of its structure and how much flatter and more open, more permeable it is to new knowledge and new ideas.

This is one of the advantages of work performed in networked structures that easily mobilize the imagination of every employee in an organization preparing them, at all times, to face challenges of the system where they are inserted and immediately seek to find solutions for the win.

Organizations must create environments facilitators of creativity and appropriate recognition and reward forms to several generations involved.

Opening the doors to the participation of employees in the construction of their work environments and the development of collaborative methodologies, the organizations can create attractive places for the retention of their talents.

The first generation that grew up with the Web, has its main assumption that the contribution of each to the Organization, are not titles, but the merit. Eventually earlier generations see their contribution as the sum of a few years of experience, but they are too in the dependence of the laws of competence.

“In a market where talent is largely a commodity and can bought anywhere, the secret sauce is creating an in which you push that frontier out, in which you can steadily raise the returns on human capital . The combination of technology and talent is a powerful catalyst for value creation, but to take advantage of the Web’s capacity to help us aggregate and amplify human potential in new ways, we have first all abandon some of the traditional management beliefs – the notion, for example, that the strategy should be placed at the top. ” – Gary Hamel

The path of the abandonment of some old beliefs, involves construction of new levels of confidence on the part of all employees and partners. The assumptions that dominated the management of the XX century that remained unchanged for years should be replaced, tested or validated in the new realities of the 21st century.

A new attitude to the past, naturally requires faith in new forms of interaction and requires new learning skills, not only to the “apprentices” but for everyone and learning that often means learn to unlearn.

The future already has path and is not similar to the past. Is a future with some lines that seem clear:

Traditional decision making processes and models are falling behind the fast pace of this new century, both for individuals and organizations.  Many of us are aware of this situation, but are feeling lost without a new approach to make good reliable decisions fast”

-We have already started to feel the problems of traditional reasoning based on induction and deduction. The new option is called intuitive decision-making.

-Creativity tools start to be more needed by employees and are being more widely distributed in organizations.

-The ideas no longer have exclusivity or localized sources and begin to compete on an equal footing.

-A new movement of thought and action, including the strategies are being built bottom-up.

-The power or authority begins to be a question of competence rather than a matter of place in the hierarchy.

In this way, the evolution of organizations, which is never linear, will still be the results of some battles between conservative and analytical forces and forces of creativity in the organizations.

There are the people within the organizations who know what the processes which collide with innovation that prevent adaptation and that create frustration in the employees.

 

Do you want to comment?

 

Losing focus is losing our way

For many of us the development of newly learned knowledge (the one that is closest to the trends of social networks) have underlying the huge desire to learn more and a desire to become an expert in this area.

Often are these trends, and not the secrets or hidden or lost information in an organization, which leverages our curiosity.

However, unaware of the nature and extent of this hidden repository of organizations we risk not only devalue the capabilities of the people who built it, but also, we run the risk of passing next to a unquestionable wealth, often translated into tacit knowledge of individuals.

It is a knowledge that can easily get out of organizations, when an employee leaves for other companies or retires.

The organization needs to capture and transfer this knowledge and a way to do that is through training.

How is it possible to keep this balance between the willingness to embrace the newness and richness of accumulated wisdom?

Who, and how, will tell the real stories that have not been written, but which are part of the history and culture of the Organization?

Until recently, the sages were parents and perhaps even the grandparents who, from the top of his old chair, pass on advice and knowledge, outlining strategies based on successful experiences.

Now, the roles reverse and younger generations are clamoring for newer coaches, counselors and capable of leading to the management of their own knowledge. There are the new directions of technology lead to the emergence of new facilitators.

Various roles in the same goal: Trainers, counselors, mentors, trainers and facilitators, all with the mission to transfer and create new knowledge.

Today, while the “status quo” works tirelessly to keep the achievements of Baby Boomer, younger generations try to grasp the emerging opportunities through mobility, through the use of new tools and by opening new worlds of knowledge and being.

What I give as much meaning or seeking to perform as a purpose is after all what is seen by younger generations as something that must exist as a need for those who work but also disposable at any time.

Companies mostly directed by older generations are beginning to feel the need to find a balance between these two forces. We have a generation with the wisdom and experience in different scenarios of yesterday and another with the scenarios of today asking for constant change.

Different generations who produce new versions of facilitators and eventually produce a knowledge transfer with both ways, allowing the Organization to capture the knowledge to transfer back to elements with less experience, but already incorporating the potential for working with new tools.

Some points of consideration that we must consider:

The specialists (senior) in an organization can be mentors of new people (junior) but this will only work if the experts are willing to cede in openness and the newer ones support be exposed to their knowledge gaps. Some experts find knowledge gaps so big in the juniors that they don’t know where to start or don’t have the patience to start with the basics.

Facilitate can be a relevant and temporary situation, to help shorten the time to fill in some parts of the knowledge gap and helps to improve the reception of knowledge of less experienced.

Facilitate could harm if knowledge transfer is not suited to the needs.

Facilitate means to get a clear and shared understanding of the intent of the change with the other or others and bring them to a common and constructive vision.

Facilitate means determine the best process to engage these people and keep the focus on the chosen approach.

Do you want to comment?