I want to thank the people who attended my KMWorld 2010 pre-conference workshop that used the principles of design from my new book, Management by Design, to think about learning environments.
The presentation part of the workshop wasn’t that good. I have to rethink how to conceptualize the methodology before just jumping into it. The methodology reads much better than it presents. That is a lesson learned for me.
That being said, the last hour, when we tackled a knowledge management effort for clinical trial tracking, the technique performed well by driving conversations and identifying design attributes that would have, and may still, improve the level of design in the new system we used as an example. My presentation of the material needs work, but the methodology worked well in practice.
I won’t name the organization, but they are in the business of developing cures for a major disease.
The methodology starts by capturing the things the effort is balancing for. These are represented strategically when done well.
Examples include:
- The organization’s mission
- Compliance
- Improving efficiency, increasing speed and eliminating duplication
- Knowledge transfer and retention
- Quality
- Donor expectations
- Transparency of status and process
Although we prioritized these items, it became clear that they were roughly equal inputs into the design of the system, because disregarding any of them reduced the fidelity of the information available to the designers. When it comes to balance, it is imperative to name all the relevant concepts. If you do, as many do, make quality an attribute of the others, it ultimately gets lost. In clinical trials, even the possibility of missing quality should be elevated. In Management by Design, I argue that we should think of these balancing elements as a mass of inputs to the design, not as discrete items that can be prioritized. For balance to take place, you have to consider all the variables and their relative weights against each other that create the balance. Prioritize one item over the other, and the balance is lost.
The next part of the methodology looks at proportion through variety and emphasis. We had a very long talk about visual data input. The system described was one in which a document is placed into the system and then tagged with attributes. I played a visual thinker who found this boring. I didn’t do a good job of tagging because tagging itself was boring. I did the minimum I had to do, rather than the most effective tags for the work. So our discussion focused on ways to integrate visual interaction elements into the design, which is not currently present and may not even be possible. If it is the latter, that doing this work isn’t possible, then those charged with communication and adoption need to make sure they understand who will be affected by this design efficiency and how to get them on board, even though their preferred approach to work differs from the way the system will be implemented.
What to emphasize was also interesting, as the discussion quickly went down the list of system attributes: document management, higher quality, and more efficient processes. The debate ended up at a very different level, a more strategic level: creating compliance that allows the organization to achieve its mission. This ties the reason people come to work with their most daunting challenge and then puts the system into that context without even naming it. Without compliance, it was stated, nothing would ever be approved. Years of work could be delayed, or promising starts could fail for procedural reasons rather than scientific ones. To achieve the mission, they needed to avoid compliance issues.
We then went on to the next part of the methodology, Rhythm and Motion. What is essential to keep in mind here is that Rhythm and Motion are intended to focus attention on demonstrable progress at the strategic level. How do people, for instance, understand the successes of the knowledge management system at a level that propels them forward toward the higher goal?
In the case of the workshop, we discuss the strategic goal as the development of a high-quality solution to the disease, delivered cost-effectively. Objectives at this level were the first clinical trials to achieve high compliance, as managed by the new system. The second objective was to retire paper. We discussed that for the employee experience, we need to consider celebrating these moments, not just putting out an email recording them.
Perhaps most interesting was the impact perspective, in which the organization records significant impacts through the lens of the experience being designed. Here, the clinical trial system would report high audit scores, compiled reports from the system vs. by hand, and proof that donor funds were well used and that trials were executed on time. Clinical trials that run long, for any reason, are much more expensive and are seen negatively by funding agencies. So, having the system closely tied to improving key metrics is essential. Avoid false metrics that report how well the system is doing, such as the number of items added to a database. These don’t matter if the data they contain isn’t applied to improve performance or make better decisions.
The next part of the methodology examines tools: policy and practice, technology, and space. Each of these is moderated by flexibility, simplicity, equitability and forgiveness. In a short session, it is hard to get into all of the moderations, but here is what we came up with today:
Policy
- Paperless processes
- Lessons learned feedback
- Validation of the system
- Rewrite standard operating procedures to reflect design intent
- Policy that the new system is the system of record
- An information architecture that allows for future flexibility
- Rewriting of job descriptions, roles and responsibilities, and delegation rules.
- Cross-functional teams
Tools
- Auto-tagging
- Improved workflow
- Realtime analytics
- Mobile apps, along with the web
Space
- Open room designs to reinforce the elimination of silos and multi-purpose roles
- Placeless work (mobile phone apps)
Now, admittedly, these notes are a bit cryptic, but they point to tools that reflect and reinforce the balance, rhythm and motion elements. At this point, these notes are examples, but more drilling down and detail would need to be collected and conferred.
The final part of the process is to define Perceptibility through the fundamental questions of who, what, where, when, why and how. This is the tactical level. We talked a lot about the need for internal marketing. Imagine Perceptibility guiding your answers to these questions so that you are forced to communicate the system’s deepest intent. You want anyone who reads these answers to know why they care and what is in it for them.
Management by Design was written to help people, and the organizations that employ them, create better workplace experiences. This workshop demonstrated that the methodology prompts new perspectives that can improve workplace experiences. If not, it can identify issues you can’t overcome, for either technical or business reasons, so you can effectively communicate the whats and whys of your choices.
Thank you again to the workshop attendees for your patience and openness to mutual learning.
Leave a Reply