In
the World is Flat, Thomas Friedman
highlights the impact of the “triple convergence” on how the world creates,
collaborates, and performs work (2007).
Specifically, Friedman maintains the first principle of convergence
emerged in the development of the World Wide Web (2007). This technology created a level playing field
in which anyone had access to a vast array of knowledge regardless of
geographic location or language. The
second convergence occurred as companies embraced a new organizational structure
that emerged when knowledge became globally accessible. Companies were no longer bound to geographic
barriers or physical structures. Rather,
technology enabled companies to become vast global networks of people connected
across continents, designing products and services to meet new consumer demands. The final convergence occurred as the first
two convergences yielded opportunities for individuals to compete for business
on a global scale. Applying the benefits
of a flat economic environment, individuals and organizations could seize new
opportunities created by the flattening of the world marketplace. Friedman discusses how nearly three billion
individuals suddenly had access to the global economy. People began creating, collaborating, and
networking to capture new opportunities, innovate, and penetrate new
markets. The vertical infrastructure of
organizations, communication flow, and knowledge delivery collapsed next to a
new horizontal model which brought knowledge, networks and collaboration to a
whole new population of individuals while simultaneously redefining community
(Friedman, 2007).
With
the proliferation of knowledge, leaders were challenged to discern strategies
for harnessing the knowledge for improved productivity. Nancy Dixon highlights the evolution of
knowledge management. Initially, she
asserts that leaders saw knowledge creation as the capturing of “specific
analytical content” (2009, May 2). Initially,
theorists suggested that knowledge creation was confined to the highest level
of the organization. Researchers
attempted to identify functional best practices to standardize across all
industries, thereby creating economic efficiencies. However, this model failed to appreciate the
vast knowledge resources at all levels of the organization. Overtime, reliance on vertical models of
knowledge creation limited the potential for a multi-layer, horizontal recognition
of the knowledge assets at different levels within the organization.
Furthermore,
Dixon (2009) suggested that while technology enabled knowledge to be accessed, sorted,
and analyzed, humans were required to discern what makes knowledge useful. Effective leaders recognize that we are no
longer simply “capturing knowledge” rather we are “leveraging knowledge”
through collaborative and collective conversations spanning social networks both
internal and external to the organization.
Dixon posits that organizational leaders must learn to listen and
leverage the “knowledge that is derived from the confluence of diverse
perspectives and data from across an organization…that is brought to bear on
important organizational issues” (2009, July).
Leaders must create environments supportive of creative conversations,
innovative adaptations, and cognitive diversity (Dixon, July, 2009). In this context, all members of the
organization become co-creators of the future of an organization. Knowledge assets enable organizations to
seize evolving opportunities as they emerge in a flattened marketplace.
Over
the past decade, the web and other social networks have transformed from being
identified solely as a repository of information, to a platform of interactive
collaboration designed to generate knowledge and capture new opportunities
(Dixon, July 2009). While many people
still use technology and the web for the primary purpose of browsing, searching
and monitoring information, others are beginning to see it as a platform for
rich intellectual discussion and engagement of complex issues (Gruber,
2008). Tom Gruber furthers this
argument, “We will know we are crossing into the new learning paradigm when we
see a qualitative change in the way people think of interacting on the
web. Today that interaction pattern
treats the web as an information source…Tomorrow, the web will be understood as
an active human-computer system, and we will learn by telling it what we are
interested in, asking it what we collectively know, and using it to apply our
collective knowledge to address our collective needs” (2008, p. 12).
Web-based
tools assist the leader in sorting, classifying, and collecting relevant data
to inform decision-making within the organization. Similarly, web-based technologies encourage
social networking allowing individuals to connect with thought leaders across
the globe. However, technology itself
does not yield the benefits of a flattened environment; rather, human
interaction with the knowledge acquired through the technology generates creative
responses to emerging opportunities.
Without human engagement of the data, the information remains
information and fails to convert to useful, applied knowledge capable of
transforming individuals and organizations.
Dixon,
N. (2009, May 2). Conversation matters: where
knowledge management has been and where it is going. Part one.
Retrieved from http://www.nancydixonblog.com/2009/05/where-knowledge-management-has-been-and-where-it-is-going-part-one.html
Dixon,
N. (2009, May 10). Conversation matters: where
knowledge management has been and where it is going. Part two.
Retrieved from http://www.nancydixonblog.com/2009/05/where-knowledge-management-has-been-and-where-it-is-going-part-two.html
Dixon,
N. (2009, July 30). Conversation matters: where
knowledge management has been and where it is going. Part three. Retrieved from http://www.nancydixonblog.com/2009/07/where-knowledge-management-has-been-and-where-it-is-going-part-three.html
Friedman,
T. (2007). The world is flat. New York,
NY: Picador.
Gruber,
T. (2008). Collective knowledge systems: where the social web meets the semantic
web. Journal
of Web Semantics, 6, 4-13.
Nice post. You captured the essence of the reading material but highlighted that right now the tools are in place to find, store, and even analyze the knowledge. But it still takes the fertile and creative minds of the human to see the data and interpret it in ways that can be useful and profound.
ReplyDeleteThe most profound statement you made in your post is in the last paragraph. The sharing of information and how it is processed is critical. Friedman made that point very clear in the second and third convergence theories.
ReplyDeleteIn my industry of Enrollment Management we deal with a plethora of data. As a consultant I analyze even more data. My job is to take that data and translate it into meaningful knowledge for the leaders of the organization to act upon.
When my oldest was in first grade he did an interview of his parents about what we did professionally. I was traveling so my husband explained I recruited students who paid money to the University so the teachers would get paid. He continued to explain he was a CPA and counted money for his company. That got translated into "Mommy makes the money and Daddy counts the money". I will never forget that one! Now to my point. My youngest had the same project this year, but I was home and was able to provide my own interpretation of my professional position. I explained I was a translator in that I took numbers and turned them into meaningful words for really important people. I tell this story because over the period of three years I have changed my view of my position as an Enrollment Manager. A lot of that has to do with the available data and my ability to network with so many more individuals horizontally.
Although I think the world looks very different than what Dixon or Friedman were thinking, I do think theoretically they both had the right idea. They both appreciated that access to information and data was going to increase drastically. They both also knew the ability to develop business practices around the data would be critical. Finally, they both believed the level of collaboration internally and externally would drive the success of any organization. I believe they are correct as I take a 30,000 foot view of the world today.
Mary,
DeleteThanks for your thoughtful comments. I liked your notion of your position as a translator. Indeed, I think that is an accurate description of an effective knowledge manager. However, do you ever go beyond translation? Given your previous posts, I believe strongly that you are both a translator and an advisor. It's one thing to translate, but I believe effective leaders also need to lead the effort to implement the changes that reveal themselves as a result of the data. As you suggest, leaders will capture the data through translation and leverage the ecosystem of networks available to him or her to make informed decisions to lead the organization in response to the new data.
Thanks! Loved the story of your kids....
Amy
Amy, nice post. Your Gruber quote brought to mind a good book I read last year by David Weinberger - TOO BIG TO KNOW. David's point is that there is now access to too much information for any individual to know, so curating information and developing knowledge requires a networked view. I agree with Mary, your note that human engagement is needed is indeed profound. We are entering an age of big data - which should have profound impacts on student success ... and business success.
ReplyDeleteI could not agree more -- big data describes our work environment in the university setting daily. However as leaders I want to ensure we do not let massive amounts of data befuddle us or stall or efforts to lead change. Sometimes, I fear we spend so much time collecting data that we succumb to indecision and complacency -- certainly potential drawbacks of a flattened world.
DeleteTo: Emerging Trends in Higher Education
ReplyDeleteFrom: NotSocrates
I appreciated the reference to Gruber’s arguments. It will be interesting to see when the paradigm shift is complete with regard to this new learning paradigm. I see it every day in my business. We deal with the federal government and there seem to be two types of individuals who work within it --- those who are comfortable with technology (usually younger) and those that are not (usually those that are older). Those who embrace technology are either beginning to, or already use it as an active human-computer system would. I myself need to get more involved in looking at these new technologies as tools for social interaction. At this point, I am getting a bit more comfortable but still in the infancy stage of my journey. I am quite clumsy with the technology, but find that once I get past the initial use of the technology, I become more comfortable.
I really think that you are on the spot and pragmatic in your analysis that human interaction with knowledge acquired through the technology will be the driver, not the technologies themselves. This seems to be the point that so many forget when talking about the technologies, their application and how they will transform work and life in the future. We as leaders have to realize this and figure out how to move the people component into the 21st century and have them embrace, but not be consumed by, technology.
Thanks for your response. Technology can flatten our world, but as users of that technology and as professional leaders, our role is now to make sense of all the information and equip our organizations with both the tools and professional development necessary to maximize productive use of this knowledge. Without this investment, companies will not be capable of seizing new opportunities.
DeleteAmy