Decision-making

[Hubert Saint -Onge]

I find it interesting how much emphasis is being placed on decision-making in this discussion. My work in both profit and not-for-profit organizations has led me to believe that discrete, distinguishable decisions happen relatively rarely in organizations. Things are shaped gradually in sucha way that discrete decisions rarely are distinguishable evnts.

This is what has led me to emphasize the development of capability at both the individual and organizational level as the primary outcome of collaboration and knowledge exchange. Capability is define as the link in the chain between intent and execution or performance.

Regards, Hubert

[Neil Olonoff]

Hubert

Thanks for your interesting comment on the relative lack of decision making in organizations. I believe the reason we see so much emphasis on decision making is because when we come to propose and sell KM programs, there is great interest in supporting  "upper management." For a time, this was positioned as "Executive Information Systems," although I haven't heard much about those lately in the KM space. I think people suppose that executives and military leadership spend their time "making decisions," and that knowledge management should support that activity.

It is true that managers and leaders make decisions, but they do so in the context of continuous conversations, not consulting some knowledge management system.

Regards,

Neil

Neil Olonoff   olo...@gmail.com
Lead, Federal Knowledge Management Initiative,
Federal KM Working Group hosted at  http://KM.gov
Office:  703.614.5058 (US Army HQDA, G-4/Contracted by Innolog)
Mobile: 703.283.4157 (Disabled during working hours)
Personal profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/olonoff
Blogging at http://FedKM.org

[Stephen Bounds]

I agree, Hubert.

That's why I tend to talk about "problem solving" rather than "decision
making". A decision can be taken to solve a problem, but not all
problems are solved through (conscious, discrete) decision making.

Cheers,

-- Stephen.

[Meyer, Peter - BLS]

Agreed 100% with Hubert. The language of "capability" seems to be useful everywhere. The language of "decision" may work better in military, policy, and regulatory contexts, but not where I work.

I’m in an agency which measures things. It makes only tiny decisions. But it can be smarter or less smart and scientific about what it does. Here, our capabilities are disappointingly constrained in sharing source material with one another, and across agencies, and in evidence-based science in general. ("Source material" meaning computer source code, algorithms, evidence, arguments, etc.)

We can improve the capabilities of our staff by creating joint computer platforms across the agencies. In another context I’m involved in defining and proposing to create a platform like the intelink/Intellipedia tools used by the intelligence agencies, but for the statistical and economic agencies. Specifically, the statistical agencies would benefit from wikis, blogs, search engines, and source code version control systems which were shared across the agencies.

There are many ways to *phrase* what is gained from these capabilities: sharing source material; doing better science; enabling online CoPs; aiding problem solving; supporting software innovation; supporting evidence-based policy -– these are rather similar in practical effect, it seems to me.

I'd welcome specific cite-able proposals about expanding capabilities for the civil service. We'd like to learn from them and perhaps cite them.
--
Peter B. Meyer Research economist 202-691-5678
Office of Productivity and Technology, U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics

[Richard Vines]

I am not sure, but I think it was I that referenced the focus on decision making, with references to evidence-informed decision making.

Perhaps a more apt metaphor for this might be "scaffolds" within which we think and work and make tiny decisions. Co-creating, critiquing and sharing scaffolds builds capabilities.

I agree and it is an important point. Thanks,


Richard

--
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter.
We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam.
SPAMfighter has removed 286 of my spam emails to date.
Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len

The Professional version does not have this message

[Hubert Saint -Onge]

Peter,

The book I have co-authored with Charles Armstrong entitled "The Conductive Organization" does adddress how a 'capabilities' perspective is a meaningful way of leveraging the eprformance of organizations. It also draws a distinction between individual and organizational capbilities.

Regards, Hubert

[Joe Firestone]

Hi Peter,

I agree with yourself, Hubert, and Stephen that enhancing capabilities is very important. I also think you're right that the focus on capabilities as opposed to decisions is more important depending on the Government agency involved. Having said that I think a decision interruption approach to KM interventions can be very important in agencies that frequently make decisions about drug prescriptions, disabilities, damage claims of various kinds, and other decisions that are taken routinely, but are subject to costly errors. In this blog,

http://kmci.org/alllifeisproblemsolving/archives/national-governmental-knowledge-management-km-adaptation-and-complexity-part-twelve-more-on-evaluating-the-impact-of-km-and-knowledge-processing/

I discuss three approaches to KM. Two are primarily about enhancing capabilities, the third is about enhancing both decisions and capabilities.

Enhancing capabilities in Federal Agencies is a very broad area. You've asked for citeable proposals. Do you mean formal RFP replies, or just "proposals" which have appeared in books and articles.

Best,


Joe

[Meyer, Peter - BLS]

> Enhancing capabilities in Federal Agencies is a very broad area. You've asked for citeable proposals. Do you mean . . .

 

Fair enough!  I meant specific and feasible proposals for how to expand the capabilities of the white collar worker in the Federal civil service.  They don’t need to be formal documents.  By way of example here are three types that come to mind.

1.       Proposals for software to expand the person’s technological capability, since that seems most feasible in principle – e.g., create a cross agency network like I’m writing up. 

2.       Proposals to expand the zone of what is permitted, e.g. that civil servants may participate in developing external recommendations to the executive branch like the KM Initiative’s recommendations.  (It is not clear that I have permission to coauthor that, which is frustrating, but if I would ask permission I’m concerned it would be the straw that broke the camel’s back. It’s better for me to participate informally then cite the outcome.)

3.       The blog article you cited gave a nice example of the potential benefits of decision-interruption. In your example if a doctor appears to be prescribing a medicine that doesn’t match the diagnosis (as judged against a knowledge base of past cases) then the doctor is somehow interrupted and invited to reconsider. The doctor isn’t forced to change it, but the event is tracked for further awareness and reconsideration.  It’s a good case to think about.  In a federal office, a nice analog to that would be to put some power in the hands of an employee who appeals to an inspector general’s offices.  I could imagine a “decision interruption” rule granting federal employees some kind of authority, through an IG’s office, to at least briefly interrupt a decision process, make certain that top management sees a complaint, and get a written answer to an asserted problem.  (As it seems to work now, an IG’s office can passively resist a complaint rather than think about or even record what an employee might call mismanagement and abuse.  “Knowledge” of a complaint is more likely to get lost and wasted than if the employee has some leverage.)

I’m not an expert on either what civil servants should be allowed to recommend to the executive branch, or what the IGs offices are really supposed to be doing.  So I would not want to claim that I just made ‘specific proposals’.  I’m hoping to find some better informed proposals.

[nic...@att.net]

To "expand the capabilities of the white collar worker in the Federal civil service," I would think you would have to undertake at least some of the following initiatives:

1. Literally expand their capabilities (that means individually-focused training and development) as well as some broader-brush T&D activities.

2. Rethink and rearticulate the limits they see as groundrules and limitations on their actions (i.e., alter their perception of the culture)

3. Provide an expanded tool box (e.g., the technological stuff)

4. Provide an enhanced supporting network (e.g., the networking stuff)

5. Shift from a "compliance with practices and policies" management approach to a "commitment to results" approach.

6. Revisit and probably revise the recruiting, screening, hiring process so as to bring in a more capable worker to begin with

7. Root out and eliminate any current practices that curtail or limit initiative and innovation

8. Examine and modify the reward system

9. Examine and modify the performance feedback system (and eliminate the performance appraisal system)

10. Revisit and probably revise the promotion and assignment system

Those should get you started.

--
Regards,

Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting, LLC
nic...@att.net
www.nickols.us

"Assistance at A Distance"