I am going to dicuss the idea of knowledge worker autonomy, self-management, or management from the ground up, by telling a story about the autonomy of knowledge itself. This story describes how I learned the importance of freeing information from the hierarchical structure in which it is hidden.
Three years ago I was paying my way through college by working as a Manufacturing Engineer for a small battery developer and manufacturer in Pawcatuck Connecticut, right near the Rhode Island border. I was part of a team that was developing Lithium-Ion batteries, the kind you find in some cell phones and laptop computers, for larger scale use as power sources for aerospace applications.
Our major project at the time was building a prototype of the battery cells for the Mars Rover spacecraft which are currently in the news. My job was to take the battery design as developed by the chemists and electro-chemical engineers, and supervise the technicians who would build the prototypes. During this process it was my responsibility to develop the specifications, quality checkpoints, and manufacturing procedures which would be used to build the battery cells for what would become the Spirit and Opportunity spacecraft.
Despite daily meetings between myself, the project manager, the senior scientist and the lead design engineer, the project was progressing slowly. Anyone who has tried to take a new product from the design stage to the production stage will recognize the kinds of problems we faced on a daily basis—clearances on manufacturing jigs which looked fine on the computer screen were so tight that the technicians couldn’t fit the battery plates into the jigs. The unique electrolyte chemicals developed which allowed the battery to actually supply energy under the extreme Martian temperatures, wouldn’t flow through our electrolyte fill machines, due to their unusual chemical characteristics. These are the typical problems faced by a manufacturing engineer. Unfortunately, we were on a very tight schedule, and there was little tolerance for schedule slip because of the narrow time window the Jet Propulsion Laboratory had in which to launch the spacecraft.
One morning at our daily management meeting, the project manager turned the meeting on its head by asking us to discuss process, rather than the imminent crises we were dealing with. She asked us to describe, in detail, how we had spent our last day of work. I described mine, which was spent running back and forth between the engineers, the scientists, the manufacturing labs, the quality control and supply offices, trying to solve problems that were delaying the work. Occasionally I actually got some time to work on the computer to write the procedures and documents I was charged with developing. The lead engineer and the senior scientist were similarly engaged, bouncing back and forth, relying upon the each other’s knowledge to solve problems.
At the next day’s meeting, the project manager announced that she was establishing a listserv for the group. She asked that whenever we ran into a problem, no matter how small, to put it on the listserv. The only other rule she imposed was this: everyone in the group was to read the listserv messages every day. She didn’t want to find any of her scientists or engineers “surprised” by a problem that had been promulgated through the listserv.
We were horrified. You know the old cliché about making sausage—you really don’t want to see how it’s done. Still, we were a relatively small organization, about 50 people in the group, and for the most part we had a fair amount of trust in each other. So we went ahead with the Project Manager’s idea.
At first, it seemed tedious. Taking the time to sit down and describe each problem you faced to the entire group was yet one more demand in an already packed day. Yet gradually, the system began to bear fruit. The nagging problem with electrolyte fill was solved when a tech suggested that we elevate the electrolyte containers in a way which would provide more Net Positive Suction Head to the fill pumps. I had never considered this woman as a resource—she was a chemical lab technician assigned to a Ph.D. working on another project, and she was very quiet and reserved. But I learned that she had worked at the company for over 24 years, in almost every aspect of battery design and manufacturing, and she had a wealth of knowledge. Later, I posted drafts of my manufacturing specifications and procedures on the listserv, and again I found that suggestions from unexpected sources within the company helped to smooth the prototyping and development process.
Reflecting on this experience, I am reminded of Peter Drucker’s mantra that knowledge is the real asset of today’s companies and organizations. And corporate knowledge, corporate memory if you will, resides in the minds of individuals, individuals who work at all levels of an organization, from the president of the company, to the retired lady who comes in the evening to help file procedures in the document control office. And practices that help tap into that knowledge, practices that encourage conversation across the hierarchical barriers that separate individuals within almost every organization, may be the key to organizational success.
Thursday, January 29, 2004
Returning to Drucker's six factors which determine knowledge-worker productivity.
The first factor is determining the task. As Drucker points out, this is the essential factor which differentiates knowledge-worker productivity from manual-worker productivity, where "the key question is always How should the work be done?" (Drucker 84). The notion here is to identify the task of the knowledge worker, and then eliminating those distractions in the work place which have nothing to do with the task.
The problem is, what is the task of the university? The answer you say, is "educating our students!" And already we face a problem. The university where I work is a "research" university. Our mission is not simply teaching, but teaching and research. Furthermore, when it comes to promotion and tenure, the word on the street is that your research is the key factor in determining whether or not you will be promoted.
There is a perfectly logical reason for this. The research university is designed not merely to transmit knowledge, but to advance it. The theory is that by having our best students taught by researchers, we will ensure that the curriculum doesn't atrophy, and with that atrophication, our students will no longer have the skills that will make them the best knowledge-workers. So perhaps a better answer to the question about the task of the university might be "developing new knowledge workers."
But what about all the time faculty members must spend on curricular affairs committees, tenure and advancement committees, etc.? Surely these activities could be eliminated, couldn't they? Again, the answer is no. The university must be self-governed. If we allow these responsibilities to be transferred to experts in the science of "educational administration," then inevitably we lose our ability to control the curriculum. Educational administrators are experts at "how the work should be done," and while they might be sources for advice, this is not the question the university should be focusing on. To put it quite simply, these administrators tend to focus on "cost," and as Drucker argues, knowledge work, university work is not like manual labor. We must see it as an asset, not as a cost. Unfortunately, the market economy doesn't know how to deal with the knowledge economy. The educational administrators at the state and local level, whether they be elected officials(yes, the governor of a state is an "educational administrator"), or governmental employees have no idea how to do this. No matter how much they explore "partnerships" and "curricular initiatives," ultimately they always must focus on the bottom line, because that is what they, in their knowledge work, have been taught to do. No, these individuals cannot be given the responsibility of determining, assessing, or promoting the faculty at the university. The faculty itself must take on that task.
Therefore, I will close by summarizing the task of the university faculty as follows: To advance knowledge, to educate new knowledge-workers, and to maintain the quality of that process by advancing and assessing the curriculum and those who create the curriculum. And this is the key to understanding the conflict between university faculty, and administrators and governmental officials at all levels-knowledge workers cannot be "managed." They must manage themselves. And it just so happens, that this is Drucker's second factor, which I will look at more closely tomorrow.
The first factor is determining the task. As Drucker points out, this is the essential factor which differentiates knowledge-worker productivity from manual-worker productivity, where "the key question is always How should the work be done?" (Drucker 84). The notion here is to identify the task of the knowledge worker, and then eliminating those distractions in the work place which have nothing to do with the task.
The problem is, what is the task of the university? The answer you say, is "educating our students!" And already we face a problem. The university where I work is a "research" university. Our mission is not simply teaching, but teaching and research. Furthermore, when it comes to promotion and tenure, the word on the street is that your research is the key factor in determining whether or not you will be promoted.
There is a perfectly logical reason for this. The research university is designed not merely to transmit knowledge, but to advance it. The theory is that by having our best students taught by researchers, we will ensure that the curriculum doesn't atrophy, and with that atrophication, our students will no longer have the skills that will make them the best knowledge-workers. So perhaps a better answer to the question about the task of the university might be "developing new knowledge workers."
But what about all the time faculty members must spend on curricular affairs committees, tenure and advancement committees, etc.? Surely these activities could be eliminated, couldn't they? Again, the answer is no. The university must be self-governed. If we allow these responsibilities to be transferred to experts in the science of "educational administration," then inevitably we lose our ability to control the curriculum. Educational administrators are experts at "how the work should be done," and while they might be sources for advice, this is not the question the university should be focusing on. To put it quite simply, these administrators tend to focus on "cost," and as Drucker argues, knowledge work, university work is not like manual labor. We must see it as an asset, not as a cost. Unfortunately, the market economy doesn't know how to deal with the knowledge economy. The educational administrators at the state and local level, whether they be elected officials(yes, the governor of a state is an "educational administrator"), or governmental employees have no idea how to do this. No matter how much they explore "partnerships" and "curricular initiatives," ultimately they always must focus on the bottom line, because that is what they, in their knowledge work, have been taught to do. No, these individuals cannot be given the responsibility of determining, assessing, or promoting the faculty at the university. The faculty itself must take on that task.
Therefore, I will close by summarizing the task of the university faculty as follows: To advance knowledge, to educate new knowledge-workers, and to maintain the quality of that process by advancing and assessing the curriculum and those who create the curriculum. And this is the key to understanding the conflict between university faculty, and administrators and governmental officials at all levels-knowledge workers cannot be "managed." They must manage themselves. And it just so happens, that this is Drucker's second factor, which I will look at more closely tomorrow.
Wednesday, January 28, 2004
The purpose of this blog is to investigate the notion of a "post-capitalistic" society and economic structure. It emerges from a sense of frustration at what I believe to be the accelerating transfer of capital from the poorest members of society to the richest. While I am amazed at market capitalism's ability to co-opt almost any idea which might oppose it, it seems to me that the transfer of capital from the poor to the rich will not be indefinitely sustainable.
Peter Drucker has argued that the transformation of our economy from a manufacturing-based to a knowledge-based system will lead to a kind of post-capitalistic economy. Writing in the Winter 1999 issue of The California Management Review, Drucker argues that focusing on "making knowledge workers more productive" will result in systemic changes to the entire economic system, because it "requires changes not only on the part of the individual knowledge worker, but on the part of the whole organization." (CMR, 41:2,pp.79-94).
As a university professor, I am a knowledge worker, working in what many people see as a very unproductive system. Frankly, I don't understand the system well-enough yet to decide whether I agree or disagree with those people. However, I know that I personally want to become a more productive member of society, so I will begin by trying to find my own way through understanding how my own productivity is defined.
management Blogger Jim McGee paraphrases Drucker in identifying "six factors that determine knowledge worker productivity." Those factors are:
1. Definition of task
2. Required autonomy of knowledge workers
3. Continuing innovation
4. Continuous learning and continuous teaching
5. Quality of outputs as a signature requirement. Quantity is irrelevant until a quality standard exists.
6. Knowledge worker as asset not cost
I will begin my research by investigating each of these factors.
Peter Drucker has argued that the transformation of our economy from a manufacturing-based to a knowledge-based system will lead to a kind of post-capitalistic economy. Writing in the Winter 1999 issue of The California Management Review, Drucker argues that focusing on "making knowledge workers more productive" will result in systemic changes to the entire economic system, because it "requires changes not only on the part of the individual knowledge worker, but on the part of the whole organization." (CMR, 41:2,pp.79-94).
As a university professor, I am a knowledge worker, working in what many people see as a very unproductive system. Frankly, I don't understand the system well-enough yet to decide whether I agree or disagree with those people. However, I know that I personally want to become a more productive member of society, so I will begin by trying to find my own way through understanding how my own productivity is defined.
management Blogger Jim McGee paraphrases Drucker in identifying "six factors that determine knowledge worker productivity." Those factors are:
1. Definition of task
2. Required autonomy of knowledge workers
3. Continuing innovation
4. Continuous learning and continuous teaching
5. Quality of outputs as a signature requirement. Quantity is irrelevant until a quality standard exists.
6. Knowledge worker as asset not cost
I will begin my research by investigating each of these factors.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
