Action: " What results are you being paid to achieve? List three tasks that you should eliminate to be productive."
Management of knowledge workers' tasks is distinct from the management of manual labor in manufacturing. Gathering of management knowledge about knowledge worker productivity is according to Dr. Drucker the new/current management science.
Ever heard of the term: "Herding Chickens"? That's what bad knowledge worker management sometimes looks like. I think it was in the iconic strategy book Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance by Michael E. Porter that the topic was beautifully illustrated with the example of the 'smart' bees and the 'dumb' flies buzzing around in a clear bottle whose closed end was pointed toward the sun. Which group would be successful in their escape out of the open end? How much management do you actually need in knowledge work, if you have the best suited people? As I have said in previous blogs, I do believe that there is no substitute for having the right people, and then supporting them and their needs. 'It's about the people, stupid'. It is, in a competitive worker supply environment though, also important to learn how to quickly transfer the learning of the 'fly that gets out' to the other flies in the bottle. So constant, on the job education is another 'no brainer' winner in knowledge work. The 'learning' knowledge worker organization will be the most productive one. How do you structure your learning feedback, on the job for rapid dissemination?
Given that knowledge workers are independent, and far more likely to switch than manual workers, how else, do you increase productivity? I also differentiate here between 'service workers' and knowledge workers. Is the term 'task' even relevant for a knowledge worker? Has knowledge work been systematized to the point where it is actually feasible to intervene in order to improve productivity? I think it is here that the Action call shows the Professor's insight. If you are paid for sub-steps which, when aggregated lead to a marketable output, then how you approach productivity improvement is substantially different than when you are paid only on the results of your knowledge labor. I would contend, that both are manageable, but certainly in different ways.
I believe the key to manageability in the latter instant is in whether or not to perform the entire 'task'. Can one, for instance eliminate an entire step in a technology roll-out roadmap in order to save 'time to market' or overall development costs. In the former type of knowledge work, we are likely dealing more with the form and function of interactions between task executers and support functions throughout the process. Which interactions help, which hinder and which are inappropriate, as the individuals go about their separate tasks. Both situations are imminently manageable.
How do you aggregate knowledge about this type of work? Time studies are certainly not appropriate in the sense of those applied during the industrial revolution. However, I have experienced that this general technique can actually be used quite well. Some knowledge work lends itself extremely well to self monitoring (by category of time spent) to understand which are activities which can be eliminated to free up time for more directly value creating activities, because much of a knowledge worker's time is often taken up by tasks that they shouldn't have to do.
Example: At a large IT enterprise solutions seller/builder. While only 20% of an enterprise level client business manager's (senior solution selling person - CBM) was spent actively engaging the client in exploratory discussions, solution framing, and solution structuring, over 40% was taken up with back-end paper-work associated with the development and correction of bills of material for the actual solution. What is the CBM paid for? Certainly not the back-end processes. So figuring out that loading a client facing knowledge worker with the full weight of back-end processes is a good first step. How do you fix it? Is it possible to, actually 'triple' a CBM's productivity by freeing up more time for client interaction? That's where the fun begins, and usually involves, not only restructuring back-end processes to reduce complexity, but teaching the CBM how to use more time more effectively.
Example: At a well known software company. In complex software development I found that many improvements can still be made at the macro-level, either eliminating entire product development iterations, or changing interactive practices (handoffs, testing, etc). One of the most effective tools has been bench marking and process comparison. Best in class can also often be found outside the particular industry in other knowledge working environments. For example, we found that there are numerous complexity reduction archetypes from other industries which are directly applicable to under and on 'the skin' hardware, software and firmware development processes in IT industries. Particularly so in the soft 'skin' or firmware development aspects.
Improving our knowledge about knowledge work... the current management frontier... especially important for us in Americas Co. if we are to compete effectively in global Complex System development. Where do they teach an MBA in knowledge work?
Apple iPad: .... no camera, huh? I just can't get that one through my head. It's not like $829 is in-expensive. I haven't convinced myself, yet. But I think I'll have to wait for the next version, which will surely have a camera???
No comments:
Post a Comment