I was discussing with a college student I’ve been advising whether it was a good or a bad thing that Google makes access to answers so easy. To my surprise, she opined that it’s a bad thing – because people who use Google to answer a question are more likely to forget the answer they find, whereas if they have to think the problem through and discover the answer for themselves they will remember it in the long term.

An interesting insight from a Gen Y. But what struck me as remarkable was the fact that this is not a new argument; I’ve seen it before – in Plato’s dialog Phaedrus (written ca. 370 BC), where Socrates tells an Egyptian legend wherein the god Thoth invents Writing and presents in to the Pharaoh as a gift. This, says Thoth, will make the Egyptians wiser and give them better memories and more wisdom. The king replies:

“… this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners’ souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves … they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing … they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality”.  [Source]

Looks like my student was of the same view as Socrates! And she may have a point – some of the methods young people use today to compile class assignments can be disturbing, to say the least. On the other hand, in the hand of a smart and conscientious student Google is a powerful tool indeed, and I think that its shortcomings are handsomely offset by its benefits, notably access to unprecedented quantities of knowledge. Besides, with all respect to Socrates, Writing has been around for millennia and nobody seems to complain…

But as the clincher, I must disclose that I did remember reading somewhere about the Thoth story, but I had to Google it to get the details for this post. Score one for Google!

A relative of a distinguished Professor told me that he had the habit of sitting in an armchair at home with his eyes closed. When someone would come in and try to converse with him, the Prof would say “Quiet! I’m working!”

As indeed he was… to sit quietly and think is a key element at the heart of an academic’s job; they need to disconnect from all distractions and THINK.

One must note that this particular scholar is now in his eighties, so his habits had evolved in the middle of the previous century. I wonder whether the professors being grown today will be able to sit still long enough to experience the benefit of such a practice?…

There is a quote attributed to Mark Ardis:  “A specification [or a design, a procedure, a test plan] that will not fit on one page of 8.5-by-11 inch paper cannot be understood“. This is called “The one-page principle”.

Other than being a snappy quote, this is something to consider seriously. A significant aspect of the email overload people suffer is carried in the attachments; indeed, my first inkling that email was becoming a problem, back around 1994, was when a senior manager in my workplace had declared that he refuses to read any email that has any attachments at all. Of course that was over-reaction, but a one-page attachment versus a ten-page one can make a huge difference in the load, especially if you receive a score of them each day. A manager that can induce his or her subordinates to write shorter documents will derive immediate benefit both for self and for the organization. A simple rule like “I won’t read any proposal that is longer than one page” can make a big difference (there was a  CEO who was said to have implemented such a rule, though I forget who it was). So can a decision like “all status reports must be written in bullets format and cover no more than half a page”. And for documents who by their very nature require more pages, one can still demand a clear half-page management summary,

Of course, the benefits of driving a culture of short documents go beyond email overload reduction. It promotes excellent habits, such as being mindful of others’ time. And it encourages the keyboard equivalent of the classic “Put brain in gear before putting mouth in motion“.

If you manage people, give it a try!

I was talking to a client who – like most of us – needed more hours in the day, and he complained that part of the problem was that he was required to generate long reports, and it took him hours and hours just to type them in. So I asked him, how does he type? Turns out he uses two fingers to peck at the keyboard. I asked him, why not ten? Why doesn’t he touch type?

Of course he couldn’t touch type, nor was he planning to learn to; and neither do almost all the knowledge workers I know. Which is amazing, if you stop to consider it, because if your job involves primarily one machine, and you can operate that machine faster or slower, why not learn to do it faster?

Touch typing allows you to bang out some 60 words per minute (wpm). Hunt and Peck – the common use of two fingers – gives maybe 30 wpm. So it stands to reason that any large organization would benefit by mandating touch typing classes for all employees who use computers on a daily basis. The payback would be huge, for the company and for the individual. It takes a few weeks, and then – from that day to the end of one’s career – one can be so much faster on the job, saving precious lifetime for either more output or more leisure. Why don’t they do so?

Part of the problem may be that typing is no longer a profession. In days past, there were typists: people – mostly women – adept in the use of a typewriter. They were trained and hired to type fast and accurately; in fact, some were stenographers, trained in the art of shorthand, both with pencil and with a specialized steno machine. The extreme speeds achieved by stenography were especially sought in real-time transcription as used in a court of law, allowing as they did to capture over 120 wpm. By contrast, today a lot of typing is done by people with other job names – managers, engineers, technicians… people who are judged on other skills, to the neglect of keyboard wizardry. We’d moved much of the task of typing from the secretaries to the managers and engineers, but forgot to train the latter in the basic skills of the former.

Now, stenography is almost extinct these days, and requires some pretty specialized equipment and training; I’m not suggesting you master it. But there are countless schools and software programs that teach you touch typing, and it uses the same keyboard you already have; nor do you need anyone’s permission to learn it.

Think about it…

Photo courtesy Valeriana Solaris, shared on flickr under CC license.

The argument about Information Technology’s benefit to the enterprise seems silly: of course having computers, both in isolation and on a network, has added huge value to industry and business; indeed, they are as pivotal a game changer as the steam engine, the printing press, or (dare I say it?) the wheel. And yet, the discussion is legitimate if you frame it correctly: yes, computers are good in general, but is any specific, given additional IT tool of benefit?

In many cases this depends on who the organization assigns it to. You’ve probably noticed this when visiting a doctor at a clinic: I’ve seen many an MD cursing under their breath while struggling to enter my examination data and conclusions into a new computerized system. Instead of scribbling a few illegible lines on paper and chucking it into a manila file, to be processed later by an assistant, they had to use an unfamiliar and possibly ill-designed piece of technology, and it took them much longer. And because of this they had less time to apply their real value added, their precious ability to cure the sick.

A more formal view on this is described by IORG member Dr. Lesa Becker, whose PhD dissertation examined the use of computers in a health care setting: she found that usually a new IT system introduced into the workplace resulted in increased overload and reduced manager productivity. Why? Because as new software products were implemented, the role definition of managers would change – clerical tasks that had been performed by low-level clerks and administrative assistants would be shifted to managers, taking time away from higher-level tasks like managing processes, mentoring subordinates, etc. I’ve seen this happen over the years in Hi-Tech as well: many mid-level managers today handle – with the help of software – numerous bureaucratic tasks, like compiling expense reports and setting up meetings, that 20 years ago would have been in the hands of the then-ubiquitous secretaries and clerks.

I think this is a real problem, which follows the usual pattern with new technology: it gets deployed with little attention to the wider implications. Thus, if a tool enables the manager or engineer to do the admin’s work, the temptation to remove the admin and become “lean” and “efficient” is great. But the fact is, an admin is paid much less than a highly skilled engineer or manager (or surgeon); and the latter only has so many hours in a day, which may be better used for doing higher level tasks. This is not to say that we can’t streamline some of the work by having it done by the manager; the question is which part, and to what extent. As is often the case, it’s pretty much about identifying the correct balance.

I propose that if we want to reap the full benefit of IT tools, we should take a holistic view of their impact. Only after we understand the alternatives should we decide who should use them, and how. If we keep the right tools in the right hands, and maintain the right expectations, we can derive real productivity increases without sacrificing our knowledge workers’ effectiveness in their main role.

What do you think? Is it any different where you work?

Spent the day at the inaugural unconference of the  Israel Knowledge Management forum. This forum started  some years ago as a very informal gathering of interested professionals on the front porch of founder Yigal Chamish, and  is now making the tricky transition into a formal non-profit association.

I was pleased to observe a well-attended conference, with some 130 attendees and many interesting parallel sessions. There was much networking, including via twitter (#KMISR10); I saw many familiar faces and many new ones. Importantly, attendees included seasoned veterans and young new members, and representation from organizations of every size, flavor and sector.

So, I conclude, the new organization is off to a good start, and ready to tackle the challenges it is certain to face. If you are into KM and in Israel, check the forum out here and consider joining and influencing!

Oh, and what is an un-conference? That’s what it was called, to emphasize the focus on interaction and informal discussion as opposed to passive frontal lectures (of which there were none).