Heading into knowledge metrics--Problems and Models Involved (Nature of Klogged Learning, Evaluation of Organizational Change, Nature of Consultative Relationships) (Partial Draft 1)
One of my key challenges right now is to work out how to measure the impact of knowledge-logging. How does it impact the effectiveness of a person, of a team/project and of a business. How can we measure this? How can we evaluate it?
Anyone have any good stuff?
My background in higher education, research, teacher training and evaluation includes digging into Roland Tharp's triadic model of consultation. I mention it because he gives some perspective upon changing systems, be they small groups or large. [Will add approp American Eval Assoc References -- First most practical thinker that comes to mind is Michael Quinn Patton(1997), Utilization Focused Evaluation 3rd ed, Sage. See also his checklist at http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists/ufe.pdf]
General Consultation Case and Comments:
In this situation a consultant is applying expertise to the solution to an organizational problem. In order to evaluate the success of the consultation from the point of view of the consultant we need to know about two situations: the client situation and the problem situation. The client's view of a problem will be changed with reframing and/or new concepts. Clients sometimes argue that if the consultant works directly on the 'problem' situation (C) the client (B: boss, manager, group head) doesn't need to be involved. However, without client (B)readiness for the transformed situation(ie to play one's part in the maintenance and advancement of the newly skilled team, for example)... the same problem in some other incarnation will reoccur. Putting it another way, the client's thoughts and style of interaction with the problem situation was probably a significant part of the problem -- if those thoughts and style of interaction continue the problem will either continue or disappear only to be reborn in slightly changed form.
Making a Specific Change=Inserting Knowledge Logs:
I'm going to assume that knowledge logs would considered for insertion into an organization when the personal and group benefits of klogging appear to have some chance of making a dysfunctional process into a functional one or of transforming a functional process into one that is 'super' functional. The argument for their insertion would be that overall organizational goals, already in place, would be more fully realized because of the effect of klogging.
Initial Contact: Excitement without sufficient rationale
Probably management has heard that that klogs can 'put a fire under' professional staff. "They get more done", "they 'think outside the box'", and etc. Because of this perception management calls a klogging specialist [say, you] and offers a very satisfactory fee for 10 days of on-site training and 200 units (measure to be negotiated) of online klogging support for staff on the company's intranet.
What's wrong here? First of all, management hasn't given any indication that it isn't just 'throwing' the most recent 'hot magic' at a problem or concern.
Thus, judicious even in your joy at employment you offer some references and several hours of phone consultation for a fee; your joint goal is that both you and your prospective consultee come to an understanding of 'the problem', what 'The problem's gone!' will look like and how 'klogging' relates, if at all, to this possible process. After those phone and email conversations management formulates a statement to the effect that , beyond plausibility, klogging has clear and valid application to this situation. Subsequently management and consultant agree to proceed to the next phase: a planned training and development process with klogging as the springboard.
A Training Process is Arranged
Formative Evaluation Procedures
Summative Evaluation Possibilities
[Headings will have commentary in next editions]
