|
|
Friday, March 25, 2005
|
|
| |
Steve Johnson on books and blogs [Edu_RSS]
This is an intersting thought provoker (spark?) on the difference
between trasitional product and final product. The challenge, is of
course, when you are collaborating with others, you need to have some
kind of product to show that reflects the mindset. But, to do
something complicated that you are going to through away, well, that
doesn't make sense either. And you want to share your thought
process with people that you are collaborating with BUT the final
product serves a different audience. And, the key is, how to get
that audience to the focus during the collaboration in your head when
it not necessaryily the focus in the mind of the people who are working
with you.
5:03:09 PM
|
|
Communities of Practice at the Federal Highway Administration
Hey! You know those rumble strips that are on the side of the road that
wake you up when you drive off... the implementation of those are
credited to communities of practice at the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA). The FHWA is an interesting agency, in case you
are wondering what the W in their acronym stands for its for Way in
highway. That one got me too.
FHWA does not build the roads, they oversee the safety
aspect for land, air, water, and railroads. They ensure that the
nation’s transport system is safe for public use, or they oversee the
safety of civil aviation, and they monitor and operate the waterways
for trading. It's like that BASF advertisment that used to come on, "We
don't make the product, we make the product better."
So knowledge is their only asset. They have
knowledge of how to build safe roads and waterways and their job is to
impart that knowledge to agencies at the local level so they can comply
with the safety requirements. FHWA therefore chose communities of
practice as their approach of choice to enable this knowledge transfer.
Well, they have all the good habits of other
successful best practice partner organizations, such as executive
buy-in, strong community administrators, etc., but FHWA has two things
the others don’t have. One is public communities and two is a balanced
scorecard for measuring the effectiveness of their community program.
Being a government agency they want to engage their constituents and
hear what they have to say and they do that through their communities.
For instance there is a community that caters to people who are going
to be displaced as a result of land acquisition for highways. The
community gives its constituents a forum to express concerns. So FHWA
has spent some time figuring out how to interact with public forums and
has had to deal with educating its workforce on what can and cannot be
shared on public forums.
The Balanced Scorecard approach, (they call it
that and they have tried to keep the quadrants as close to the
"original" balanced scorecard as possible) has four quadrants. Customer
results, Business results, Initiative growth and processes, and
outreach and leadership activities. FHWA captures results under each of
these quadrants and tries to quantify as much of it as they can very
conservatively for reporting purposes. As a result of their structured
approach to measuring outcomes, communicating with senior leaders about
the continued effectiveness of communities of practice has become very
easy. After all if saving lives is in your mission statement, you have
to find every possible means of making that happen.
Hope you all have a great weekend and a Very Happy Easter to all.
- Farida Hasanali [APQC's Knowledge Management Blog]
4:57:59 PM
|
|
|
|
© Copyright
2005
Judy Smith.
Last update:
4/22/2005; 5:21:18 PM.
|
|
|