Knowledge Worker 2.0

I continue to fret that the dominant model for understanding healthcare organisations and in defining methods to improve them, comes from an old fashioned industrial process methodology (Lean). I think this continues to hold the stage because it is easy to understand a process and to make charts that count things. It makes us feel better.

But healthcare is not only a service industry it is one based on relationships. The workers are predominantly knowledge workers.  And the role, the use of and the ways in which knowledge workers connect is changing rapidly.

If the whole concept of the knowledge work is an unfamiliar one then have a look at the presentation below. And if you role is one of making improvements in a system then think about how you might go about such changes when you conceive of staff - and patients - as knowledge workers.

Knowledge Worker 2.0 - Power to the people from Stephen Collins

Book Review: Arbesman - The Half Life of Facts: why everything we know has an expiration date

I don't why I never thought of knowledge as decaying over time. Especially when knowledge acquisition and transfer / spread is my specialist topic. Arbesman provides excellent examples and a logical argument to support his hypothesis that facts die out at a predictable rate. This is a fascinating thoguht, especially as in healthcare we believe that we constantly press against "old" facts which are stuck in the system. A reframing to think about what their "half-life" might be, is a useful and inspiring one.

Arbesman has come up with new vignettes rather than trotting out the old favourites. This is not a new take on an old subject, but rather a new subject requiring some disconfirming thinking.

Model 7: data, information, knowledge, wisdom

I thought I would stop at 7 models on the data, information, knowledge and wisdom theme - afterall, the brain is supposed to be able to hold a maximum of seven thoughts at any one time.  I've left my favourite to last. I particularly like the examples given at each stage. You can read more about this model on this blogsite.

Model 6: data, information, knowledge, wisdom

The Liebowitz (1999) model of DIKW is helpful if you are looking for something with details to give you ideas on what you might do in your own work. I can see how this can be used to evaluate large scale programs. The value aspects are useful reminders of the underlying purpose in moving to each stage, and therefore gives an idea of what might need to be planned for in a large scale program to achieve each step.

Model 5: data, information, knowledge, wisdom

So let's start 2011 by continuing the data-information-knowledge-wisdom series of posts with something creative from Topicscape's Mindmap directory:
.

I like the zone of potential - zone of possibility continuum as well as half the "effort" being below the surface which can only really be explained by doing a drawing like this.

Model 4: data, information, knowledge, wisdom

The Model from Infovis below shows just what I always struggle in explaining to tohers as to why the results of one project cannot just be pushed onto other, adopting, groups.

The producers, the pilot projects, create the basic data and some information (patterns) about it. The consumers (the adopters) need to retest this in their own environment.  Any pilot project that can be written up in a way that helps the consumer to bridge the gap from information to knowledge will likely be more successful at spread than others. This can include things like: you can adapt this in the following way, we did the following and it didn't work but it may work in xyz circumstances etc.

Model 3: data, information, knowledge, wisdom

One of the QI refrains is "increase the capability and capacity of employees". While this is a great concept, easy to declare and impossible not to support, for me it lacks any concrete applicability. What exactly is meant by this? There is another one of our data-information-knowledge-wisdom models which may help pin down what might be meant. Next time you hear somebody say the capacity/capability thing then whip this model out and ask them to explain their intentions and expectations along the data to wisdom curve.

 The challenge here is to produce learning experiences that enable someone to move up the curve. In my experience, much of healthcare improvement work is focused on developing data based skills - how to measure change. Some people get to the information stage where they learn to look for patterns, say by using SPC charts. Can they port this knowledge to other projects in a predictable way? Can they make intelligent choices? To what extent do the participants on a QI project become "wise"?

The above curve comes from Designing Knowledge Eco-Systems for Communities of Practice.  The web resources are excellent - especially if you are developing CoP's as part of your QI strategy.

Model 1: data, information, knowledge, wisdom

The old adage goes along the lines that knowledge can be defined as knowing a tomato is a fruit, and that wisdom is therefore knowing that you don't add a tomato to a fruit salad...  There are a number of models and frameworks that investigate the data-information-knowledge-wisdom continuum and in the this series of posts I cover a few of these.

For the theorist a good place to start is with an online paper A Primer:, Enterprise Wisdom Management and the Flow of Understanding by ScottCarpenter@CognitiveCybernetics.com

I like the way environment and context have come into play as important factors in understanding that knowledge and wisdom have a contextual perspective.

eLearning Perspectives: Free eBook

The Masie Center has released a comprehensive ebook with contributions from 40 Global Leaders.  A must read for anyone who is interested in the topic of eLearning.

Download it here

Contents
Part I: New Learning Frameworks

Learning National Park, Needs Rangers! Getting to Know Bob
- Allison Anderson, Intel Corporation...............................................................10
What Problem Are We Really Trying to Solve? - Julie Clow, Google..................15
An Idea Whose Time has Come - Deb Tees, Lockheed Martin .........................21
The Power of Deep Expertise! Developing Expertise in a Corporate Environment
THE POWER OF DEEP EXPERTISE! - Raj Ramachandran, Accenture .................27
LEARNING ORGANIZATIONS: PEOPLE POWER?
- Nigel Paine, The Learning Consortium ..........................................................35

Part II: Under30 Perspectives
Learning: Converting the Crash Dieters to Lifelong Healthy Eaters
- Liz Scott, ZS Associates ...................................................................................39
Inspiration and eLearning - Linda Backo, PPL .................................................40
Access and Opportunities - Ben Betts, HT2 Ltd..................................................41
It’s Curtains for the LMS - Joe Beaudry, Verizon Wireless ..................................43
Engaging Learners Through Gaming - Lacey Grande, Ogilvy & Mather...........45
Learning Together To Change the World - Elizabeth Musar, InsideNGO.........46
Underemployed or Unprepared? - Kaylea Howarth, Alliance Pipeline .............47
Conscious Incompetence - Doug Livas, Moss Adams, LLP ................................49
Exciting the Learner - Aviva Leebow, Pacesetter Steel Service, Inc. ....................51
“Question? Try Twitter!” My Take on Social Networking
- Rachel Donley, BGSU Student ........................................................................53
Learning by Falling - Jen Vetter, TorranceLearning ...........................................55
What Happened to OJT? - Michelle Thompson, Poole and Associates .............56
Get Out of Your Comfort Zone: Developing Training for the Learner
- Emily Fearnside, General Mills .......................................................................57
Just Ask! - Katie Mack, Westinghouse Electric Company ..................................58
Passion for Learning - Sarah Carr, Google.......................................................59
4
Gamifying Learning with Social Gaming Mechanics
- Enzo Silva, Oracle Corporation......................................................................61
Incorporating the Human Touch in Online Education
- Jessica Sanderson, Cleveland Clinic ...............................................................63
The changing expectations of learners and the LMS
- Connor Gormley, FM Global .........................................................................64
Getting Beyond the Formal Classroom - Grant Velie, Farmers Insurance .........65
Establishing a Training Culture – Moving from Data Deluge to Learning
- Jennifer Wright, Alstom Power........................................................................68
“Y” not Mentor? - Danielle Sagstetter, Capella University / PACT .....................70
Common Constraints - Meg Hunter, CFA Institute ............................................72
Students have a say too! - Joshua Smith, Department of Veterans Affairs..........74
Learning That Makes a Difference - Julie Thompson, Xcel Energy .....................75
Part III: Learning in Action
The Impact of Knowledge Management on the Workplace Learning Organization
- Patty Glines & Eric Zenor, CUNA Mutual Group.............................................78
The New Ground Rules: A Collision of Knowledge at the Speed of Light
- Lisa Pedrogo, Turner Broadcasting/CNN BEST University...............................84
The Blended Future of Learning - MaryJo Swenson, Novell...............................92
Learning to Meet the Mission - John Guyant, CIA University ............................ 98
Blending AVON’s 125 year Old “Social Network” into Our Learning Approach
- Stephen Barankewicz, Avon .........................................................................107
Is Learning & Development Being Lost in the Age of Talent Management?
- Sean Dineen, Luxottica.................................................................................111
Part IV: Learning Changes
Combining “Cool” with “Core” in Learning
- Elliott Masie, The Learning Consortium .......................................................117
What Shapes the Future of Learning? The Third Industrial Revolution
- Wayne Hodgins, MASIE Fellow aboard the Learnativity ................................119
Trends in Learning Technology: The View from Late 2010
- Rick Darby, Rollins’ University .......................................................................132
The Times They May be a’Changing: From Sizzle to Fizzle in Learning Technologies
- Larry Israelite, Liberty Mutual Group ............................................................139

eLearning 2: 5 Resources for learning about Teaching Online

Teaching online is quite a difference from teaching face-to-face. If done properly it can be an inspiring and motivating process for both teacher and learner. If not, it can be awful, especially for the learner. In my experience there is not much mediocrity - just brilliance or horror.

Try a book or two:

• Collaborating online; learning together in community 
• The ins and outs of online discussion; transitioning from bricks and mortar to online teaching 
• Creating a sense of presence in online teaching; how to be there for distance learners

Check out a video or two:

Productive Partnering self assessment tool

The NHS Institute, working with PriceWaterhouseCoopers, developed a self assessment tool to help English Primary Care Trusts to figure out how best to create and maintain multi-sector partnerships.

The self assessment is the result of a program that aimed to reduce health inequalities which involved multiple different stakeholders coming together for the purpose of the project. The tool is aimed at groups who need to work together to deliver complex health orientated outcomes.

Getting evidence into practice is difficult enough. Doing this when there are multiple stakeholders is even more complex, risky and prone to non-delivery.  This tool goes some way to helping groups figure out how best to work with each other, with a health outcome in mind.

Mobile learning may be more significant than web learning for healthcare

Educational methods have long been one of the key strategies to encourage the adoption of existing good practice and evidence in healthcare. The predominant method is face-to-face sessions though over the last three or four years this has started to be replaced by virtual sessions. The Web has been the technology used ofr the virtual learning, however, the advent of smart phones suggests learning via the mobile may be overtake the web portion of learning and may dig deeper into the face-to-face session.

The chart above comes from Ambient Insight Research who have an excellent article on this topic.

Are your spread plans including the use of mobile learning and technology?.

Using Twitter in the Classroom or Organisation

Twitter feels like one of those applications that has been searching for its use. Within healthcare, specifically the NHS in England, its use has been limited. Many organisations see it only as another media channel through which they advertise their services. A few, however, have grasped its potential to spread the word  in a personal way and are using Twitter as a means of engaging with patients and staff. A good example is @OBMH (Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Mental Health).

While healthcare is prevaricating and the organisations that preach and teach innovation are being slow to catch onto what is now practically a mainstream communication method, education has been stealing a march. An excellent blog post about using Twitter in the classroom includes a framework which made huge sense to me and helped me think through how best to use twitter in a training event as well as for the duration of a healthcare improvement project.

Not only does it help communication for the project it also adds in the "spread" and "Scale up" component that it so often missing.   If you are worried about the word student, then substitute patient or staff member. What I particularly like about this framework is it is a way for organisations using Twitter to self assess their use of it.

(Picture from Prof Hacker http://chronicle.com/blogPost/A-Framework-for-Teaching-with/26223/)

To share or not to share?

I've spotted a proliferation of new initiatives within the NHS in England attempting to encourage staff to share their knowledge online. While this sounds like a useful and pragmatic action to take I wonder what the implications might be.

The main exhortation is about encouraging staff to share what has worked well for them. I expect there will be many who would like to share, though inputting your information into a fairly anonymous database is at the higher end of the perceived risk continuum. Without knowing who (as in a person) will be editing or reading the information, many people will be hesitant to "share" in this way.

The proliferation of different places to share is also confusing. In their own way, each organisation requesting sharing is doing so for the right reasons. However, how do you choose - NHS Networks, NHS Institute, NICE, own organisation's database... random sharing with colleagues using other online networks, professional groups?? Each organisation requesting sharing is doing so for it's own reasons and these reasons may not be easily identifiable by those who are targetted.

For some healthcare staff and their organisations the incentive to share may feel like a perverse one. In a competitive market there may be a disincentive to provide information about how well or how innovative you have been. In my experience the best results are seldom shared because of this restriction. So what we do get shared is often the less innovative and more obvious results of projects and changes.

I think the issue is not "to share or not to share". Sharing is only part of the story. Sharing is only of value if there is someone listening and looking. If the main group looking at what is shared is the group who owns the database then the value of what is shared is quite limited. The real issue is in encouraging staff to look and listen, to be curious and to accept that in just about everything thing they do and every problem they have, someone, somewhere has already addressed it - and this information is already available.

So if you're developing databases to captured shared information then a few pointers to consider:
a) how much of your time, budget and strategy is devoted to encouraging the look and listen?
b) how unique is your database? How will it be found and why should those who are searching use your database?
c) In what way can you build on or link to existing databases so you build a wider knowledge base rather than divide up a crowed space?
d) How can you move from the transactional share and disseminate approach to one which is based on the concept of interaction, dialogue and learning?

Improvement Projects: Do no harm

A common issue raised by project managers who are trying to implement existing good practice with individuals and teams is one of resistance to change. I am constantly seeking ways to reframe the term "resistance" as a means of moving away from a potentially obstructive and destructive frame of reference.

I've been wondering whether one of the reasons people appear to "resist" adopting even what is well evidenced as good practice is because of a natural and at times perfectly reasonable conservative attitude towards risk. The medical profession has the theme of "do no harm". My feeling is often we are asking professionals to take on the solutions designed by others and in different contexts without providing the potential adopters with the evidence that the results are both relaible and generalisable. Reliable in the sense they can be repeated int he same context with the same results. Generalisability is what is proved when the intervention (improvement process) can be done in a different context and obtain similar results.

Without this evidence of generalisability in our improvement work I feel professionals will continue to be suspicious of changes.

In additon, do we ever publish the knock on consequences and the adverse effects of improvement work? A quick trawl of improvement projects published in high impact journals in the last 2 months demonstrates the attitude that improvement work is all good. None fo 12 papers that I looked at provided (or even hinted) at any negative consequences. Without honesty abotu improevemnt work and results I suspect we will continue to encounter "resistance" to change - and I will consider this an appropriate response to any solution being touted for implementation where there is no demonstartion of generalisability and no discussion about identified adverse consequences.

Keeping track of progress; learning from DHL

It's a long story, but the short version ends with my handbag needing to be sent from Stockholm to Buckinghamshire in England. This experience has left me wondering why it is we find it so difficult to keep track of patients within a hospital, let alone across systems.

From time of pick-up to signature at home I could watch the 24-hour journey unfold (one click on a weblink, no data entry). I could see what action was being taken at each stage. If you're interested you can see the detailed information below (it's not the greenest of journeys...). It took only 2 minutes from the time of signature for the information to appear on the system.

Yes, patients are not parcels. Patient information also requires a certain degree of confidentiality management. However, I wonder what it would be like if within hospitals (let's start somewhere simple) we were able to keep track of the inpatient, figure out in which corridor they are now, how long they have been waiting for their scan, whether they have had their meal etc. This information will provide insight into the systems and the patient's experience. Maybe we could start by monitoring blood samples in this way as they are already bar coded. Maybe we could start with a system to help keep track of patients in the hospital for who speaking is difficult, such as those with dementia, stroke or some other disabling condition.

I wonder what else we can learn from DHL about how to monitor and improve pathways using technology?


585907200 - Detailed Report
Date Time Location Service Area Checkpoint Details
Oktober 18, 2009
11:59

Arlanda - Sweden Försändelse hämtad
Oktober 19, 2009
18:04

Arlanda - Sweden Processed at Arlanda - Sweden
Oktober 19, 2009
18:28

Arlanda - Sweden Skickad från Arlanda - Sweden
Oktober 19, 2009
18:49

Arlanda - Sweden Anlänt till DHL i Arlanda - Sweden
Oktober 19, 2009
19:48

Arlanda - Sweden Lämnat avsändare
Oktober 19, 2009
19:55

Arlanda - Sweden Processed at Arlanda - Sweden
Oktober 19, 2009
22:16

Arlanda - Sweden Skickad från Arlanda - Sweden
Oktober 20, 2009
00:15

Leipzig - Germany Anlänt till DHL i Leipzig - Germany
Oktober 20, 2009
00:46

Leipzig - Germany Processed at Leipzig - Germany
Oktober 20, 2009
03:27

Leipzig - Germany Skickad från Leipzig - Germany
Oktober 20, 2009
05:28

London-Heathrow - UK Skickad via London-Heathrow - UK
Oktober 20, 2009
05:37

London-Heathrow - UK Skickad från London-Heathrow - UK
Oktober 20, 2009
05:51

London-Heathrow - UK Anlänt till DHL i London-Heathrow - UK
Oktober 20, 2009
06:18

London-Heathrow - UK Processed at London-Heathrow - UK
Oktober 20, 2009
06:41

London-Heathrow - UK Skickad från London-Heathrow - UK
Oktober 20, 2009
07:33

Gatwick - UK Anlänt till DHL
Oktober 20, 2009
09:12

Gatwick - UK Ute för leverans med kurir
Oktober 20, 2009
10:39

Gatwick - UK Signatur

Stories and Examples are different

We know that stories engage hearts and minds more than bullet points on a PowerPoint or a three page proposal. I believe there is a very important difference between stories and examples.

Stories are personal. I know a story when the person telling it comes alive with the emotions attached to the story. I can feel their passion, enthusiasm, sadness, delight - whatever. I am drawn into their personal experience. It is stories like this that engage me.

When someone stands on a stage and tells someone else's story - then for me that is an example. No matter how much we resonate with the other person's story their passion, enthusiasm, sadness, delight - whatever - is unlikely to be captured by the example-teller. Examples are helpful, though I suggest they are no different from the paragraphs in papers. They are second-hand and no longer associated with the context and emotions that go with them.

I am sometimes asked if a story I have used can be used by someone else. I usually recommend they find a way of developing their own reservoir of stories. This is sometimes difficult. Those who develop and advance theories may find their work disconnected from the reality of practice. The best way to both test the theories and develop your own stories is to test them out on a small scale. Not only will this provide self-confidence, it will also demonstrate the practicalities of your theory or suggestion and increase your personal credibility as you have a personal story to tell.

In the event you are unable to experience your own story, then I suggest capturing someone else's using a short video. Then allow their story to be told as they wish.

In the next week, try to focus on gathering, maintaining, treasuring your own stories. If you find yourself giving an example - telling someone else's story - then take a breather and see how you might do something differently to get the outcomes you desire from your listeners.

Photo from www.freephoto.com

When we adapt do we spread & implement effectively?

The script often spoken and written by people involved in the spread of good practice goes along the lines of "we need to customise the process / protocol / idea so it fits best in our context", or "we need to expect the process / protocol / idea will be customised".

Part of me fully support and understands this. Yet another part of me is questioning what we mean by adaptation. When we use the term is it because:

• we didn't have the time and/or inclination to discover the important contextual variables and then design with and around these
• we are so in love with our solution (see earlier post about "inventoritis") that we expect others to copy it as it is, or maybe with just a few small tweaks
• we are too afraid to work through the adaptation process and how the solution might be adapted because we may discover the desired outcome may not be achieved
• we can't figure out how another place or team might use the process or idea so we defer to adaptation as the way round this
• we know the new process will require quite a lot of facilitation and support to make it happen so we use adaptation as a means for engaging others (so they don't think they are adopting someone else's idea) and as a means for garnering implementation support
• we can spread partly formed ideas and processes, or ones still in their innovative design state

So what is the adapting process? In a foreword by Richard Dawkins in Susan Blackmore's book about memes, is a couple of examples which got me thinking.

1. Are you expecting a copying process, knowing there will be some natural adaptation. Dawkins uses the example of copying a picture. One person copies a picture, passes to another to copy and so on. After a number of copies the picture may not resemble the original very much. In fact, I suspect some may start to put their own context, thoughts and ideas on the picture, thus rendering it something different both in visual status as well as in meaning.
2. Do you intend someone to copy instructions? If I am shown how to make a complex origami figure using a set of 30 simple instructions, then I can teach someone else, using the same instructions. That person can then teach someone else and so on. In this case, most of the time, we can posit that after 20 teaching/replications the origami figure would look the same. By focusing on the instructions then someone can even correct a minor slip when they make their copy. However, if once of the instructions gets left out and this omission is replicated then the paper figure will end up an entirely different shape.

So this brings me to issuing clinical guidelines and the expectation of their adoption and use, and sometimes adaptation for local use. Some questions I have are:

• Do we know what happens when we issue guidelines and say "may them local". To what extent do they match the fidelity of the original in terms of outcome?
• What happens when one of the guidelines instructions is omitted (accidentally or purposefully)? How much of the original outcome is retained?

If you have any thoughts on this topic of adaptation them please comment or email me.

Validity, reliability & generalisability of project results; the science of improvement?

I am aware that the use (and sometimes invention) of management gobbledygook words to describe actions and intentions regarding quality improvement may sometimes be more of a hindrance than a help. After an inspirational week spent with the Veterans Affairs Quality Scholars in Vermont I got thinking more about this.

"Spread" and "Sustainability" are my two pet problems as words. Spread is difficult to describe and many people use it in different ways and for different dynamics, thus creating more confusion. I have worried for a long time that there is no such issue as sustainability in QI if we are doing proper continuous improvement.

So I wonder what reframing and mindset shifts we get when we use words from the science discipline - after all, many call what we do the "science of improvement".

Validity

Generally in science validity measure the extent to which the test. experiment or method actually does what it has been designed to do.

I wonder how many improvement projects get "good results" yet the overall aim is not identifiably or actually reached. For example, a project designed to length of stay in hospital may use average LOS to measure. Over 6 months this may show an increase, despite much work. As the average includes the denominator of beddays, what may have happened is other work on prevention and lowering readmissions rates has decreased the total number of beddays. Apart from average not being a good improvement measure, if is possible the actions taken for LOS were not focused on the overall aim - which could have been to reduce cost, change the experience for the patient etc.

In statistical terms this questions whether the sample used exhibits the characteristics of the population.

This may be one of the reasons why spread does not happen. We choose populations outside the norm (people willing to change, where the context is prepared, give them help etc) and then when they get good results we require the "norm" to copy them. In many cases the results, the change process, the toolkit produced is designed for a very small population and has poor validity across the wider intended adopting group.

Reliability

Statistically this is the amount of credence placed in a result; the precision of the measurement as repeated over a specific period of time.

For improvement projects that use control charts reliability will show as the extent to which the process is controlled. On a more macro level, reliability of a measure is weakened when the measurement method changes over time or when the measurement is open to "gaming".

The most popular measures for gaming (and I think lacking in reliability) are ones like 95% of patients to wait no longer than 4 hours.

Reliability can also mean the probability that a measurement (or intervention) will perform its intended function over time and within a given set of conditions

This definition reminds me of the talk about "sustainability". If results drop off or the way of measuring becomes "unsustainable" - usually due to other changes in the system, then the problem may be more one of design than a loss of momentum (or whatever way you conceive of "sustainability").

Generalisability

To draw specific inferences; to make generally or universally acceptable

This is about demonstrating that the improvement work carried out in Ward 10 is applicable throughout the hospital. To what extent can the other 15 wards copy what has been done and get the same result? In my experience we often end up with say half the other wards adopting something and of those half not all of them get the same results as the originating ward (they may in fact do better). This is about spread, and to effect generalisability the originating project needs to be able to describe their contextual factors and anything that may be contributing to their results. Without this, adopting teams, and management who would like the work adopted, would have little knowledge as to the generalisability of the work.

I also see a lot of "the results from hospital A was a £10,000 saving. This means all ten of our hospitals can achieve a total of £100,000 if they did the same." I suggest calculation is meaningless without a demonstration of the probability of generalisability.

The SQUIRE Guidelines have been developed to help overcome some of the lack of rigour in publishing improvement work. In particular they address the contextual / generalisability issue.

Stimulating the desire to share

So I've been taking notes for a few weeks on why it is some people are really attracted to share some things, others are attracted to share very little. What is it that stimulates one person clicko n the "share" button on You-Tube or any other social networking site? What prompts someone to forward a useful article? SO the notes I've been taking are around my own behaviour and desire to share. I am wondering how much of this is generalisable to other people and contexts.

1. Relationship building: sometimes I share something because I am aware it is part of continuing a relationship with someone. This can range form the more formal paper I've read that I hope someone else will also find useful, though to something more random like a video clip on You-tube that I thought someone in the family might find amusing. My sharing isn't something planned - it just sort of happens and when I see something I will trigger a "share". This made me think whether "relationship building" is something we consider or design with in mind when developing change programs.
2. Unknown sharing: this is a bit like the blindspot in the Johari window. I realised that I am on many social and business networking sites. It is possible for me to share a message, say on Twitter, and then this is retweeted (forwarded on to others). I have no idea who the people are, though Twitter is useful as it is possible to track the sharing - not so with email. Sometimes the only way I know something has been shared is when I get an email form someone I have never heard of yet they are commenting on something I said. This is a very powerful dynamic at work and I wonder how much this is taken into account when developing communication strategies? I've learnt how random this process is. Got to be in there and involved to have any sense of how the internet can generate both velocity (speed) as well as scaling up of a message.
3. Problem shared is a problem halved: I have found sharing problems and looking for support and answers from others is an important strategy for me. I use LinkedIn to pose questions and also reach out to colleagues. This means I have to describe my problem - this process of sharing usually means I end up part solving the problem as I do the definition! So I wonder whether in our change efforts we spend too much time requiring solutions to be articulated when one strategy may be to help people both find words to their problem as well as find someone to whom they can reach out.
4. Random sharing: ever found yourself telling your life story to someone sitting next to you on the bus and who you only met 30 seconds ago when you sat down?! Well, not quite as extreme, though I have found myself sharing all sorts of things with people which don't fall into relationship building (except perhaps very short term) or as precisely as problem solving. There is something opportunistic here. So I wonder whether we can help more of these opportunistic meeting happen in the workplace?
5. Good idea promotion: yes, I did do some promotion activities, sharing good practices I have seen elsewhere and which may be useful to the person or team I was working with at the time. However, this was only a very small percentage of my "sharing" time. Standing on a stage and telling stories also counts a bit of good practice sharing, though again this was a small part of my sharing activity. So I wonder whether we are over cooking the need to share good ideas?

So what I discovered by my own behaviour is I have not consciously set out the share good practice and good ideas. It is a lot more random than that. Also, my desire to share is really quite complex. OK, I am only a sample size of one - if you have stories about your own desire to share then please write a comment below.

I will be doing some thinking before designing the next communication and "spread" intervention I am involved in.