Showing posts with label knowledge mobilization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label knowledge mobilization. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

What motivates someone to collaborate? Five essential needs that must be met.

Recently, I was invited to participate in a workshop to address the question “How might we motivate people to participate in complex interdisciplinary problem-solving initiatives?”  The premise here was that this is not about the committee your boss directed you to join, but rather about complex problems where the solution is not clear, where many possible solutions may exist and where it is not clear who should participate or you don’t have the functional relationship to direct people to participate.

The workshop was designed as a “Deep Dive”, a facilitated process to help a group collaborate to design creative solutions that are focused on user needs.  I won’t go into the details of the process here, but I will say that there was an emphasis on what is sometimes called empathetic, or active, listening, which is listening to really understand the needs of the other person.

To help us, as participants, get a better understanding of the issues around motivation, we were asked to interview people who have experience organizing and managing teams.  Using active listening, we attempted to tap into their knowledge and experience.  We wanted to understand what motivated people to collaborate in teams and what they learned about leading teams of people in a collaborative initiative.  The interviewees were quite diverse in their level, type of work and years of experience, ranging from junior analysts up to an acting Deputy Minister.  They were similar, however, in that they all had considerable experience organizing, managing and motivating teams to help them achieve goals. In many cases, this meant motivating people with whom they did not have a direct reporting relationship.  Collectively, my fellow workshop participants and I interviewed over 20 people.

From these interviews, a wide variety of knowledge and experience was shared.  Yet, there was a lot of similarity in what was said.  Out of all this information, we were able to identify the five key needs below (in order of importance).  Think of these as needs that must be met in order for someone to volunteer to participate in an initiative that you might be leading. 

1) Efficiency
-         Nobody volunteers to join a team because they want more work. Potential participants will always ask themselves, “What’s in it for me?”  In particular, it must be clear to the potential participant how their involvement in the team will help them do whatever it is they are interested in doing more effectively or more quickly.  Perhaps, their involvement will help them learn a new skill; perhaps it will help them network with other experts in their field; perhaps they can influence something that will have an impact on them.  Whatever it is, they will have a need to do something more efficiently.   In addition, potential participants in your team will want to know how they can add value.    These two questions, “What can I contribute?” and “What can I take away?” must align with the objectives of the team in order for potential participants to consider becoming involved.

2) Clarity
The people we interviewed made it clear that there are several items potential participants often need to be clear about before they will commit to join a team, including:
  • Clarity on the goals of the team and the desired outcomes. The goals and outcomes need to align with their interests, available time, and what they can take away or they will get out of it.
  • Clarity on the context for the team. Why is the team being constituted? Who has asked for the outcome?
  • Clarity on their role. It’s your job as a team leader to help participants see how they can contribute and remind them of the value of their contribution.  It’s also important to remember that success is a shared responsibility among all members of the team.  It is not just the Chair’s responsibility.  
  • Clarity on the process.  Participants need to feel that the process is logical and has a high chance of leading to a successful outcome.  To this end, it is important that the leader or Chair be honest and transparent throughout the process.
  • Clarity on how members expect to interact with one another.  For example, sometimes, you have to overcome a culture of hierarchy where people defer to the highest ranking member at the table.
  • Clarity on credit.  Being acknowledged for one’s work is important.  As the leader or Chair, it’s you must ensure that credit is given where it is due, and not taken when it is not due. Celebrate the small achievements.

3) Purpose
-         Purpose does not refer to the aim or goal of the team, but rather to need of participants to know that their involvement will contribute to something greater.  Participants want to know that they will have an influence on a larger issue that is of interest to them.  Nothing is more demoralizing for a team member than the realization that they are involved in a consultation disguised as a team - where a Chair is only interested in checking a box to say that they had broad involvement but is not really interested in the contributions of team members. 

4) Autonomy
-         Team members need to have some control over how they contribute.  This does not mean that it is a total free-for-all in terms of everyone doing their own thing.  As the Chair or leader, it is your job to ensure a shared understanding of the desired outcomes and the tasks required to reach the goal.  You need to highlight what needs to be done and then set the conditions to allow members to commit to the work.  Start by talking to your participants to understand their interests and let them help develop the process and associated tasks.   Help members understand how they can contribute or find ways for two or three members to share responsibility for a task.  Emphasize that success is a shared responsibility, not just the Chair’s. Don’t position tasks as something interesting that someone might want to take on, rather, position tasks as essential to the success of the team that someone must take on.  Not all tasks are glamorous and some are just a sheer grind, but your best chance of success is getting someone to volunteer.  Whatever you do as the team leader, do not micromanage the tasks.  The people I interviewed all agreed that it was better to define the task result and then let the responsible team member have ownership on how to deliver on the task.   

5) Safety
-         The people we interviewed shared a view that it is essential to create a safe environment for the members to participate fully.  This means both an intellectual and emotional safe space -a place where differences of opinion are respected, even if they are not agreed with.  Constructive criticism is OK, but personal attacks are not. Remember, people like to stick to their disciplines.  There is a fear of being criticized.  There is also a strong culture of hierarchy in some organizations (e.g whatever the highest ranking member of the team says is true).  There is also sometimes a culture of protectionism (it’s my knowledge, I did the research, I own it). Set ground rules everyone can agree on early on in the process or develop a team charter that defines how members will interact.

The needs identified above are not exhaustive.   They are the top 5 needs that we identified from the information we collected from our interviews. Participants may have other needs that must be met depending on the circumstances.  Nor does meeting these needs guarantee involvement in an initiative.  These are basic, minimum needs that interviewees told us must be met in order for a potential participant to consider becoming involved in a collaborative initiative.  Without having met these basic needs it is unlikely that someone will become involved in an initiative.  They are a necessary pre-condition for involvement, but do not guarantee involvement.

As a leader, or someone trying to encourage participation in a team it is important that you think about the needs of the participants. Put yourself in the shoes of the person receiving your request.  What is their context? Why would they want to participate? You must align what you want as leader with the participants’ interests, time and needs.

In addition, our interviewees spoke about the importance of developing relationships with team members.  Team building is the key to a successful team.  Fostering strong relationships is crucial to ensuring strong commitment to actions. Our interviewees suggested spending time one-on-one with team members, even if it’s only a few minutes.  Get to know little things about the members and remember those things for the next conversation.  A little personal interest goes a long way.

Finally, stay focused on action.  Remember, action is the end goal, not just talking. 

Speaking of action, I invite you to share your experience leading or participating in a team.  Do the needs identified here resonate with you?


Friday, April 20, 2012

Mobilizing knowledge in the Canadian Forest Service


Through its Policy Framework for Information and Technology, Treasury Board has made it clear that information is an essential component of effective management across the Government of Canada.  The availability of high-quality, authoritative information to decision makers supports the delivery of programs and services, thus enabling departments to be more responsive and accountable to Canadians.

Accordingly, within Natural resources Canada, much effort is put into ensuring that the department’s information services, like the intranet, the wiki, and online databases, provide quick and easy access to information. Still, the uptake of research results by policy and decision makers may be lower than desired, not because of any shortcomings in a set of research results or the dissemination strategy used, but because potential users are unwilling or unable to exploit the opportunities presented to them.

Decision-making and management activities must integrate various types of information in a complex environment comprised of political, economic, and social factors.  The challenge is how to acknowledge and integrate social, economic and political context into knowledge systems. We must go beyond simply aiming to provide a “one-stop shop for information.”  Instead, what decision makers and policy analysts need is not just the facts, but, a set of solution options that are informed by research-based knowledge within the decision context

Much work has been done to look at ways to improve the uptake of research outputs by decision- and policy-makers in the health sciences field. For example, Lavis and colleagues (2003) identified three methods to enhance research utilisation by policy-makers: producer push, user pull and knowledge exchange. A similar framework for knowledge management, described as learn before, learn during and learn after, has been advanced by Collison and Parcell in their 2001 book Learning to Fly.

The paradigm of producer push, user pull and knowledge exchange includes knowledge transfer and knowledge translation, which are usually seen as a unidirectional flow of knowledge. But it also includes iterative knowledge exchange. In contrast to knowledge transfer and knowledge translation, knowledge exchange involves bringing together researchers and decision makers and facilitating their interaction, which starts with collaborating on determining the research question.  The ongoing exchange and knowledge transfer ensure that the knowledge generated is relevant and applicable to stakeholder decision making as well as useful to researchers.

Phipps and Shapson (2009) incorporated these three methods together with the concept of knowledge that is co-produced between researchers and research users to define knowledge mobilization.  They define knowledge mobilization as a suite of services using a diverse array of strategies that connect researchers and research users to enhance research utilization.

While not explicitly working in the area of knowledge mobilization, the Forest Knowledge and Information Management Division (FKIMD) of the Canadian Forest Service (CFS) is attempting to find ways to enhance the impact of CFS scientific research outputs for decision makers, policy analysts and advisors who seek quality scientific information that is relevant to their work and will impact decisions while being accessible and understandable in the shortest possible time.  The objective of FKIMD's activities is to ensure the discovery, use and dissemination of all information of business value created by the CFS for the delivery of the sector's programs and services.  As well, the division seeks to ensure that IM practices within the the sector are compliant with the Directive on Recordkeeping (as required by March 2014), and that information management standards are aligned with government standards, such as the Standard on Geospatial Data. Finding the right tools and services to effectively mobilize the organization’s knowledge is a complex problem that will evolve.

The Division has not previously described its work in terms of knowledge mobilization, but it may be useful to set the division's work in the context of the four established knowledge mobilization methods (producer push, user pull, knowledge exchange and co-production) used by Phipps and Shapson (2009) to describe the knowledge mobilization services of York University’s Knowledge Mobilization Unit. In this way, the work of FKIMD can be compared with an established knowledge mobilization unit.

The comparisons suggest that the activities being undertaken by FKIMD are consistent with Knowledge Mobilization activities undertaken by other science-based organizations and should help the CFS mobilize its knowledge to ensure that decision makers and their support staff have access to quality information that is relevant to their work and that impacts decision making.  The only notable exception to this is the relatively limited role of activities in knowledge pull, characterized at York University by the "help desk", where knowledge brokers help facilitate the introduction of a knowledge requester to a knowledge producer and support any emerging conversations that might lead to collaboration.


KMb MethodFKIMD activityNotes
Producer PushPlain language research summaries
Plain language summary that provides a concise summary of the key S&T messages or findings of an S&T publication using simple language that would be appropriate for an audience of non-technical experts in the subject of the publication.
Knowledge retention interviewsInterviews of departing employees and presentations and discussions by departing employees with peers
Directory of expertiseAn online tool to allow knowledge users to find subject matter experts in NRCan
Publications databaseAn improved database of publications that provides access to all CFS publications
User Pull
Knowledge ExchangeCommunities of practiceFostering communities of practice as stewards of knowledge
Project-level knowledge exchange strategiesPilot studies to adapt the Results Map process to bring together knowledge producers and knowledge users to co-create knowledge products
Collaboration / Co-production InfrastructureSimplified disposition authoritiesReducing the number of disposition authorities in NRCan from 64 to about 10 and expanding their coverage from about 60% of all information to 100%
Centralized digital repositoriesImplement GCDocs as a central digital repository for all digital files of business value that will replace shared drives and SharePoint.  Could have collaborative functions in the future
Paper Legacy Information StrategyA strategy to enhance the search and retrieval of CFS’ unmanaged and semi-managed paper legacy documents
Foogle - Integrated data setsAn online tool to catalogue, integrate and access CFS digital data sets
Social media to support collaborationAlthough not a product of FKIMD, the department and the GoC does have a full suite of social media tools including blogging, wikis, forums, SharePoint.  In addition, new Guidelines for External Use of Web 2.0 encourage employees to use social media tools like Twitter and Linked In.



For more detailed information, read my draft paper, Characterizing the work of Forest Knowledge and Information Division within the context of Knowledge Mobilization.