Post on 26-Mar-2015
Help as Knowledge Management:
Taking Care of Scarce
Resources through Informal Encouragement
JD Eveland, Ph.D.
December 11, 2000
Today’s Context
• Organizations are increasingly technology dependent
• Technology isn’t self-implementing• Traditional model: expensive machines,
cheap/replaceable people• Current model: cheap machines,
expensive people• Thus: new kinds of “joint optimization”
The socio-technical balance has shifted…
• Crucial resource is knowledge• Knowledge is most critically
embedded in the organization’s people
• It’s very easy for knowledge to walk out the door…
• Informal relationships make the system work
“Help” as a key need
• Knowledge is unequally distributed• Knowledge is a social event• The organization works only
because people help each other• Most help is informal• Most organizations aren’t set up to
encourage helping relationships
The CGU Studies
• CGU -- a private graduate school
– 2000 students, 200 staff
– Diverse small programs, no “technical”
departments
– Distributed environment
– Major transition in computing support• Pre/Post surveys on computer use and help• Further analysis on organizational and
physical distance
Project Structure
• Three survey rounds– Pre-hardware– One year of experience– Network experience
• Surveys covered:– Demographics– Capabilities used– Information work– Satisfaction– Expectations– Interactions with others
Interaction networks surveyed
• People with whom they work regularly
• People to whom they go for help when they have problems with the computer
• People to whom they provide such help
Connections in the network
Work networkHelp network
WithinWork group
AcrossWork groups
WithACC
OutsideCGU
140 (31%)
68 (16%)
125 (29%)
103 (24%)
184 (57%)
73 (22%)
11 (3%)
59 (18%)
436 327
Average help relationships, by function
Faculty
Dep’t staff
Admin. Staff
Supervisors
ACC staff
Relations N
1.44
1.53
1.59
.12
17.6
36
13
32
15
9
0
20
40
Cumulative number of individuals
Numberof help
relations
1 100 200 350
Break point forHigh providers
Cumulative distribution of help relationships
Patterns of help
HighProviders
Non-Providers
HighProviders
Non-Providers ACC
OutsideSources
10%
26%
14%
4%
22%
10%
54%
60%
RECIPIENT
Source
What distinguished a “high provider”?
• A wider range of information work• Use more computer tools• Have more computer education
• Nothing demographic!– Age, status, experience, tenure, and gender are
unrelated to helping
But they do...
Various networks…
• Working relations• Administrative distance• Helping relations• Physical distance
Work Relationships
Help relationships
Help relationships without ACC
Operationalizing “distance”
Art toManagement
= Barrier
Factor of 6
• Working relationships are most important to helping
• More than two physical barriers become a problem to helping
• The formal structure doesn’t matter much in helping
So...What did we find out by correlating the
networks?
Help
Admin. Closeness
Physical closeness
Work help admin. Close.
.60
.14
.28
.17
.21 .08
Conclusions here...
• People get computer help from those with whom they share work problems
• The formal structure is less important than either working relationships or physical distance
• People don’t walk far to get help
Overall Conclusions
• Help networks tend to be workgroup-based,
with central support
• “High providers” focus help networks and
channel expertise into them
• Help providers are just like us, only more so
• Help networks need support and cultivation
Practical consequences
• We reorganized the CGU help system• For the future, we need to…• Understand technology use as a
knowledge management problem• Recognize the knowledge based in
people• Build systems to encourage sharing• Understand limits of formal
arrangements