Comment Re:Tough project (Score 0) 370
> It simply isn't in anyone's best interests to cooperate with this kind of project; that's why it's doomed from the start.
You're assuming that workers' primary goal is their own self-interest.
If, on the other hand, the reason they are in the organization is that they are motivated to achieve the organization's goal (as is more likely to be true in a non-profit than a profit firm), and to do it sooner rather than later, they are likely to be motivated to make sure that (a) if they got hit by a bus, their work would continue, and (b) they are doing what they can to accelerate progress toward the goal.
I work for a missions organization, whose members raise their own support. Most of us would be quite happy to be replaceable, and would love to work ourselves out of a job.
Nevertheless, many of our processes reside only in one or another person's head, and getting them documented is hard work.
I think the difficulties go far beyond self-interest.
While most workers don't raise their own support, and some are not passionate about their companies objectives, they nevertheless get satisfaction out of meaningful, productive work. Few people are so cynical as to intentionally sabotage the fruits of their own labor.
One difficulty with process documentation is that the I/O involved (documenting processes, and following the documentation) is boring, and doesn't feel like you're getting "the real job" done. For that reason, in my view it is *very* important that workers understand the connection between process documentation and the goals of efficiency and replaceability. Our devotional time this morning included Matthew 6, in which Jesus says that like grass, we are here today and gone tomorrow. If I got hit by a bus, I would certainly not feel better about it knowing that all I had learned was lost.
People are not perfect, but they generally feel good about makintg a meaningful contribution. If you treat them like selfish brats, rather than professionals of substance, you are unlikely to accomplish much together.
I think even from a standpoint of self-interest, people can be motivated to document processes because they see the benefits (and corresponding problems) for themselves when their colleagues do (or don't) document THEIR processes. For example when Joe at the next desk goes on vacation and nobody can fix network login problems, that's a big pain. Jim wishes Joe would document that process, and "in exchange" Jim is willing to document some of what he does. And so on.
One question to ask here is, what's wrong with oral transmission of knowledge? (The OP implied it was inferior.) Yes, I know it's not durable, and not consistently accessible to a large group of people. On the other hand, written knowledge takes a lot of time and attention to write, to update, and to read. Oral transmission can be done on-the-spot, as needed.
I think the point here is to discriminate between situations where written documentation is really required - e.g. because of a heightened need for consistency and durability - and situations where oral transmission is good enough. This translates into less drudgework, and a better chance of successfully documenting the processes that really require it.
You're assuming that workers' primary goal is their own self-interest.
If, on the other hand, the reason they are in the organization is that they are motivated to achieve the organization's goal (as is more likely to be true in a non-profit than a profit firm), and to do it sooner rather than later, they are likely to be motivated to make sure that (a) if they got hit by a bus, their work would continue, and (b) they are doing what they can to accelerate progress toward the goal.
I work for a missions organization, whose members raise their own support. Most of us would be quite happy to be replaceable, and would love to work ourselves out of a job.
Nevertheless, many of our processes reside only in one or another person's head, and getting them documented is hard work.
I think the difficulties go far beyond self-interest.
While most workers don't raise their own support, and some are not passionate about their companies objectives, they nevertheless get satisfaction out of meaningful, productive work. Few people are so cynical as to intentionally sabotage the fruits of their own labor.
One difficulty with process documentation is that the I/O involved (documenting processes, and following the documentation) is boring, and doesn't feel like you're getting "the real job" done. For that reason, in my view it is *very* important that workers understand the connection between process documentation and the goals of efficiency and replaceability. Our devotional time this morning included Matthew 6, in which Jesus says that like grass, we are here today and gone tomorrow. If I got hit by a bus, I would certainly not feel better about it knowing that all I had learned was lost.
People are not perfect, but they generally feel good about makintg a meaningful contribution. If you treat them like selfish brats, rather than professionals of substance, you are unlikely to accomplish much together.
I think even from a standpoint of self-interest, people can be motivated to document processes because they see the benefits (and corresponding problems) for themselves when their colleagues do (or don't) document THEIR processes. For example when Joe at the next desk goes on vacation and nobody can fix network login problems, that's a big pain. Jim wishes Joe would document that process, and "in exchange" Jim is willing to document some of what he does. And so on.
One question to ask here is, what's wrong with oral transmission of knowledge? (The OP implied it was inferior.) Yes, I know it's not durable, and not consistently accessible to a large group of people. On the other hand, written knowledge takes a lot of time and attention to write, to update, and to read. Oral transmission can be done on-the-spot, as needed.
I think the point here is to discriminate between situations where written documentation is really required - e.g. because of a heightened need for consistency and durability - and situations where oral transmission is good enough. This translates into less drudgework, and a better chance of successfully documenting the processes that really require it.
