Successful Knowledge Management

[competentone]

Originally Posted by djmcmath

If only there was a way to efficiently change the course of a half-million person organization....

I believe a "common enemy" would help with that.

Maybe in 20 years the Chinese will have their Navy built to the point that they threaten world domination.

Even if you cannot convince the "old farts" now that change is good, the changes you push for today could influence the next generation of officers -- and they may be facing a whole different threat than exists today.

So don't despair if your work doesn't seem to have any "immediate" effect. You do not know how it could change things in the future.

[tabs]

Thge only military experience I have is dropping a quarter in the pot of the Salvation Army at Christmas time.

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by competentone

I believe a "common enemy" would help with that.

Maybe in 20 years the Chinese will have their Navy built to the point that they threaten world domination.

Even if you cannot convince the "old farts" now that change is good, the changes you push for today could influence the next generation of officers -- and they may be facing a whole different threat than exists today.

So don't despair if your work doesn't seem to have any "immediate" effect. You do not know how it could change things in the future.

So true. As the Program Manager for all Naval Unmanned Air Systems, the biggest problem I have is affecting change and overcoming the, "old farts".

Their knowledge base has a hard time with new capabilities, very similar to the "Battleship Navy" in the 1930 that thought aircraft carriers would never work.

Sometime the windmills need tilting...

[oldE]

A couple of thoughts, perhaps useful, perhaps not.

The Pelican board is successful because the people reading are the people wrenching.
The database of issues is pretty good, but what is written is taken to heart because we all think, "Oh yeah! I saw that same thing." Or, "I wondered about that." (Or, sometimes, "Oh ****! That's what he meant!")
If you passed all that information on to a sorting and clearing house, whatever, some of the important bits get filtered out or forgotten. Also, there is a time factor.

You have to get the information directly into the hands of those who use/need it. I would guess that means the tecs and Maintenance chiefs.

I have seen too many instances where information was not gotten from/given to those who had/needed it.
Sorry if I'm wasting band width.

Les

[Dennis Kalma]

Originally Posted by competentone

Even if you cannot convince the "old farts" now that change is good, the changes you push for today could influence the next generation of officers -- and they may be facing a whole different threat than exists today.

So don't despair if your work doesn't seem to have any "immediate" effect. You do not know how it could change things in the future.

One more observation. In this era of non-existent attention spans, high speed technology and instant gratification, we sometimes forget that people - the wet-ware - hasn't really changed and people do not change in minutes, hours or even days....it takes days, months and years for people to change...

Dennis

[FOG]

DJ,

Forget trying to use Share Point, NMCI is incompatible at this time.
All old data/experience is good to retain. Some of the best lessons in leadership are taught by bad example. When I went through TBS I though only one of 4 SPCs ( USMC Capt.s) was worth anything and what was going on. I later found out that this was a deliberate policy, assign a very bi-modal officer quality. Show the new 2ndLt.s both good and bad with a large split. We learned.
I have very little experience dealing with sub types but have worked w/black shoes. The black shoes were/are very unreceptive to criticism that would be considered mild by USN air standards, let alone USMC aviation, where de-briefs get a little more “pointed”.
The start from the top is classic. I have had CGs that blew up and refused to believe the safety survey results pointing to them as the number one de-grader. I have had others that made it a point of going to happy hours and mix in, not just the O’ club. The latter would go around and ask about recent events, with no repercussions unless he hadn’t been purposely informed correctly (someone deliberately blocking or “wordsmithing” the incident). They would insure there were no repercussions.
Maybe call the Naval Safety Center and start using their formats for incidents. Commands are id’d.
True confessions and NATOPS trivia (don’t know what your equivalent would be) with beer in a competitive atmosphere are actually pretty good motivators.
My previous tour both the CO and XO of a MWSS left Okinawa w/in a day of each other due to a variety of reasons. I had to learn a number of new areas (various logistics and combat engineering, etc) past the consumer level very quickly. This in addition to addressing the standard leadership issues was interesting as I had aviation and ground backgrounds w/no CSS or staff experience. Leading different groups of servicemen requires different approaches depending on who you’re leading.
My surgeon was a former sub bubba who went on to being a doc. In talking to him I came away with the distinct impression that there multiple cultural permutations inside the sub force just as there is in aviation and ground communities. My view is that a leader takes these differences into account (read panzer attacks) and act accordingly.
Looking for one “simple solution technical solution”, data base, etc. is wrong. It is hardest for leaders to view themselves as part of the problem and requiring the most work to fix. This self appraisal is hard but one must ask the question if they are worthy of leading these men and women and what can I do better to lead them, my career be damned? Your career may take hit depending on the next level or two of command but that is of no concern.

S/F, FOG

[djmcmath]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

Their knowledge base has a hard time with new capabilities, very similar to the "Battleship Navy" in the 1930 that thought aircraft carriers would never work.

Excellent parallel. I may use that in my point paper.

Originally Posted by oldE

The Pelican board is successful because the people reading are the people wrenching.
...
If you passed all that information on to a sorting and clearing house, whatever, some of the important bits get filtered out or forgotten.
...
You have to get the information directly into the hands of those who use/need it.
...
Sorry if I'm wasting band width.

No waste of bandwidth there -- you make a great point. The value is added when information gets from one decision-maker to another. I think that maintenance-level forums have a lot of value, in that a lot of the gear is common across boats. Every boat in the fleet has an elderly AN/WIC stack, most submarines still have the same atmosphere control equipment, virtually everyone has some kludged-together mess that we call "GPS." The ability to get on a forum and talk with other guys who have the same kinds of problems would be awesome. I think it's true at another level, too -- every submarine does the same kinds of tasks -- my boat wasn't the first one to do the Nuclear Regeneration exercise, and it doesn't change from year to year. The ability to talk to the Navigator who led his boat through that mess the year before, or the year before that, would have been invaluable. That's why I think that "raw" forums -- more like this one, and less like a consolidated central filtered repository -- have more value.

Originally Posted by Wayne at Pelican Parts

One problem is mis-information, a fact that is often not seen because it can be disemminated from someone who appears knowledgeable, but is not. That is one of the problems with the forums here, there are people who post incorrect information thinking they are right when they are not. Sure, they often get called out on it, but then it becomes a he said she said type of argument and accurate information is lost in the process.

There's a lot of truth in that, and that's the problem with fast information. Information can either be fast or accurate, but probably not both. My instinct is that information directly from the people on scene who just went through a situation is more valuable than information that's been filtered through a group of desk-driving "experts" for months before re-dissemination, but it's important to note that information is only as good as the source.


The solution I'm leaning towards right now looks like this:
1 - Forums, sort of like this, except on the classified network. Categories broken down into specific mission areas, maintenance areas, etc. Start small, then break conversations out into sub-topics (create new sub-topics) as topics get big enough to require it. Trying to establish the rules for the forums would be the hard part -- someone's going to give away some piece of knowledge that the Captain didn't want anyone off-hull to know about, and someone's going to fry. Or someone's going to post something in "Off Topic" that someone else gets offended by, and the forums will be shut down while we have a "politically correct stand-down." That'll kill it -- important to find the middle ground.
2 - Current database of knowledge experts. Track who posts useful stuff in the forums. Someone who posts a lot gets a higher "expert rating." That senior chief in the shore maintenance facility with 25 years of experience fixing AN/WIC stacks? He posts a lot, and gets positive ratings on his responses, so he gets a higher "expert rating." The Admiral could send him a nice letter (yellow sticky of appreciation) when he reaches a certain rating. It's cheesy, but people like the recognition. Additionally, the database would be semi-public -- if you're having a problem with your AN/WIC, you'd post in the AN/WIC forum, then start calling the most highly rated experts to search for an answer.
3 - Tech articles. As enough people rebuild 915's, a collection of expertise is slowly built on the topic. Someone with a few minutes to kill could consolidate the best information from the top dozen rebuild threads and create a single really good article on the topic. The same is true of piloting in foreign ports, responding to ship-board casualties, or fixing broken gear. I spent a few hours this week and consolidated half a dozen "lessons learned" messages on coordinated mooring into a single doctrinal element that boats will be able to use to keep from learning the same lessons that the previous 6 boats learned doing the same thing.
4 - Cultural fixes: These are the hard ones. I have to figure out how to keep people from getting roasted on a spit for posting a mistake in the forum. I have to figure out how to convince the admiral (subfor) that it's important not to burn anyone at a stake for admitting mistakes. I need to socialize the existence of this new resource with the people who will use it -- the department heads, the chiefs, the leadership on the boats -- in an effort to get people involved in actually sharing information.

That's where I am right now, anyway.

[FOG]

4 - Cultural fixes: These are the hard ones. I have to figure out how to keep people from getting roasted on a spit for posting a mistake in the forum. I have to figure out how to convince the admiral (subfor) that it's important not to burn anyone at a stake for admitting mistakes. I need to socialize the existence of this new resource with the people who will use it -- the department heads, the chiefs, the leadership on the boats -- in an effort to get people involved in actually sharing information.

That's where I am right now, anyway. [/QUOTE]

Call Capt. Andy Cuca NSC. He is the Naval services command climate and culture guru. He would probably have to tailor something for the subs but it is valuable, though certain command elements react poorly when they get the results.