Adapting to the Characteristics of Knowledge Workers

Here’s an interesting paper by Allison Kidd on knowledge workers that studied how they worked and came up with some interesting conclusions that have ramifications for supporting them. It was published in 1994, pre-dating most of the tools we now use. What’s particularly interesting is that it argues for many of the technology-enabled ideas that we now take for granted in social media.

First, Kidd notes three defining characteristics of knowledge workers:

1. Diversity of Output

Knowledge workers solve problems and generate outputs largely by resort to structures internal to themselves rather than by resort to external rules or procedures. In other words, each knowledge worker develops a different internal “configuration” based on changes wrought in their thinking and outlook by the situations they have encountered, the information they have absorbed and the particular way they have made sense of these. . .

Unfortunately, many corporate software programs aim to level or standardise the differences between individual workers. In supporting knowledge workers, we should be careful to provide tools which enable diversification of individuals’ outputs (my emphasis)

2. Low Dependence on Filed Information

Knowledge workers also rarely consult their filed information when in their oftlces. They do make a lot of notes, both in meetings and when trying to sort out their thinking on their own but many of these notes are discarded once the ideas have been worked out or translated into a proper report. . .

We may have been fooled into thinking that knowledge workers write things down because they need an external memory store, whereas in many cases, it may be the graphological act itself which is important [4, 14]. (my emphasis)

3. Importance of Spatial Layout and Materials

Many knowledge workers have cluttered work spaces (you should see my desk right now), but are extremely concerned if someone messes with that space. According to this research, that’s because this “muddle” actually serves several roles for them:

  • As a holding pattern“It seems that knowledge workers use physical space, such as desks or floors, as a temporary holding pattern for inputs and ideas which they cannot yet categorise or even decide how they might use [12]. Filing is uncomfortable for them because they cannot reliably say when they will want to use a particular piece of information or to which of their future outputs it will relate.”
  • As a form of language–The physical act of seeing things, moving them around, etc. helps them make sense of the items.
  • As contextual cues–”Many of the workers reported that first thing in the morning, or after any interruption in their thought (like a ‘phone call), they have the “where was 1?” problem in a complex and ill-defined space of ideas. The layout of physical materials on their desk gives them powerful and immediate contextual cues to recover a complex set of threads without difficulty and delay.”
  • As demonstrable output“Piles of papers on desks are also important as tangible objects to which workers can point to show others how much progress they have made. One of the problems for a knowledge worker is that their productivity is difficult to measure and often their end-effect on the company is intangible, so they seem to use paper as a tangible record of their contributions.”

Based on these three characteristics, Kidd identifies several strategies we should employ in thinking about how to use technology with knowledge workers:

  • Avoid trying to help knowledge workers in ways which involve the tool in “understanding” the
    information it is holding or predicting what the user wants to do with it.
  • Concentrate on capturing and reproducing the appearance of marks made by knowledge workers rather than interpreting them. . . Changing these marks or their arrangements may not do the knowledge worker a service when it comes to cueing the re-call of their current understanding of an issue or their intent to inform another.
  • Don’t encourage organisations to think that storing information is an alternative to being
    informed by it.
  • Beware of the assumption that forgetting is a bad thing for humans and that we should design computers to cover for this “weakness” in our make-up. Forgetting is at the heart of new
    concept formation.
  • Use electronics to mimic and extend the ability of the physical environment to inform an individual worker or an organisation of such workers.
  • Remember that knowledge workers cannot predict what will inform them or how it will inform them, The dream of providing such workers with an “electronic encyclopedia in the sky” only satisfies those cases where someone can predict what they need to know.
  • Knowledge workers are in the business of labelling things in new ways. They cannot do this until they have been informed. It is hard today to keep information electronically without labelling it. (Side note–this may be why things like tagging have such utility–they allow you to label in multiple ways.)

I think one of the core things I get from this article is the sense of “artistry” that knowledge workers bring to what they do. Writers and artists often talk about needing to have certain conditions in place to support their creativity. These are often very tactile–a writer needs to use a certain pen and a certain type of paper, sit in a certain place, have certain things on her desk–and inextricably entwined with the very process of creation. Without these things in place, they literally cannot function.

When we think about helping knowledge workers adapt tasks that they’ve done in certain ways to incorporate new technologies or strategies, we may be asking them to make changes on a level so fundamental as to be completely unexamined and outside of real consciousness.  Finding ways to bridge the gap and help technology-enabled activities replace old ways of doing things is more than just a challenge of training. It’s also a re-do of the creative and knowledge-making process.


You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

5 Responses to “Adapting to the Characteristics of Knowledge Workers”

  1. I like both the link and your reflection. There’s a lot of material in here (including some question in my mind about just how many workers are knowledge workers).

    A skilled knowledge worker (to further vague-ify the focus) may also be unaware of how she gathers, retrieves, and applies her knowledge. Research on expertise seems to indicate that experts in a field analyze new problems and conceptualize solutions in ways they can’t explain, presumably because of the deep knowledge structures they have.

    You see a similar thing in language — the virtual impossibility of programming a system to make sense out of these two sentences I’m borrowing from “Parallel Distributed Processing” :

    I saw the Grand Canyon flying to New York.
    I saw the sheep grazing in the field.

    Dangling participle aside, you’d instantly understand the meaning of both, because you’re an expert in everyday English. But how do you?

  2. This isn’t a comment on this particular post, just a blog-related question. If I come directly to workliteracy.com, I see the home page and the ten or whatever most recent posts — but that view doesn’t show whether there are any comments, and doesn’t have an obvious place to click to make a comment. I have to click the title of an individual post.

    I’m mentioning this in case that’s not a deliberate design decision. (If it is, I don’t quite understand the reasoning, but I’m sure you’ll tell me.)

  3. Dave - good catch - it used to be there and we just made some changes and lost that feature. I’ll try to figure out how to get that back in.

    Michele and Dave - Davenport’s book does a great job laying out different kinds of knowledge workers, different kinds of knowledge work.

    I’m not sure how this factors in. Because even with very similar knowledge work types, individual workers consider different methods to be effective vs. not effective for them.

    Further, each of us acts like many different kinds of knowledge workers at different times based on role and the type of work we are doing. For example, I was looking at the lack of comment link and now I’m discussing this topic and I’m also working with my kids to plan out some party stuff.

    The highlighted items Michele are fantastic. Really good guide for what we are trying to do.

  4. A lot to consider and absorb, I’ll be spending some more time with it.

    But one of the things that caught my attention was Kidd’s ideas about the importance of forgetting to the learning process. I wrote a bit about this not too long ago in a post called Technology makes it easy to ‘remember’, the trick is learning how to forget.

    This is also tied to the second of the three characteristics: Low dependence on filed information. I use a paper based notebook to jot down all sorts of things, but I very rarely go back to look at things. I never quite understood why, but I have a better idea now.

    Like I said, a lot to consider. Good stuff.

  5. These characteristics are fascinating, and contradict many of the patterns I’ve seen promoted as how to work and/or learn effectively and efficiently. Knowing all the rules (and following them), reviewing your notes, keeping your desk neat - these are supposedly good work habits, but not according to this paper. As well, these characteristics are a good match to the characteristics of many of us who have adapted quickly to using computer and web applications.

Leave a Reply