Vana,
I am reacting to what I read not necessarily what you meant.
>You said "can you possibly document pre and post indicators of knowledge
>transfer?"
Yes you can and it does take a lot of work but if you are to focus on
improving what is important to the success of the organization it is
necessary to know how well it is done and if there is real change.
Unless you can measure real change in results it is all subjective and
open to dominance by the strong personality. Using measures brings real
performance to the fore. Without it anecdotal evidence is all we have and
the best sales effort wins not he best. This is one root of political
behavior and emphasis on who I know rather than how well we do our work.
Some time back i was giving a seminar to a group of presidents and a bank
president said, "but that's a lot of work and we would have to know what
they are supposed to do." I had no answer at the time. Now I would say yes
you are supposed to know what results are important to the success of the
organization and how well your people should know how well they are
performing them.
Gene
At 04:49 PM 12/9/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Just a thought...can you possibly document pre and post indicators of
>knowledge transfer? Examples would include error rates, problems avoided,
>cost savings, efficiencies...that type of thing. I've tried this myself
>without much luck. It involves a lot of data collection of data not
>commonly collected by companies.
>
>If you are implementing a specific process or technology to facilitate LO,
>it would certainly be worthwhile to document frequency/incidence of use,
>and develop user surveys.
>
>Vana Prewitt
Eugene Taurman
interLinx ilx@execpc.com http://www.execpc.com/~ilx
What you are is determined by the thoughts that dominate your mind.
Paraphrase of Proverbs Ch 23 vs 7 KJV
--Eugene Taurman <ilx@execpc.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>