Colin Milligan, Allison Littlejohn and I had a paper published in the Journal of Knowledge Management. The paper reports the findings from this and this work I blogged about in 2009.
Full reference: Margaryan, A., Milligan, C., & Littlejohn, A. (2011). Validation of Davenport’s Classification Structure of Knowledge-intensive Processes. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(4), 568-581.
I have written earlier about a research study in which we are looking at developing interventions (approaches, tools) for supporting knowledge work and learning in the workplace.
As part of the study we conducted a survey (n=462) and semi-structured interviews (n=29) exploring current learning and knowledge sharing practices utilised by workers in a major multinational company. The survey aims to elucidate, among other questions, the types of knowledge work that individuals carry out. To this end, we are using Davenport’s classification structure for knowledge-intensive processes.
For the survey, we translated each of the four subcategories of Davenport’s typology into a set of options. Respondents were asked to choose as many options as applied in describing their current job.
The initial analysis of the survey results shows that only a very small proportion of individuals characterised their job as neatly fitting into one specific model. Instead, the majority of knowledge worker jobs fit two or more categories spanning across the four models.
These findings suggest not only that, as Davenport himself admits, knowledge work is too complex to be reduced to two dimensions, but also may point to the possibility that the categories in these typology are not quite correct. Many knowledge-intensive jobs, even if they are primarily routine, may require some degree of collaboration and personal interpretation or judgement.
Of course one has to take into consideration that our data is based on respondents’ self-reports, and we do not verify through parallel measures the extent to which these individuals’ categorisations of their work tasks are objective. Also, we cannot determine the extent to which the meaning of the options was interpreted uniformly across the sample (a common problem for surveys).
***** UPDATE on Oct 2, 2011: This study has now been published in the Journal of Knowledge Management. The full reference is:
Margaryan, A., Milligan, C., & Littlejohn, A. (2011). Validation of Davenport’s Classification Structure of Knowledge-intensive Processes. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(4), 568-581.
Thomas Davenport in his “Thinking for a Living” (Chapter 2) offers a set of classifications of the types of knowledge work.
The first one is a martix structured around complexity (C) of knoweldge work (ranging from routine to interpretation/judgement-based) and level of interdependence (I) requried (from individual cator-based to reliant on collaborative groups). It includes transaction model (low C, low I); integration model (low C, high I); collaboration model (high C, high I), and expert model (high C, low I).
I am wondering if within each of these general types of knowledge work, there are differences in the nature of tasks that novices and experts carry out. Take for example the collaboration model. Davenport claims that knowledge work of this type is characterised by being improvisational, highly reliant on deep expertise across functions, and dependent on fluid deployment in flexible teams. He uses investment banking as a typical example of this type of knowledge work. But how likley is a novice investment banker to have such deep cross-functional expertise? Novices will probably start off by doing more routine and process-reliant tasks (the key characteristics of transaction and integration model), which will increase in complexity and level of interaction as their skills and expertise develops. Davenport’s classification model doesn’t seem to reflect a developmental trajectory that exists within each type of work.
We are currently using this classification within a research study in a global multinational company. It would be interesting to see if the upcoming surveys in each of the specialist testbeds within this company will show any differences between novices and experts in relation to the nature and the types of the knowledge work.
***** UPDATE on Oct 2, 2011: This study has now been published in the Journal of Knowledge Management. The full reference is:
Margaryan, A., Milligan, C., & Littlejohn, A. (2011). Validation of Davenport’s Classification Structure of Knowledge-intensive Processes. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(4), 568-581.
Charting the Labyrinths 