Hack:
Creating a common language to unite stakeholders

Senge states the solution is to talk in terms of the underlying patterns of system behavior. I believe, in addition, the language for engaging in conversations must emerge the process, assumptions and generalizations to deliver the loops of Learning stated in my Barrier on Neglect of the accumulated Management Wisdom. Besides, empowerment will acquire meaning only when supported by a means for Learning to overcome the internal barriers to its gainful utilization.

This solution is wholly conceptual. It explains how the assembly of Knowledge achieved by assembling interactions with the Knowledge Assembly Line presented in the aforesaid Barrier promotes a language for the loops of learning, i.e., meaningful collaboration, and exposes complexities to emerge the Reality. The Assembly Line does pretty much what the Comment Board does on a web news story - See illustration (CLICK HERE). The concept of language is important as it explains the ready absorption of the Knowledge Assembly Line, my means for taming interactions, into the work-stream of any organization.

As a rule, knowledge leaks in the direction of shared practice and sticks where practice is not shared (4, Brown, & Gray, 2003). Knowledge is a by-product of interactions. Thus the need is fluent use of a common language for the conduct of all Knowledge interactions.

Language is procedural in nature. Architecting a language driven by IT to conduct conversations will not only enable management of  interactions and work  volumes but will also impart the language a compelling appeal by making it:

• A satisfier of key personal needs of Knowledge workers not satisfied today. Satisfaction will definitely reduce the helplessness conducive to rage in the workplace. My Barrier: Neglect of the accumulated Management Wisdom states the personal needs satisfied.

• Intuitive for conducting interactions;

Such a common language can be expected to evoke the commitment of busy administrators to be shared practice for all interactions. Apart from creating time and liberating personnel energy it will induce its own adoption by reducing, through definition and follow-up, the anxiety from expectations that accompany the conduct of interactions.

Freiherr von Humboldt (Wikipedia), the first to clearly lay down the character and structure of a language, described language as a system which "makes infinite use of finite means", i.e., creates infinite sentences using finite number of grammatical rules. 

Collaboration with Web 2.0 tools is not governed by grammar, the hallmark of a language. Self-organized seeking drives the interactions. Dependence on self-organization and tool skills, disregard of the organization structure and blindness to the expectations accompanying interactions makes Web 2.0 akin to sign language. Even where collaboration takes place the format ignores conduct of the loops of Learning. This explains why Web x.0 and its derivative for the enterprise, Enterprise x.0, simply do not possess the DNA to foster meaningful collaboration among stakeholders across the distributed enterprise.

The common language may be modeled on the successful conduct of paper-based dialogue by the Indian colonial administration (5, Drucker, 1988) at a time when train, telephone and telegraph were in narrow use. The Dialogue assisted the colonial administration to function as an effective team. The following comparison illustrates the difference between a normal language and the proposed common language for Dialogue or meaningful collaboration:

 (KEY: Parameter: English language – a common language for meaningful collaboration)

• Purpose: Communication among individuals – Interactions with reliable feedback
• Goal: Sentences for expressing thought – Flow of Knowledge to surface complex thinking
• Vocabulary: Words to drive thought – Actions to manage interactions and expectations
• Assembly of vocabulary: Grammar – Norms derived from evolution of teamwork
• Focus: Subject – Business event (meta data + content, e.g., email, letter, idea, etc.)
• Product: Simple expression of insight – Systematic flow and capture of Knowledge in context (see illustration)
• Parsing: Parts of speech – Pre-defined categories that define the flow, whether fact, assumption, or insight, and the context (meta data only)
• Audience: Anybody – Spontaneously selected from a structure. Linked to Action.
• Driving energy: Personnel energy – Processing and communicating power of technology

The use of  IT to create a common language for Dialogue is not far fetched. My hack Compelling Energy for a quantum jump in organization performance with the same resources details the harnessing of IT to assure Dialogue in the daily conduct of work and interaction. Total adoption by cynical and intransigent personnel in prototypes has validated its operation as a compelling language for all Knowledge work and interaction. Its systematic recording of conversations for ease of work, knowledge flows, access to experts, and retrospective evaluation of judgments provides the means to engage passion. It has delivered remarkable results:

• Compelling adoption: The invested intelligence makes conduct of Knowledge interactions effortless. It anticipates the next step, systematically records action taken, provides history in context and offers IT tools as needed;
• Pursuit of truth: Dialogue reveals the thinking and assumptions for superior judgments;
• Communities: The structure fosters formal and informal interest driven groups;
• Contemplation time: Created by ability to study and state opinion at convenience; 
• Teamwork and trust: Progressed by natural collaboration and feedback on each event. It delivers free flow for inquiry, advocacy, openness, and reflection. Distinct from just knowledge sharing, it progresses constructive combination of intelligence. Responsibility is shared.
• Innovation: Set up by need definition, thought evolution and breaking of moulds;
• Commitment: The ease of work, follow up, creation of time and energy, sharing of responsibility, and superior sense of reality raise willingness for greater commitment;
• Good governance: Accountability is defined and work progress is transparent;
• A culture for excellence: A simple but effective process to deliver the above against measures on each event has showed potential to induce the culture over time.