Skip to content


Knowledge Base Game

translation-knowledge-baseIn thinking about how to get games/game playing into organizations I came up with a simple idea of a Knowledge Base Game. The key is understanding your audience, purpose and context.

Game Purpose/Audience:

  • Imagine a sales force or set of experts who have extensive knowledge on how to solve problems for customers but feel that they don’t have time to contribute to a knowledge base describing the solutions.
  • Assume this set of experts primarily uses email and is also very competitive.
  • The purpose is get contributions to the knowledge base

Game description: The game is very simple, and is reminiscent of the expert questions in LinkedIn.

  • The dynamic would be to use email based polling/fill-in the blank
  • Send a question on Tuesday
  • Responses are submitted via text answer to email (form-based submission)
  • All answers are posted to a board/web page
  • A reminder is sent on Thursday to ask people to vote on the answers Friday
  • Get people to vote on the answers on Friday – crowd source the vetting process
  • The best answer is chosen by EOB Friday based on voting results – posted on board
  • Every Monday leader board results are sent out with the who won on Friday the top contributors/leaders to-date

The key will be to get support by thought leaders and influencers within the organization.  You may even want key leaders participating in the knowledge fest.

Game variations – levels of expertise

  • Depending on the dynamics of your organization, you may also want to send out multiple questions at a time – similar to the crossword of the NY Times, getting more difficult as the week progresses. This would allow for junior people to participate at the beginning of the week, and those with deeper expertise to participate at the latter part of the week.
  • This would require a more complex scoring system – weighted more heavily towards more complex questions

Acknowledge leaders

  • Recognize the leaders on a monthly basis – at the end of each month, give a prize to the best answers for that month (highest score)
  • Also give answers to the most prolific if you want (highest attempts)
  • The reward can be non-monetary or just simple recognition. Dinner with the CEO? Gift certificate for dinner? Amazon reward? It depends.

The key is start simple. Perhaps after a year, there can be multiple questions or questions for each department. See where it goes, see who answers, see where the energy is. The hardest part will be coming up with good questions. If this is a product based company, and you have a helpdesk, there may be a natural connection.

Just a simple idea to use a simple mechanism to share knowledge within the organization.

Posted in games.

Tagged with , , , .


Guideline 4 – practice, feedback, test (or learning from Julia Child)

Practice

Learning a complex new subject matter often takes extensive practice. Development of expertise requires many hours of practice. Malcolm Gladwell in his recent book Outliers emphasizes how it takes about 10,000 hours of practice to achieve mastery in a field. The research behind this claim comes  from studies done by John Hayes who found that geniuses in various fields produce their best work after 10 years of apprenticeship (which works out to about 10,000 hours); and by Ericsson, Krampe and Tesch-Romer (1993) which found that the best violinists practiced 7,000 hours before coming to a Berlin music academy, whereas the good violinists practiced only 5,000 hours. It takes about 3 years for London taxi drivers to acquire the “knowledge” of London in order to expertly navigate through the streets. It takes time to learn to learn the patterns, rules and problem-solving strategies for a domain of knowledge.

Deliberate practice – feedback

It is not any kind of practice that will help you become an expert – but deliberate practice. In this type of practice you are not just performing, but trying to learn how to do it better. Learners are usually highly motivated so when given feedback on their performance, and they carefully monitor their work to reduce differences and master the performance.

Julia with mallet - beware!

Julia with mallet - beware!

Part of deliberate practice is making mistakes and adjusting. I put this picture of Julia Child here as an inspiration. She is someone who learned to cook and become and expert in her field, through trial and error — doing it over and over again. And every meal was a test, and her diners without doubt gave her feedback. We should all be so fearless.

Test at regular intervals with feedback

Learners forget new information with time, very rapidly within the first day, and then less so over time. Testing learners has shown to help improve retention and recall. Therefore tests can be used not just for assessment, but as a study mechanism.

In studies by Landauer and Bjork (1978) they found that testing individuals  after a delay creates a sufficient level of difficulty that requires learners to work harder, thus improving their recall of an series of items. However, this was followed up Karpicke and Roediger (1979), who found that yes, creating a delay helped, but what helped more was giving people feedback after testing, therefore one could test at regular intervals, and provide feedback, and it would have the same effects.

It should be remembered that many of these experiments were done in the laboratory, on recall and retention of word pairs, so although likely useful in the “real world”, I have not seen field research verifying these experiments.

Practice, give feedback, test, give feedback and practice again. This guideline, like many of the others I have written about, should intuitively make sense. Perhaps in a context where compliance is an issue, the testing, practice, feedback cycle will be helpful (hopefully one can make it fun and not too onerous!) But being motivated, deliberate practice is the key to deep learning and expertise.

Posted in guidelines, instructional design.

Tagged with , , , , , .


A Whole New Mind – book review

In a New York Times column  The New Untouchables, Thomas Friedman writes about a new kind of worker, one that can use creativity and imagine new services and new ways of being in the world. In this article he mentions Daniel Pink’s book, A Whole New Mind. Intrigued by Friedman’s implicit endorsement – I decided to read Pink’s book.

Upon reading the first chapter of this book I wanted to jump with joy — here was someone articulating my ideas about the kind of skills, mindsets and thinking that is needed in a newly competitive, flat world — where anything that can be digitized will be outsourced.

This new kind of thinking – what he calls “right-brain” thinking has six key aptitudes as described in the Introduction:

  1. Design – “to create artistic and emotional beauty”
  2. Story – “to craft a satisfying narrative”
  3. Symphony – “to combine unrelated ideas into a novel invention” & “to detect patterns and opportunities”
  4. Empathy – “ability to understand the subtleties of human interaction”
  5. Play – “find joy in one’s self and elicit joy in others”
  6. Meaning – “to stretch beyond the quotidian in pursuit of purpose and meaning”

Part of this book is focused on describing, defining and supporting each of these definitions. Half of each chapter on aptitudes is devoted to describing the skills to practice in order to become this kind of person – how to create a Portfolio to become more of a right-brain thinker.

What’s important to understand is that Pink does not advocate that we lose our analytical, left-brain thinking in order to become completely creative, right-brain thinkers — but rather we must be both and find an equilibrium between the two.

In the argument for right-brain thinking, there were a couple of  research/studies that I found of interest:

  • (25) UCSF Professor Paul Ekman, famous for creating the Facial Action Coding System (FACS) – tested facial expressions all over the world, and these expressions were interpreted similarly by a majority of the people in a group, whether that was in New Guinea or amongst Bay Area college students.
  • (52) students who study painting excel at noticing subtle details about a patients condition (from the Yale School of Medicine). So yes, a student has to know their medical stuff, but studying painting makes them better doctors.

What was also insightful was his description of design – that good design is a combination of utility and significance (76). The iPhone designers, of course, got this right. They realized that the cellphone had changed from being a logical device about speed and specialized functions, to being an emotional device — about being able to be expressive and customize, fanciful (81).

Stories help us make sense of the world — and in a world full of facts, what matters is putting these facts in context with emotional impact (101). A wonderful quote from this section is from Alan Kay (famous interface designer) – “scratch the surface in a typical boardroom and we’re all just caveman with briefcases, hungry for a wise person to tell us stories” (107).

Being able to blend concepts to put together two existing ideas non one else thought to create, being a systems thinker, a pattern recognizer is the essence of the symphony aptitude. Techniques to enhance this skill include keeping a metaphor log (what metaphors do you hear daily) or trying to create a 5-line self-portrait.

On the importance of Empathy I’ve written about before in this blog. Research of interest – one study of aphasics (those with damage to the left-side or analytical side of the brain) are exceptionally good lie-detectors, getting about 70% of the lies. In the Porfolio section, he directs us to a website to practice our EQ = empathy quotient.

When writing about Play and Meaning, Pink’s writing seems to become shallower as nothing he writes really grabbed me in these two sections other than we should play and have meaning in our lives. Perhaps I became tired of the writing, or perhaps I’d read too many book on play and meaningful work that nothing seemed new here.

My main criticism of the book is that it peters out toward the end. And the organization of the book breaks the narrative of the reading (he really is a good writer). The Portfolio or skill-building reference sections are disruptive to the reading. Overall though, I find this a good book, quick read and useful. The Portfolio sections contain many good techniques to jump start your creativity. For this alone, I think the book is worth reading. And without a doubt, what Pink gets right is that anything that can be outsourced cheaper and more efficiently will — what stays will be those who can be imaginative and unique  in the world.

Whether the world will reward the skill sets of creative wonks remains to be seen. I think we are still very much in transition from the Information Age of knowledge workers, to what he calls the Conceptual Age of creators and empathizers. All I can do is keep true to my path of trying to create works of beauty, empathy, utility and significance and hope that others are also moving in the same direction.

Second definitions of aptitudes (65-66):

  1. Not just function but also DESIGN
  2. Not just argument but also a STORY
  3. Not just focus but also SYMPHONY
  4. Not just logic but also EMPATHY
  5. Not just seriousness but also PLAY
  6. Not just accumulation but also MEANING

Posted in book reviews, business.

Tagged with , , , , , , .