Ethnovention^TM is a term coined by Work Frontiers International^TM to describe our rapid, iterative method of studying the behavior of an organization or community using organizational ethnography and archaeology, and in the same cycle, introducing innovative interventions to enhance their behavior. This cycle is repeated until the desired outcomes are reached. Thus the term, ethnovention^TM has sprung from a combination of the main elements of this approach: ethnography, intervention, and invention.

Ethnography is what anthropologists use to study the culture of communities, whether they are indigenous tribes or modern "tribes" - i.e., organizations. Our approach departs significantly from classic ethnography in that, rather than trying to avoid affecting the environment being studied, we purposely introduce positive change in that environment as part of the observation/reflection/co-invention/self-intervention cycle.

We have found that classic ethnography was useful for studying static situations where no particular outcome is being sought by the community being studied; e.g., an Amazon tribe. But in a rapidly changing organizational and business climate that needs to produce quick results, if we took the typical 6 months to many years to study the situation, it would have all changed by the time we were done. We'd have to start all over again and never bring about any real change.

So we rapidly iterate through this cycle to try to produce the types of behavioral changes sought by the community and its leaders as quickly and effectively as possible. We don't do it as outside observers. We engage the community in understanding their behavior to the point where they identify the needs and create and drive the changes.

During the observation stage, we are already beginning to influence the community by educating them as to what we are doing, why the leaders of the organization are interested in doing it, and what the possible outcomes might be, including what's in it for them. The reflection stage consists of holding up a "mirror" to the community -- that is, we show them what we have observed. With our facilitation, they begin to draw their own conclusions as to what is working and what isn't. We then co-invent with them new approaches to their work or enhancements to their existing practices. They then try out these new or enhanced approaches while we observe them again. When we hold up the mirror to them once more, they can quickly see how well their self-designed interventions have worked and adapt them accordingly.

These quick Ethnovention^TM cycles typically produce rapid improvements in the work practices of the community. This is because the community gains deep insights into their behaviors and is given the opportunity to reflect on them and change them themselves. This is much more effective than the traditional brute force method of change -- being forced to implement changes designed by others without the participation or intimate knowledge of the affected community. They also learn the new approach more quickly and deeply because they designed it and they get to keep experimenting with it until they find just the right fit for themselves.

An example of how this works is a recent knowledge audit conducted by Work Frontiers for a large non-profit organization. The desired outcomes of the knowledge audit were:

• Seek answers to the following questions:
  • What knowledge do staff need to do their jobs?
  • Where/whom do they get it from?
  • How do they use it?
  • What do they do with it when they’re finished?
  • What enhances the flow & sharing of knowledge/information?
  • What impedes it?
• Avoid rehashing & repeating the same old messages about what’s wrong with the organization
• Instead, focus on what works & what can realistically be done
• Seek to leverage the organization’s existing strengths & intellectual assets

Using Ethnovention^TM , we sought to not only observe and record the knowledge behaviors of the organization staff. We also were there to influence them as soon and as much as possible, without inflating their expectations beyond the ability of the organization to meet them. Two Work Frontiers ethnoventors spent about two and a half months interacting with most parts of the organization, studying its knowledge behaviors and artifacts. By immersing ourselves in the organization for this period, we were able to not only do objective data collection, but also to accumulate subjective impressions of the organization which helped us to understand the essence and root causes of the data rather than just the form of it.

Simply put, archaeology is the study of the artifacts produced by groups of people; in this case, the information/knowledge used and produced by the non-profit organization. Typically, archaeology is thought to only look at the artifacts of ancient civilizations, attempting to understand who they were and how they behaved. Organizational archaeology attempts to do the same thing by looking at the artifacts of an organization – the things it uses to do its work and the things it produces as the result of that work. Whether they were produced today or 50 years ago, they still reveal much about the organization. In fact, the differences between an organization’s current artifacts and those of its past can be quite revealing in themselves. For example, in the case of this knowledge audit, one of the most revealing findings of the archaeological study was the lack of an archive of artifacts and therefore, the lack of a history of the organization, at least in a form that was readily available.

A key aspect of Ethnovention^TM is the concept of following threads through the organization. Threads, in the case of this knowledge audit, consisted of the initiatives, programs, and processes that would be most revealing about the overall knowledge behaviors of the organization. It would be impossible to quickly look at every member or group within the organization. By following key threads, we were able to develop a comprehensive picture of the organization in just 2 1/2 months of observation.

Although the knowledge audit was originally intended to only provide planning level information for the organization, not to introduce interventions, the nature of the Ethnovention^TM process provided far richer results than planned. The audit produced the following outcomes, in addition to answering the original questions about the knowledge behaviors of the organization.

• Staff educated about knowledge management and the possibilities it holds for them if practiced in an ecological, community of practice-based manner
• Inventory of best knowledge practices within the organization -- good examples of knowledge creation, sharing, and use already being done by organization staff that could be enhanced and spread with more visibility and support
• Inventory of existing or high potential communities of practice
• List of potential community of practice facilitators, knowledge stewards, knowledge/relationship brokers, and change agents
• An approach to leveraging existing communities of practice and cultivating additional CoP's
• Processes, roles, and tools for developing the capability of these CoP's to serve as the organization's key knowledge "managers"
• A new knowledge work process to replace existing traditional processes based on industrial models
• A new model for managing, structuring, evolving, and using the organization's intranet
• New approaches to training, competency management, artifact management, and performance measurement
• An organic change strategy for introducing these into the organization

Ultimately, the real test of success lies only with the people of the organization and whether or not the quality of their work lives has been improved. The best testimonial of our success in this area came several months after the completion of the project. We received a message from one of the people we had talked to during the study. She wanted us to intervene with management to help her find a way to assist the organization's knowledge management efforts.

Her problem was that she was an administrative assistant and traditionally wasn't listened to in her office. She had been taking outside classes in web development and wanted to be involved early-on in evolving the intranet as a powerful knowledge management tool for the organization. We were able to show her how to get in on the ground floor of the new processes and roles we had helped to introduce. She was then able to connect with and get involved with the KM project. Her heartfelt thanks were the best reward we could have had for all our hard work.