There are many advantages in using video as part of your KM program. Here are some of the plusses and minuses.
The use of video can make a big difference to the effectiveness of knowledge transfer. This story, for example, about transferring knowledge of “how to parboil rice” to women farmers in West Africa, shows that the
reuse of the knowledge transferred by
video was
much higher than knowledge trnasferred by workshop (72% as
opposed to 19% - see the graph).
But what are the advantages, and what are the disadvantages of video use?
Advantages of video
The knowledge can be transferred by people with a shared context. The people telling the
story in the video mentioned above were
women rice farmers from
Africa, not western
scientists. This delivered a
level of trust in the
knowledge, as it was
being demonstrated by
peers.
People retain more by watching than by reading. There is an Internet meme that says you retain 30% of what you see compared to 10% of what you read. This has been challenged, but there may be some truth in it.
You can show things in video that are difficult to describe in writing. When we are conducting
Knowledge Retention, or
Knowledge Harvesting,
exercises, we take a video
camera and often will say to
the interviewee, “show me”.
The resulting video can often
be more useful than a page
full of words.
As an example, this website is full of instructional video on topics such as how to tie a Windsor tie.
You try explaining this in words!
You can tell stories. A good story,
told well, by a number of
people who were really
involved in the event, can
convey authenticity and
emotion. The video can
either transfer the
knowledge (if it is simple
knowledge), or it can act as
an advertisement for a more
detailed Knowledge Asset. Generally the
stories need to be short to
hold the interest,
especially if only one
person is telling the story. 3
minute is about the
maximum time you can
expect people to concentrate
on one “talking head”. Better
to mix and match, and tell
the story “in many voices”.
You can add the emotion and emphasis. Video contains emotional content and inflection that is lost in text, and provides body language that adds conviction. We use it in our presentations and in our knowledge assets, and on our website.
You can add the emotion and emphasis. Video contains emotional content and inflection that is lost in text, and provides body language that adds conviction. We use it in our presentations and in our knowledge assets, and on our website.
Disadvantages of video
Video can be difficult to capture. If you want high quality video with clear sound, you need good and expensive equipment. On the other hand, if you can manage with lower quality, use a smartphone. With smartphones, everyone has a video camera in their pocket.
Video is more difficult to present. It's easy to present text and images to people. You email it, you put it on a website, or you print it out. Video is less forgiving - it needs to be provided through a screen. But again - with smartphones, everyone has a screen in their pocket.
Video is more difficult to search. Text can be searched, video can't. It therefore needs better tagging, and better metadata, in order to make it searchable and findable.
Video takes more bandwidth. Where connectivity is poor, video may be a luxury you can't afford.
So video has its uses, and it has its problems as well. Use it wisely, and it has the capability to really enhance your knowledge transfer.
Posts
2 comments:
In the knowledge transfer discussion reference to Gabriel Szulanski (issues of knowledge stickiness) and Kolbs learning styles are relevant. In particular I summarise this as ensuring that the transferer (sender) and receiver need to be on the preferred learning channel of the receiver. Most folk have a preferred learning style (Visual, Audio, Kinesthetic) in order to best assimilate information. Most folk can also receive all three, but a small percentage can only really receive via a single mode. The best use of video will always be most effective for those that prefer to watch to learn or absorb material. In my opinion there will always need to be a mix of modes to accommodate all learning styles. Add into this transfer situation the Szulanski theories relating to receivers choosing whether to or not to receive information based on the credibility of the sender and it is easy to see that this isn't just a discussion about media.
Just for the sake of balance, it is worth saying that there is a lot of challenge nowadays to the theories of learning styles (see the criticism section of the Wikipedia entry - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_styles). I personally have no strong views one way or the other.
Post a Comment