THE DIMENSION
Making useful information accessible to people who need it.
The dimension in context
Making useful information accessible to people who need it.
You may reduce avoidable information gaps and surprises.
You may share selectively or have restrictions on access.
An illustrative work situation
A participant sends a long project update containing all available details. A colleague still cannot find the decision they need to make. More information has not necessarily produced better coordination. The missing element may be relevance, timing, or a clear statement of what has changed.
Information contribution should be examined from the recipient’s task as well as the sender’s effort. A short update can be sufficient if it identifies the changed fact and its consequence. A detailed record may be necessary elsewhere. The profile should not equate talkativeness or message volume with useful information sharing.
A small practice to examine
Before the next update, identify the recipient’s decision and the information required for it. Lead with what changed, why it matters, and any action needed. Keep supporting detail accessible. Ask whether the update arrived at a useful time and whether it left an important question unanswered.
Excessive sharing can overwhelm people or expose information unnecessarily.
A question for closer study
What evidence would show that shared information improved another person’s ability to coordinate or decide?
Read the example alongside the research
The following editorial passages come from the linked framework chapters. They provide context for the original teaching example above; the example is fictional and is not a reported study finding.
A research exercise could rotate responsibilities across several low-stakes tasks while keeping the participants together. Researchers would inspect whether self-reported practices correspond to appropriate contributions across opportunities, rather than to occupying the same visible role repeatedly. Someone may appropriately speak less when another member has the relevant information. Another may need to take a coordinating action because nobody else has responsibility for it. These changes would not indicate an unstable personality type. If the inventory mainly predicts how often people claim central roles regardless of task needs, the proposed contribution interpretation would be too broad. The framework must be able to recognize a useful handoff, a well-timed question, and an informed decision to let another person lead.
An expertise directory is useful only if the information about who knows what is current enough for the decision. Imagine a team relying on the colleague who previously maintained a database, although the system has since changed and another person now owns the relevant process. Referring every question to the familiar expert may delay the work and place an unfair burden on that colleague. MTC's information practice can be examined through how someone locates the relevant knowledge, checks its scope, and brings it to the person making the decision.
Continue: Knowing who knows what is different from everyone knowing everything →
SOURCES AND FURTHER READING
Lewis - Measuring transactive memory systems in the field ↗Mathieu et al. - The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance ↗Woolley et al. - Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups ↗