In addition to being based on the distinction between Knowledge Processing and Business Processing, our approach to knowledge and innovation management relies on the following two key assumptions:
.

-	That people in organizations tend to self-organize around the production, diffusion, and use of knowledge, and
-	That the collective behaviors they display as they do so have pattern-like regularity to them

We can describe this pattern in the following general way:
.

-	While performing business processes, people sometimes encounter problems in the sense that their current knowledge fails to adequately inform them of how to handle situations they encounter
-	They then step out of their Business Processing mode and begin to engage in Knowledge Processing as they search for new knowledge (i.e., solutions to their problems)
-	As they engage in learning and innovation, they sometimes attract others with whom they share similar needs or interests -- groups or 'communities of learning, practice, etc.' form in such ways
-	Individuals and groups go on to formulate potential solutions to their problems, which they then subject to evaluations of various kinds
-	Solutions or 'claims' that survive the evaluation process are then open to adoption at different levels of scale (by individuals, by groups, and/or by the organization as a whole), in which case the practice of such knowledge is embraced in Business Processing
-	As new knowledge is practiced, it often gives rise to new problems, in which case the cycle repeats itself all over again -- which, in fact, it does endlessly

This is the pattern that people form as they self-organize around the production, diffusion, and use of new knowledge, even -- if not especially -- in the utter absence of management. Getting organizations to engage in high-performance knowledge processing, then, arguably has less to do with imposing new patterns of behavior than it does with enhancing existing ones.

To achieve this, we can distinguish between Knowledge Processing behaviors and the policies and programs that lie behind them (see Figure 4).

According to this model, Knowledge Processing behaviors are driven by corresponding policies and programs that can be found in all organizations, and which are enforced by management. Even in cases where such policies and programs are not explicitly formulated, they are, nevertheless, implicitly held and are no less influential. As such, they can be discovered and made explicit, a step which actually comprises the early stages of our methodology.

More important, however, is the point that Knowledge Processing policies and programs can be managed. This, then, is the key to our methodology. In our method, we neither manage knowledge outcomes nor processes -- what we manage are the policies and programs that give rise to Knowledge Processing and its Outcomes. This is our brand of Knowledge Management.

Here is where we not only part company with the conventional practice of KM, but also where we depart from the traditional use of policies and programs as management tools. In the conventional use of policies and programs, the objective usually is to prescribe behavior. If we want people to behave in certain ways, we create policies, rules, and programs designed to determine behavioral outcomes. In the context of Knowledge Processing, examples might include 'training' policies and programs, or knowledge processes aimed at, say, 'developing business strategies' which specify how the development should take place, and who its participants should be.

In a world where people are manipulable like so many parts in a puzzle, this approach might make sense. But in Knowledge Processing, it doesn't. Why? Because of our key premises above. Here they are again:
.

-	That people in organizations tend to self-organize around the production, diffusion, and use of knowledge, and
-	That the collective behaviors they display as they do so have pattern-like regularity to them

In this kind of environment, prescriptive policy is the least effective approach to improving Knowledge Processing. Further, the behaviors of interest to us as Knowledge Managers are already present in the system! There's no need to determine them through prescriptive policies and programs. Rather, what we should be doing is supporting, strengthening, and reinforcing the behaviors of interest to us which, again, are already present in organizations. In other words, what we need are permissive policies and programs, not prescriptive ones.

We sometimes refer to the Macroinnovation Method as the 'Policy Synchronization Method,' or PSM. This latter phrase is a direct reference to the fact that when we practice the Method, we are attempting to synchronize polices and programs with the predispositional tendencies of people in organizations to behave in particular ways relative to learning and innovation -- that is, to synchronize the content of policies and programs with the patterns that emerge whenever people interact with one another to engage in Knowledge Processing.

The act of deliberate synchronization, then, is the essence of the PSM method!

This permissive, as opposed to prescriptive, use of policies and programs means that rather than crafting policies, for example, to specify behaviors, we actually do the reverse -- first, we start with behaviors, and then we craft policies that will support and reinforce them, and which, above all, will not conflict with them. In the conventional use of policy, policies drive behavior. Here, the reverse is true.

Use of the PSM method begins with an effort to identify the current policy and program environment relative to learning and innovation in an organization. These environmental conditions are then correlated with actual practice -- i.e., how people are actually learning and innovating in the present. We then focus on identifying the areas in which policies and programs are either too weak or too conflicting relative to their support of the Knowledge Processing pattern of interest to us. The process then continues with a number of iterative policy and program interventions, which are aimed at remediating the social environment in such a way that the learning and innovation behaviors of interest to us can be more fully and vigorously expressed. Creativity and problem solving flourishes, as a result.

Licenses to use the Macroinnovation Method for end-user organizations are free and perpetual. Licenses for third-party organizations, however, are subject to fees. The Method currently holds patent-pending status in the U.S. Contact Mark W. McElroy at (802) 436-2250 for more details, or by e-mail at mmcelroy@vermontel.net.