Replying to John Gunkler in LO23783 --
>One of the ongoing "arguments" I've been having with KM'ers on the LO list
>is about this kind of learning: if the people who actually create a work
>process are not aware of its dynamic structure, "where" in the
>organization does this "knowledge" reside? Is it useful to refer to this
>as "knowledge" at all?
Yes, I think it's useful to refer to the unarticulated structure of a
process as knowledge. More specifically, it's what is known as "inferred"
or "implicit" knowledge, that is, knowledge that hasn't been but could be
articulated or made explicit. Indeed, making implicit knowledge explicit
is a great deal of what folks known as task analysts, performance analysts
and knowledge engineers do.
(By the way, I also concur with John's admonition to read up on system
dynamics in general and Jay Forrester's work in particular.)
Fred Nickols
The Distance Consulting Company
"Assistance at A Distance"
http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm
nickols@worldnet.att.net
(609) 490-0095
--Fred Nickols <nickols@worldnet.att.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.