Replying to LO23783 --
John Gunkler has recently emphasised the importance of the 'dynamic
> 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?
> My answers:
> 1. It resides nowhere except in the dynamic structure of the work process
> 2. Perhaps (if we agree to expand what we mean by "knowledge.")
I would like to thank John Gunkler for raising the level of the discussion
in this way. Apart from his 'arguments' with the KM'ers (i.e., perhaps
people who think the KM field raises the most important and the most
interesting questions) I think John is also highlighting another very
important and very interesting issue.
THE ISSUE OF INSIDE AND OUTSIDE
He says: '... if the people who actually create a work process are not
aware of its dynamic structure ...' and he says 'I used to go into
organizations and, with "fresh eyes," just observe how work was processed'
(not quoted above). This immediately suggest (to me) the following:
1. There is an INSIDE where people may be unaware of something (Dynamic
Structure, DS) that nevertheless determines the results of their efforts,
2. There is an OUTSIDE where someone might see these DS(s) provided s/he
uses 'fresh eyes'. (Please note that, in the absence of such 'fresh eyes'
one cannot be in the outside, one is simply inside!)
Obviously neither the Inside-er nor the Outside-er is not the most
advantaged among the two. There are advantages (and disadvantages) in
being in the Inside and there are advantages (and disadvantages) being in
the Outside. However, it seems, from John's argument, as well as from my
own interpretation, that the Insider might need the support of the
Outsider sometimes and the Outsider would need the support and
co-operation of the Insider (e.g., the Insider has to give truthful
answers to the Outsider's questions, etc.) in order to provide such
MUTUAL SUPPORT BETWEEN INSIDE AND OUTSIDE
This is interesting! Perhaps System Dynamics specifies a FORM OF
CO-OPERATION between the Insiders and the Outsiders! This implies that the
two parties might chose some other 'form(s)' of co- operation.
COMPARING FORMS OF CO-OPERATION
This leads to the question: Whether there is a way of thinking that
distinguishes among various such forms of co-operation to
distinguish they quality, effectiveness, side-effects, effort required,
unique result of repeated application, etc. I believe such thinking is
already available, but not always interpreted in the way I have
Look forward to your thoughts.
Send all messages related to
Co-ordination Science directly to
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.