Replying to LO26867 --
Rick:
I feel like I need to clarify some of what you say below -- for my own
sake. You've given me a bad case of cognitive dissonance which I must put
to rest.
First, the rough distinction you make between KNOW WHAT versus KNOW HOW
knowledge are two ways of classifying knowledge in terms of content and
application. I don't know why we should regard the first type as being
any more succeptible to the use of technology than the second. Business
process knowledge, for example, is just as prone to receiving the value of
technology as, say, market data. The former is KNOW HOW knowledge while
the latter is KNOW WHAT knowledge, and both can be stored, indexed, found
and delivered using technology to do so. Both kinds of knowledge are just
that: kinds of knowledge. And both are equally open to the value of
technology when technology is applied to their distribution and use.
Regarding the prevailing definition of knowledge in the OL community, this
has been bothering me for quite some time now, so I'm happy to publicly
get it off my chest. Knowledge is not the capacity for effective action!
It merely contributes to it. But effective action requires two other
things without which no effective action can ever be taken despite the
presence of powerful knowledge. They are the WILL to take effective
action and the POWER to do so. I think the prevailing definition in the OL
community plays well in conversation, but it just doesn't hold up to
rigorous scrutiny.
Last, the question Peter poses about how knowledge can be managed sort of
begins by conferring standing to the phrase, itself. As you know, I have
been deeply involved in the development of an evolved school of thought
around KM over the past three years that has come to be known as
second-generation KM. Unlike its first-generation cousin,
second-generation thinking effectively rejects the phrase KNOWLEDGE
MANAGEMENT and replaces it with the notion of knowledge PROCESS
management, or KPM. The point here is that KM, or KPM, is a management
discipline that focuses on cultivating and enhancing social processes
responsible for organizational learning and innovation in human
organizations. The target of the discipline is knowledge PROCESSES, not
knowledge, per se.
So I think by allowing the question to be asked in a form that uses older
terminology, we fall immediately into the trap of debating alternative
definitions of a concept that is fundamentally bounded by the language we
use to describe it. Instead of debating the answer to the question, we
should be debating the question, itself! I think it's the wrong question.
I think a better question would be "How is knowledge produced, shared, and
used in human social systems?" And "How can we do a better job of
managing the related processes such that the members of organizations
learn to adapt better in the conduct of their affairs?"
I feel so much better now.
Regards,
Mark
Richard Karash wrote:
> Here is one thought question from Peter Senge that I have found very
> helpful in thinking about the question you raise:
>
> . What is knowledge, that we think it can be managed?
>
> Senge goes on to propose that we use the word knowledge to mean two
> different things:
> #1. knowing _about_ something
> #2. know-how, i.e. knowledge as the capacity for effective action,
> which is the prevalent definition of knowledge in the org learning
> community
--"Mark W. McElroy" <mmcelroy@vermontel.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@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.