Knowledge Management LO29146

From: Phillip Capper (
Date: 09/08/02

Replying to LO29138 --

I agree entirely with Mark's critique of the Australian standards, but I
am not sure that I agree with his way of defining the difference between
knowledge and information. Maybe I just don't get his use of the words
'validation' 'testing' and 'evaluation' as the distinguishing

For me knowledge is understood more by the processes of its use than in
its content. Knowledge involves the intentional and effective application
of information to the manipulation of our environment in the pursuit of
the satisfaction of needs. Maybe this is what Mark means - we validate
what we know by trying it and finding that it works. Learning is what we
do when we find that it doesn't work.

If this definition is accepted then the databasing and archiving of
information very definitely becomes nothing more than information
management. Knowledge management becomes the creation of social and
organisational contexts that nurture the capability to use the information
in purposeful activity. Information management focuses primarily on
technology. Knowledge management focuses primarily on people.

Phillip Capper,
Centre for Research on Work, Education and Business Ltd. (WEB Research),
Level 13
114 The Terrace
(PO Box 2855)
New Zealand

Ph: +64 4 499 8140
Fx: +64 4 499 8395
Mb: +64 021 519 741

-----Original Message-----


>Thank you for the clarifcation you sent and your additional comments. I
>have revisited the Standards Australia International (SAI) website and
>still have some concerns. I see, for example, that they have a
>consulting services division called Business Excellence Australia (BEA)
>which offers KM-related services to the marketplace. In what sense,
>then, should we regard 'Standards Australia' as an independent developer
>of standards in a market space in which it also competes commercially
>with other organizations for consulting engagements? Standards-making
>organizations that have a vested commercial interest in the outcomes of
>their work (not to mention a seemingly unfair competetive market
>advantage) would appear to have an inherent conflict of interest on their
>hands. Does ANSI or ISO offer consulting services on a commercial basis
>to industry? I don't think so. What are your thoughts on this?
...snip by your host...


"Phillip Capper" <>

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <>

"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.