Understanding 'The New Knowledge Management' LO30452

From: chris macrae (wcbn007@easynet.co.uk)
Date: 08/07/03

Replying to LO30429 --

I am attracted to the notion that one learns practical/valuable stuff by
having the chance to do and then converse with peers explaining what you
did. I've always believed in the Druckerian paradox that you only learn
fully (where anything hits contextual practice as opposed to just memory)
when you have a chance to 'teach'/explain what you have done

Of course seeing learning as a feedback loop in this way may be
uncomfortable for personal KM unless we get rid of the M and start
realising that knowledge productivity is much more about the whole
systemisation of relationships that map an organisation's human
interactivities. And of course, I would say there at least 5 levels of
knowledge productivity - only one of which is organisation of KM -people
invent stuff as individuals, I organise my network of me, and above
organisations we have questions on how well do partnering organisations
know each other, and how well does society that after all invests in its
people's education and learning infrastructure know the largest
organisations it hosts. All of these levels suggest we take some care how
we picture the relationship infrastructure of relationships through which
knowledge and other human flows happen ( I think - say if you want my
latest living system pictures wcbn007@easynet.co.uk)

Perhaps everyone has to rehearse their own pictures of human system
dynamics capable of making sure that knowledge and learning precepts
overlap so intimately that :
 1 they do not see each other as rival disciplines
 2) they stop this rather machine age perspective that by finding words
for gaps we will solve something which actually needs to be flowed as a
whole system and not deconstructed into parts. (the sentence gap between
knowing and doing also seems to blind us to the idea that knowing and
doing multiply each other's performance value). Joyously (from my view)
this is more bad news for the IT and administrative minds that seem to me
to have taken learning organisation and then KM and lost all the systemic
guidance of what is systemically interconnected through human

-we will never see the full multipliers of intangibles if we keep on
trying to picture them as separated parts but then this leads us back to
the insanity of having organisations monopoly governed by tangible metrics
which represent between one half and one twenty fifth of the overall value
dynamics depending on whether you product is mainly lifeless, mainly
service, or mainly knowledge multiplying what the customer herself can

chris macrae wcbn007@easynet.co.uk
EU knowledgeboard emotional intelligence
Beyond Command & Control Systems www.beyond-branding.com

>>There's a gap between 'knowing' and 'doing' ...does it have a name?

>I don't know if it has a name but if I were asked to name it I would call
>it "wanting."

>Fred Nickols


"chris macrae" <wcbn007@easynet.co.uk>

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.