I am coming into this thread late, so I apologize if I am retracing
well-trod ground. But Richard Webster's comments thrilled me. Several
months ago I wrote a column predicting "the end of knowledge management,"
which angered a lot of consultants and academics. Richard's comments
helped me understand why I took that stance.
He notes,
>I have noticed that the sales and marketing literature produced by KM
>software vendors and the majority of consultants is quite divergent from
>the academic notions of what KM may be.
True enough, although this hasn't prevented the academics from consulting
to the consultants, giving their KM efforts a badge of intellectual
legitimacy.
>Often we refer to a
>'participative' rather than 'possessive' view of knowledge. The
>implication is that knowledge -- or knowing -- is something that 'happens'
>in conversation and interaction.
Richard, you're not describing one view of knowledge here. IMHO you are
describing the _only_ view. Knowledge doesn't exist without a person doing
something. It always requires interaction, whether between people or
between a person (or group) and the environment. Polanyi (1958) said,
"Into every act of knowing [not the word "act"] there enters a passionate
contribution of what is being known...[T]his coefficient is no mere
imperfection, but a vital component of his knowledge." (FWIW, it would
seem that knowledge can be "possessed" in this context, but only by those
acting on it. It can't be possessed by machines.)
>System vendors must define knowledge as something which is machine
>storable and communicable....[Thus] they must define knowledge narrowly.
Yes. They must define it as "information."
>I suggest that fostering a knowledge orientation is about creating and
>empowering communities of practice, understanding of the foundations for
>knowledge-sharing, respect for new ideas, acceptance of mistakes, and the
>like. It's primarily about people, their needs and willingness to share
>and communicate, rather than enabling systems. The systems play a role, of
>course, and technology helps. But it can only helps those who want to
>share and leverage knowledge.
Bravo. The real infrastructure for group knowledge is culture. The culture
must create the physical systems.
>Robert Frost said, 'poetry is what is lost in translation.' Perhaps we can
>say 'knowledge is what is NOT in our knowledge management systems.'
That is perfect! Thank you, Richard.
cheers,
tom
Thomas Petzinger Jr.
tom@petzinger.com
<http://www.petzinger.com/>www.petzinger.com
Please read The Front Lines:
Every Friday on the
Wall Street Journal Marketplace Page
"The arms of consciousness reach out and grope,
and the longer they are, the better. Tentacles, not wings,
are Apollo's natural members."
-Vladimir Nabokov
--"Thomas Petzinger Jr." <tom@petzinger.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>