Is Knowledge Management real? LO19191

DrEskow@aol.com
Fri, 11 Sep 1998 11:51:10 EDT

Replying to LO19168 --

I hope Neil Olonoff is willing to reconsider the usefulness of the
categories of "participative" and "possessive" and the view of the issues
that they establish.

Clearly the categories are judgmental: "participative" folks are
democratic, collaborative; "possessive" folks are, well, possessive:
storing and hoarding knowledge, concerned with increasing their stock of
"intellectual capital" rather than communalizing what they know.

I would remind Neil that it was the the invention of writing and the
development of printing that allowed for the storage and transmission of
what knowledege a "community of practice" created, so that each new
community of practice did not have to invent the wheel again.

The Harvard historian Crane Brinton framed some of his intellectual
history around the categories of "cumulative" and "noncumulative"
knowledge.

One key to the development and progress of our civilization is its focus
on ways to accumulate knowledge.

Good communities of practice begin by grounding their conversations in
what is known that they can use. And they take care to insure that what
they learn is stored so that it does not disappear when their meeting is
over.

Steve Eskow
President, The Pangaea Network
1933 Cliff Drive
Santa Barbara, CA 93109
805-692-6998
http://www.pangaeanetwork.com

> Students of Knowledge Management use definitions of knowledge which don't
> translate easily into software and hardware solutions. 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.
>
> System vendors must define knowledge as something which is machine
> storable and communicable. Therefore they must use a 'possessive'
> definition. 'What we know is what's in this database.' I'm sure they are
> careful to hedge their bets by saying they don't claim to store all or all
> kinds of knowledge. Nonetheless, they must define knowledge narrowly.

[Host's Note: I trimmed Steve's quote of Neil's msg.]

-- 


DrEskow@aol.com


        Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com>
  Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>