Neil Olonoff wrote, in a small part:
> 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.
>
> 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.'
Neil
what a clear and critical distinction. In one instance we have the
infamous "data mining" of large bodies of historic knowledge. In the other
we have two paths. The first is a dynamic connection between non-static
information or semi static information where human biocomputers, experts,
are connected for exchange of information. But the other, and, perhaps
more critical, is not the "information" but the process which creates the
"new" from the old- the serendipidous synthesis- an idea orthogonal to the
sought answer due to the connectivity.
All are critical, but I have not seen a disticntion as clear as yours and
then which raises a number of issues
tom abeles
--tom abeles <tabeles@tmn.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>