"In following this thread I have become struck by the way in which much of
the disagreement appears to arise from the different ways in which
contributors understand the words 'knowledge' and 'information'. This
confusion is merely a reflection of the confusion that exists in the
literature at large. " [Phil Capper]
Phil provides useful definitions for "data", "information" and
"knowledge". But Phil seems focused on knowledge that can be codified in
symbols and rules (explicit knowledge). What about tacit knowledge? For
example, long ago I learned to ride a bike. I still can, but I don't
"know" how I do it. If fact, I don't know if I can still ride until I
try. Tacit knowledge is not known absent the doing. And, tacit knowledge
can not be easily shared. As my boy learns to ride I can establish the
conditions that nurture his own learning, but I can not just "give" him my
bike riding knowledge.
Of course, learning and tacit knowledge doesn't seem strange for
individuals. Tacit knowledge is the knowledge of the craftsmen and the
guild (explicit knowledge is the knowledge of the professional and the
profession).
But what is tacit knowledge at the organizational level? I suspect this
includes the learning that is embedded in the "deep structure" of the
organization.
Doug Merchant
Currently On Career Sabbatical
--"Doug Merchant" <dougm@eclipse.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>