Neil--
I'm getting some new knowledge from our exchange!
Now: it's "new" to me, and may be quite old to others.
An analogy, Neil, which may or may not be useful.
I've worked as advisor to Ph.d. students who have to do a piece of
original research--develop new knowledge, as it were--in or der to become
Doctors.
They have an enthusiasm. Perhaps they're excited by the "coginitive style"
difference, and want to do something that contributes to what they see as
breaking up the lock step curriculum and having teachers adjust their
teaching to individual "learning styles." And they want to get right to
it.
When you tell them that as part of the drill they need to examine the
literature to see what's already been done and said about "learning
styles" and the individualization of instruction, their ardor cools.
Obviously, you can hear them thinking, this Eskow is a bureaucrat, more
interested in reviewing yesterday, the old stuff, than in moving forward.
And then they do the homework and find out that their proposed research
project has been done 112 times in 9 countries.
The point?
Well, very often the knowledge an organization needs today--today: time
has become the competititive advantage--is already stored and
available--available for use today, rather than waiting for conversation
to rediscover it tomorrow.
Tomorrow may be too late.
(We need some sort of terminology to distinguish between "new" knowledge,
which needs collaboration and conversation for its creation, and "new to
an organization" knowledge, which needs search tools and search people,
e.g., a card or electronic catalog, a library, a librarian. The drill we
put a Phd. candidate through--finding out what's been done and thought
before--might be worth while as a model for knowledge-managing
organizations.)
What do you need to optimize the knowledge creation process? I can be
absolutely clear on my answer to that: I don't know.
I think I know some things that will help.
Tools for searching out what's already known, and training in how to use
them--e.g. search engines.
Company leadership that says, unless you're chatting idly with your
colleagues, or emailing to friends, you're not working.
Skilled discussion leaders: Socratic goads, for example, who know how to
generate excitement as ideas clash and collide and explode...
Which seems to disagree somewhat from the approach to dialog espoused by
DAvid Bohm and endorsed by the LO leaders such as Peter Senge.
Steve
Dr. Steve Eskow, President,
The Pangaea Network
1933 Cliff Drive
Santa Barbara, CA 93109
phone:805-692-6998
http://www.pangaeanetwork.com
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>