tom abeles writes
--snip
>acertification appears, at this point to run counter to the main goal of
>flexibility. It is attempting to certify for a body of knowledge more for
>the purpose seen in psychology, above, than to codify a bady of knowledge,
>which is in the proto stage. There is even talk of calling the KM area a
>"science" at the very time when even the arena of "objective" knowledge is
>being challenged in the traditonal sciences with the introduction of
>complexity, fuzzy logic, chaos and qualitative analysis
Many companies were damaged by consultants claiming to know Business
Process Engineering during the early 90s. I witnessed consulting firms
claiming to have OL experts and upon meeting those "experts" found that
they did not know much about the work at MIT or at Innovation Associates.
Knowing that a person received training from a group LIKE IA gave a buyer
of OL services a better chance (not guaranteed) of getting quality help.
It would have been nice to have some type of guideline.
The same is true for KM. There is a great deal of research on Knowledge
Governance in Culture, Society, Organizations, and Science starting in the
mid 1880s. Franz Boas, Margaret Mead!!!, Robert Merton, Ruth Benedict, and
many others were interested and conducted research about knowledge
governance in various sizes of groups. There is a field called Cognitve
Anthropology and Social Cognition that has research going back many years.
Most articles written about KM neglect to build on the "Shoulders of
Giants." The KM community learns by building on the lessons learned from
the past. Certification would require exposure to past research.
The certification process is governed by the K Managers from the companies
buying the products or services in partnership with academia, and
practitioners. This is different than a certification process of
psychologists where only the psychologists are certifying.
The process is set up as a learning process. It will evolve as knowledge
about KM evolves. We hope that the OL advisors set up a good OL process.
The same is true concerning standards. As knowledge about KM evolves, the
standards will evolve. Fortunately there is a century of research in
Knowledge Governance to start with. Nothing stops the standards from
evolving. That's what is great about knowledge. It needs to stay fresh and
current to have power.
This notion of "objective" knowledge in science was shattered by the
sociology of knowledge and social epistemology for many years. The
acceptance of knowledge claims in science is found to be a messy,
political process afterall. While not discrediting science, for I believe
it is the the best KM process humans have ever invented, it does reveal
that scientists like everyone else are social beings and process has
flaws.
Steve Fuller(1993) *Philosophy of Science and its Discontents.*
ISBN-0898620201 This is a great book about sociology of knowledge and
philosophy of science from 1936. It seems that Philosophy of Science and
Sociology of Knowledge are merging. Fuller has another excellent book
called *Science* (I don't have the ISBN) talking about the both the flaws
and greatness of science. He is one of our most prized advisors.
Edward Swanstrom
President/CEO
Knowledge Management Consortium International
B (301) 590-0102
F (301) 590-9197
swanstrom.e@km.org
http://km.org
--"Ed Swanstrom" <swanstrom.e@km.org>
[Host's Note: In association with Amazon.com, these links...
Philosophy of Science and Its Discontents (The Conduct of Science) by Steve Fuller http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0898620201/learningorg
Science (Concepts in Social Thought Series) by Steve Fuller http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0816631255/learningorg
...Rick]
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>