KM ASNI/ISO Standards Meeting LO20485

Bruce Jones (
Tue, 26 Jan 1999 08:08:43 -0600

Replying to LO20434 --


> From: tom abeles <>

> Certification in the KM arena is dangerous at this point. The basics of
> this area are evolving rapidly and are uncertain. Trying to box it in,
> even with broad, ISO type standards may prove frustrating and, in the
> end, dmaging at this stage

It is precisely at this stage that certification needs to be started!
Through the process of certification one has to define the goals,
attributes, knowledge levels, ethics etc. of the profession. By so doing
you can then apply the research with in a flexible framework and NOT
CONTROL but be aware of and judge through peer review the validity of the
research based on the goals, attributes, knowledge levels, ethics etc.

> 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

Don't codify!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Establishing a review board with validity (certification) to review and
report on the body of knowledge, then critically review and make
recommendations based on the efforts of the board will define the
parameters and trends within the profession.
If there can be such a thing as 'social science' then why not KM science.
Please NO rotten tomatoes. Think about it aren't they in essence the

Bruce W. Jones
Organizational Development Specialist
Northwest Texas Healthcare System
Amarillo, Texas


"Bruce Jones" <>

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <>