EDDIE BARAZA, 03-Nov-05 @ 13:57PM

Searching an echo on web

Ladies and gentlemen,

I think What kind of Knowledge workers we are creating around the world every time a posted question doesn't find an echo on web.
Should the K-workers build something already known for everybody?.
Should the k-workers looking inside and just inside the companies when the Whole World are talking great subjects for a best world?
What are we here for?

As everybody knows a Company exists for a future.
Looking at ads done by Microsoft we can see the business spirit. "We see a new stage...."
"We see a place to develop..."

Maybe, because people doesn't want to talk about future some directors prefer the CFO instead the CKO.
Maybe because this lacune KM doesn't find a good definition for itself.
Maybe because that Knowledge doesn't find a target.

In a world in action where USA lost prestige and power as happened to London, Paris, Moscow , Rome and Athens,
Companies and countries need to find a new road for everybody.

Knowledge is the key. It shows a new step for society and if we want to follow that we'll need to reduce that a word, just a word.to guide us to the progress.

So I invite you all to carry on at this forum.

Ask ...
Imagine what is happening around the world.

The countdown has started and maybe there won't be a place to any discuss tomorrow.

Bye.

EDDIE BARAZA, 02-Oct-05 @ 16:15PM

A track for ideas

Guy,

At the my last message I left some questions very important to our community.
One of them try to expose that collaboration and learning aren't targets.
Every society to get a start needs learning collaboration and innovation.
If it wants to develop that ... If it wants to get a possible future, the society needs to change something.
Looking for the old societies you will see each one bring a new reality to the world.

If we just look to the idea about learning without a target we have nothing.
Do you imagine the Enciclopedism without France?
Do you imagine the Republicans without the Industria?
Dou you imagine Athens without Democracy?

There's no scape Guy. It's impossible to imagine that.

If we try to accept an world based just on learning then we have a problem.
Why we need to learn?
Is it for maintain what we live today?
Is it to get a new stage?
Is it to destroy the world?
Is it just for survivor?
Are we doing what here?

Why did we leave the cave? Wouldn't be better to stay there?

The Crisis is covering the world because the society doesn't change the goals.
The world is moving and we need to follow that.
We need to change it. We need to offer a lot of more to the mankind.

As you can see our question is not about buying or selling Knowledge.
Socrates, the old greek philosopher says "I just know that I know nothing"

What do you think about this sentence?

I think our big mistake is looking just to the company.
Companies are our world today like the feudo was to the nobbless and probable we are acting like her.
We are not looking for what happens around us.
We are not looking for what happens at the company outside

Believe Guy,
We are going to change the world.
We are going to show another technology.
We are going to change the views about the world.
We are going to change the company again.

Because what started with Rome and Greece finish with us.

I will be wainting for your message

Guy Benchimol, 01-Oct-05 @ 14:04PM

Embedded knowledge for sale

We could mention in our target definition the case of embedded knowledge.

Indeed, if you don't have knowledge -or if you lost or forgot it-, you may buy it: either you outsource the process you need to solve your problem or you call for a software, a material or a product which contains the necessary knowledge; but this knowledge is not visible, it is embedded.

Our colleague Thawat Matte states his views about this topic in the thread "What is knowledge and what is wisdom?" through his comment of 28th September 2005 and gives striking examples in his blog.

This embedded knowledge implies very important problems for the user who doesn't possess the original knowledge and is not always able to make a good use of the vector of knowledge: this may be a cause of failure.

The use of such knowledge requires in its turn extra knowledge that suppliers don't always provide.

Each case could be the subject of a specific study but a few general rules could be stated. Moreover this has repercussions upon
competencies definitions (What people must know according to the fact they design, maintain or use a production mean and when they use it the necessary knowledge depends on what they do with it).

EDDIE BARAZA, 21-Sep-05 @ 04:00AM

Materializing Knowledge

Hi Gentlemen,

I read the messages and I'd like to leave some questions for us.Maybe they can help us to find something very interesting.
I start following the summary left by Denham Grey.
"There is general agreement that KM is about more than technology alone, that it covers a wider field than intelllectual capital, that personal knowledge is not the whole picture, that KM involves more than a suite of practices."
This paragraph describes the knowledge essence very well.
We're talking about more than we are seeing. In fact, we should get a good expression for that: "Nothing is what it seems"
As the Ancient age tried to solve questions about the Urbe throught Knowledge...
As the Modern Society tried to solve questions about government throught Knowledge...
As the Industrial Society tried to solve questions about manufacture throught K.....
Certainly we need to solve some questions of the world based on something.
Each time had a configuration of ideas and this one created a background for us.
The mill, the industry, the machine, the roads and the cities are examples about materialized knowledge.
The symbol of a period where ideas lived in our minds.
The question is not about technology, about products or services. The question is about world organisation.
The question is about how we see life.
Without Industrial thoughts we never get to build modern streets because the ancients didn't have any elements.

So, What is knowledge society for?

Guy,
You wrote that "we don't need the same kind of knowledge to develop tools for survival in poor conditions of life than for improving the confort of existence of highly advanced people"
This is right too. The miners, the sailors, the engineers, the doctors don't need the same K to solve their problems, but everybody needs to use machines for something. Be into the cave, or to build a skyscraper or a ship or to analise some patient.

Did you imagine to live in a city without streets? Without the K from Ancient era?

The world is growing, it's developing and we are changing the point of views around us. It's an evolution.
If we look at the past and compare as we live today, you will see the world is better than the old days.
Each time solved a question about life.

May you sugested me something we need to solve right now ?

Finally, I want to leave one more question for us here.
When we think about collaboration, learning and some other elements very importants to the K world we need to look at the past again. Why?

Didn't the Republicans, the Industrials, the naturalists, the physicians, the bankers and others have not collaboration to create their worlds ? Did they learn nothing? Didn't they have innovation?

Why we can't call their time based on collaboration and innovation ?

Would be possible we don't live the Knowledge Era?

bye

Guy Benchimol, 19-Sep-05 @ 10:28AM

There is knowledge and knowledge

I agree that, as Eddie states, "knowledge shouldn't have different meanings according to each target we want to" but what I meant by "the nature of knowledge depends on the pursued goals" was that you don't need the same kind of knowledge to develop tools for survival in poor conditions of life than for improving the comfort of existence of highly advanced people; this is true in economy in general as well in business where you find very dissimilar cares according to the type of enterprise.

This is implied into the suggested definition (comment of September 13th, 2005) which mentions "identification" of knowledge.More accurately, we could state, instead of identification, "characterization and localization".

Denham Grey, 19-Sep-05 @ 04:27AM

Finding the real KM

A blog post on KM definitions with links to past thoughts

http://denham.typepad.com/km/2005/09/finding_the_rea.html

EDDIE BARAZA, 18-Sep-05 @ 23:48PM

Thinking about targets

Guy,

I read your message only today and I'd like to expose some ideas here and let's see where we can go.
Knowledge must be used beside others words like Society, Economy Era, technology and Management.
Who knows also beside another one. This subject take us to the same goal.
I think Knowledge shouldn't have diferent meanings according to each target we want to.

We also need to understand that "business is for life".
If business weren't for life we would'nt have quality of life. The machines are present beside us to help us to live.
The industrial age was for life. Imagine if we need to make everything we have today. Certainly we would work 24 hours a day.
The knowledge era must be seen as Evolution process. A better world for business and people.
The knowledge era must solve some questions the Industrials didn't get it in the past.

As Saint Thomas Of Aquino said once ago
"First we need to start what we can do , Then we need to do the necessary. Finally we are going to do the impossible."
The targets are very important to get a definition for everybody as we can see here.
Not just because they will create the background where we are going to live our days, but because they will create the direction for grownth.

Republic was very important to the industrals as equal as the Mercosul and European union are for the Knowledge Era.
There's no borders among some countries. So, The laws need to be diferent for them.
Web offers an opportunity to join diferent cultures and changing ideas
Each one needs to learn each other. Great Demands ask several changes in life We need to reduce the use of petroleum.
We need to find out other resources of energy. We need to get buildings more inteligent for jobs and living.
We need to design the new school based on new concepts
We need to redesign life by itself.

As our old mates from the past we need to finish with Wheel once more.

The rupture is based on this target. If we want to get dynamic worlds where people will live better than now we need to broke the Wheel era. We need to rewrite the history of Mankind again. We need to rewrite our background
If we don't make so then we'll finish like Poney Express.

I'l be reading your link this week and I hope to change more Ideas.
Bye.

Guy Benchimol, 14-Sep-05 @ 08:05AM

The KM equation: K=KM(K) with KM=f(K)

Eddie,

You enlarge the field of KM and don't limit it to enterprise; this point of view is more society- than business oriented; in a future world, human activity could be more inserted in life: it would be a good thing if this new state would make people happier and not slaves.

In fact, knowledge may influence the way of life and KM may modify knowledge; we have indeed the recursive function: K=KM(K) where K is the knowledge and KM a function applied to K; the nature of KM depends on goals and strategy (ends and means) which themselves are the result of our values.

As the way of managing knowledge depends on the nature of knowledge itself according to the pursued goals, we can write something like KM=f(K) which reminds the various types of technologies, networkings, organazations currently used and often put into a common bundle so-called KM.Bootstrapping KM is rather difficult for "identification" of knowledge which is included in the suggested definition calls for a true knowledge!That is why it is so difficult to define and work out KM. Otherwise, we should not have such an exciting discussion!

In the definition of KM, you may either say that KM aims to satisfy such and such goals or specify the goals themselves in a more normative way; methinks that for a definition, it is better adopting the first behaviour.

Indeed, the problem is that,if we may expect an agreement about ends, conflicts often occur about values and means. This does not prevent giving a definition of KM... But it is another topic to discuss of: what KM might bring to people in order to build a better way of life for everybody?

(An instance of goals at an European level is to be found into

http://www.knowledgeboard.com/item/95100

but which is your insight about means?)

Guy

EDDIE BARAZA, 14-Sep-05 @ 00:01AM

candidate definition

Denham and Guy

I wrote below the message I left to tacit knowledge for a brief reflexion and I hope you may to insert some comments specialy because we need to find a path beyond the collaboration because every job needs to arrive at the finish.

"The mankind knew 4 centuries ago that knowledge was very important to develop the society.
The mankind knew it's necessary to change the mind about everything.
The thinkers told us that it's necessary to draw. it's necessary learn Physics and the art of the numbers.
The nature and the men were too precious to get knowledge and Bacon advertised a new stage free of the old ideas.
A world based on the experiment. In the others words, the machine era.

The old thinkers knew that it's necessary to build machines.
The machines were the path to get knowledge. They were the compass for development.

Like our friends from the past, we need to define necessary elements to change the the world, and worst we need to get a target.
In the past were the machines.
what will be the another one, now?

The competitive advantage starts here.
The target is the candidate definition.
It's the great idea to organize our mind.

May you tell me some elements we need to learn ?
May you tell me where we are going for?"

Until the next time.
Bye.

Guy Benchimol, 13-Sep-05 @ 18:26PM

KM definition

Dear Colleagues,

Maybe I am a little late but I find your undertaking not only interesting but necessary for a community devoted to KM.

As we have to choose, I pasted the following definition compounding two ones suggested by Philippe and the Denham's one:

"Knowledge-conscious Management aims to select and implement the most appropriate tools and instruments that support the identification, developing, capturing, sharing, application and evaluation of knowledge; this is namely a practice concerned with increasing awareness, fostering learning, speeding collaboration and exchanging insights; it refers to the process through which the companies create and use their institutional and collective knowledge. KM deals with organising and controlling the operational processes in the knowledge value chain in the most efficient way. KM focuses on facilitating and managing knowledge related activities. KM is systematic, explicit and deliberate building, renewal and application of knowledge to maximise an enterprise’s knowledge-related effectiveness and returns from its knowledge assets."

Indeed, this is a difficult task to define KM because it involves many concepts which interacts (graphically, it would result into many loops)and sometimes recursively. Some definitions miss this complexity, mentionning either technologies, either organization or goals.

Greetings to everybody

Guy

Denham Grey, 10-Sep-05 @ 21:45PM

KM is....

A practice concerned with increasing awareness, fostering learning, speeding collaboration and exchanging insights.

EDDIE BARAZA, 10-Sep-05 @ 20:58PM

Candidate definition

Hi everybody.

I've read the candidate definitions and certainly, we could insert more a thousand here.
Someone would like to use one of them.Others will choose another one.
Who is right?
If we create a forum we will discuss a monthy, a year or, maybe, a decade.
What can we do?
Let's use all of them if we can put someone far way of this world.
Let's use all of them if we can show a wrong way for a spy.
Reading this sentences, one thought must bring to our mind that question: What´s knowledge ?
Following the steps from a old philosopher of Medieval Age the result must be something impossible.
Something impossible to the old generation of leadership.
Because the old leadership just look at itself. Because it look at the corporate side.
AT&T, an old company in USA, is a good example for explain what we can't do.
Don't mind how many patents that company had. Don't mind how many years that company had been a symbol to USA.
Don't mind how many times it had been reference to the economy, how many innovations it brought to the society.
AT&T just looked at the corporate world and died. Another company, a son of her bought AT&T some years ago.
because It didn't was looking at people anymore.
As you can see people is an important ingredient.People from company outside.
Microsoft came to us because it works for people.We live the republic because it works for us.
The industrial society had started because it worked for people.
Knowledge mustn't be seen just as a tool for organisation. Knowledge must be seen as as model for society.
A change of manner
It must show a way to get development. A civilized way to competition.We need to start a mankind new stage.
So I propose for you to build a bill of targets. I propose for you to create first a background to the society.
A background where knowledge can be used beside words like society, economy,Era, technology.
A background where knowledge can translate a world after eletronic... after automatic society.
Because our secret it's beside these thoughts.

EDDIE BARAZA, 10-Sep-05 @ 20:46PM

Candidate definition

Hi everybody.

I've read the candidate definitions and certainly, we could insert more a thousand here.
Someone would like to use one of them.Others will choose another one.
Who is right?
If we create a forum we will discuss a monthy, a year or, maybe, a decade.
What can we do?
Let's use all of them if we can put someone far way of this world.
Let's use all of them if we can show a wrong way for a spy.
Reading this sentences, one thought must bring to our mind that question: What´s knowledge ?
Following the steps from a old philosopher of Medieval Age the result must be something impossible.
Something impossible to the old generation of leadership.
Because the old leadership just look at itself. Because it look at the corporate side.
AT&T, an old company in USA, is a good example for explain what we can't do.
Don't mind how many patents that company had. Don't mind how many years that company had been a symbol to USA.
Don't mind how many times it had been reference to the economy, how many innovations it brought to the society.
AT&T just looked at the corporate world and died. Another company, a son of her bought AT&T some years ago.
because It didn't was looking at people anymore.
As you can see people is an important ingredient.People from company outside.
Microsoft came to us because it works for people.We live the republic because it works for us.
The industrial society had started because it worked for people.
Knowledge mustn't be seen just as a tool for organisation. Knowledge must be seen as as model for society.
A change of manner
It must show a way to get development. A civilized way to competition.We need to start a mankind new stage.
So I propose for you to build a bill of targets. I propose for you to create first a background to the society.
A background where knowledge can be used beside words like society, economy,Era, technology.
A background where knowledge can translate a world after eletronic... after automatic society.
Because our secret it's beside these thoughts.

Chris Macrae, 13-Mar-04 @ 06:29AM

nice links

Joao, I like your working idea:
In my works I prefer to use a definition that links - in a drawing (a cyclic system) - Intelectual Capital (IC) with Aprendiceship(A).

Could you give us a bit more example of how your definition does the linking you metion? For example, does it include leadership sysnthesising of the value demands of different stakeholders as part of the knowledge that needs governing at every audit cycle?

João de Valentin, 12-Mar-04 @ 20:16PM

to add a definition of KM

the following definitions 1 and 2 have may preferences:
1)KM is the strategies and processes of identifying, capturing, and leveraging knowledge to enhance competitiveness.
2)KM as a mix of others already mentioned
KM is a process of identifying, capturing, organizing, locating,transferring, and using the information and expertise within an organization.

- In my works I prefere to use a definition that links - in a drawing (a cyclic system) - Intelectual Capital (IC) with Aprendiceship(A).
Note:(A)in portuguese have the same sense of knowing (K).
So KM - Knowledge Management is the systemic process linkink both. (IC with A).
By the other hand I explain that:
Knowledge (K) is an application of an information, and information is the content of a message that changes the attitude of the receiver.

Chris Macrae, 09-Jun-03 @ 11:26AM

what was your process?

You seem to have used a lowest common denominator approach. Much more open - and better use of technology and humanity - would have been to take votes of this whole community as to who gives the most inspiring explanation of this term? And then on each to go that person and take their defition as a benchmark candidate.

Nikolai Krjachkov, 25-Apr-03 @ 05:20AM

To Nick Willard

Nick,
is any management technique you have understood worth enhancing?
And how you can define correct objectives?

Chris Macrae, 23-Apr-03 @ 16:48PM

Sveiby's definition

I doubt we'll find a better explanation of why KM is an Oxymoron than Sveiby's wonderful one hour chat at K'board http://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=106103

Anyhow this is the one we have started rehearsing regarding Intellectual Capital impacts for Angels and their intended open aims to integrate EU research at
http://www.knowledgeboard.com/item/108240

One of big issues of IC is to challenge whether an organsiation knows its objectives in deep context and sufficient to be a network age collaborator and innovator

chris

Nick Willard, 22-Apr-03 @ 18:43PM

KM Consultant

How about: "KM is understanding and enhancing management techniques for knowledge resources to improve solutions and strategies that achieve organisational objectives"

Nikolai Krjachkov, 22-Mar-03 @ 07:46AM

In addition to my comment “Context”, 21st March 2003

When I said: “Why only Philippe Perez reacted?” - the reason was Philippe’s comment I can not find on this page:

“Philippe Perez , 10th March 2003
on the "SIG & terminology" forum?
Philippe Perez
Hi everybody,
You can continue to carry on this very interesting and important discussion through the comment tool. But I encourage you to use the "SIG and terminology" forum, which is more relevant to interact. I have just openened a new thread to make you able to react on the knowledge management definitions and I have tried to give some comments of your different statements.
click here to get to the forum”

Philippe, from what you have told to Don (21st March 2003, going further with awareness)
we can see that my approach (5th March 2003, An alternative definition of Knowledge Management concept (a draft version)) is diffusive without me. That’s OK and I agree with it. So I think you can create an alternative KM terminology without me – that’s also OK. Your reply to me at your forum (see below) and your reply to Don prove possibilities to share Knowledge in form of approach (action) and without any Context. This is an idea from my article “Text, civilization and textual viruses in science and practice”. Unfortunately it is in Russian only. If someone find a way to translate it in English let me know. People can learn a lot of useful from it I think.

“Date: 10-Mar-03 (GMT)
Subject: reply to the Nikolai's proposal
(Replies: 2, Read: 55)
From: Philippe Perez
I like very much your approach. I would call a terminology based on this approach a "well-formed" terminology. At first, you try to define without any ambiguity a list of core concepts. Then other concepts are based on these definitions. Loops are forbidden (e.g. "knowedge" defined by the concept "skill" and "skill" defined by the concept "knowledge").
This approach is to me very meaningful. I encourage you to participate to the different on line events dedicated to the KM terminology in order to present this approach.
Morevoer, you can use the "SIG theory and terminology" to diffuse your definitions for other concepts. I would appreciate to have an alternative terminology with other objectives and based on a different approach than the CEN's one.»

Philippe Perez, 21-Mar-03 @ 17:17PM

what is CEN?

CEN means "comité Européen de Normalisation". In english, "Standardisation European Committee".
This people are in charge of providing Standards. They are trying to define a general KM framework that could be used as guidelines at the European Level by SMEs (for instance).
These framework addresses different issues, and the glossary is one of them.

Philippe Perez, 21-Mar-03 @ 17:10PM

going further with awareness

Hi Don,
I would suggest you to carry on your systematic approach about the "knowledge" concept.
if "knowledge is whatever we are aware of at the present moment", then a definition of "awareness" should be provided. if you don't, then:
the fact "I'm hungry" is knowledge according to your definition (while it is just a feeling).
the fact "this painting is beautiful" is knowledge, while it is just a subjective assessment.
So probably you give a specific (and restricted) meaning to the adjective "aware", but this meaning should be explicit in your definition.

Don Mezei, 21-Mar-03 @ 14:45PM

na

na

Nikolai Krjachkov, 21-Mar-03 @ 07:48AM

Context

Chris, are you sure that concept “context” is necessary for transition to Knowledge society? Understanding by means of “context” and by means of explanatory dictionary (e.g. based on meanings of words for understanding wordings of actions) are not the same I think. Moreover “context” generates intangibles and creates situation when quantity of facts is more preferable than their quality (e.g. understanding). I explored the problem for my needs and I will try to make my knowledge to be shared if you want it.

Don, you give me the good lessons how to promote concepts. Thank you. Can you explain what you mean when say: “…we have to redefine what knowledge is” – who “we” are?

Are we helping CEN? How CEN uses our proposals? Is CEN really needs our help? Why only Philippe Perez reacted?

What do you think Don, Chris?

Nikolai

Don Mezei, 20-Mar-03 @ 19:03PM

na

na

Chris Macrae, 19-Mar-03 @ 18:37PM

did anyone ever define the context for these definitions

I ask for example because Don's definitions seem fair but not necessarily big picture

If the purpose is to say why should any business person, any social policy maker, and kid with lifelong learing ahead as a knowledge worker care about KM, then in one sense this is because KM is about the organisations people want in the future. Digital has changed what these can be as has network's global and local pervasiveness, as indeed people like DRucker have been anticipating for 20 years if people read up about his knowledge worker terminology

Is it big-headed of a profession to adopt such a big picture view of its integration responsibilities.

On the one hand no - if you attended the Brussels fall 2002 conference with the keynote telecast from the Commisioner of Employment & Social Affairs where she explicitly said cabinet offices in Europe's 25 countries needed some kind of meta-discipline to naviagate their understanding of how industries in knowledge age differ from thise in industrial age; how this impact community and social capital planning; how it impacts life long etraining which incidentally OECD reports say maytter even more for the less educated than the educated who know how to browse and network. If the meta-discipline isnt KM I sure as heck have no idea what it will be? Do you?

On the other hand it would be incredibly big headed if some core ICT part of KM defined the organsiational design role as theirs and tried to close off professional boundaries with human disciplines who may not have caught up with all of KM's language partly becasue KM itself has not been very good with integrating with prior known issues of organisational design, and living systems dynamics and most of Drucker!

So we come again to a huge term - at least when viewed from its biggest perspective impacting the productivity and social outcomes for every European person. But is that the context that this dictionary is intended to extend to or if its much narrower where are you drawing the boundaries of the lingo you want?

Don Mezei, 18-Mar-03 @ 17:57PM

na

na

Chris Macrae, 18-Mar-03 @ 12:43PM

great

Hugely enjoyed your mail Nikolai and its analyisis of risks and benefits of 3 options going forward with CEN's Km Language

I suggest another option is to make several parallel dictionaries : this how techno-Km people see it; this is how human KM people see it; this is how knowledge society people see it

I am sure parallel diversity is the right approach but I am not sure I nominated the right groupings - that should be the first task of the dictioing. After all the big scope picture of KM impacts all our future productivities and organsiational needs. I would no more dare constrain KM to one group's linguistic view than tell the French that in spite or because of recent behaviours they should think in English henceforth.

Nikolai Krjachkov, 18-Mar-03 @ 05:57AM

How to help CEN

Hi everybody!

Don excuse my being late, but I think that definitions are the second problem – the first one is approach.

I have compared what we have discussed, what CEN’s project taem has done, what Prof Dr Karl-Erik Sveiby have told at the Theory & Terminology Forum, what Dr Ilkka Tuomi from the European Commission's Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Seville have told in his article “The future of Knowledge Management” about third generation of KM. As a result I see three variants of further actions.

1. To wait CEN’s guidelines for good practice and KM terminology for it, to wait reaction of SMEs, to wait and see what happens in business practice.

This is an approach of practical experiment.

Risks: to lose time for corrections, to yield wrong and unexpected results (because of intangibles!) – bad practice instead of good one, to lose future.

Benefits: to change nothing (?).

2. To wait CEN’s guidelines for good practice and KM terminology for it and to check their texts – are they understandable and feasible or not – for further correction before practical use.

This is an approach of textual experiment.

Risks: to waste less time.

Benefits: to save time for necessary corrections, not to lose future.

3. To create a “well-formed” (term from Philippe Perez) KM terminology and text of a guidelines from the beginning (may be as a parallel project) and to start learning as a kind of interaction of experts and SMEs.

This is an approach of correcting text in process of its creation.

Risks: to try to update research habits and change a current KM.

Benefits: to start making future with less risks.

You decide.

Nikolai

Chris Macrae, 13-Mar-03 @ 20:02PM

yes but

Don, I agree with your definition on concentraion and focus yet I feel there is more at least in the breadth thet KM sets itself up for at its broadest scope

I come back to the 5 perspectives at which knowledge productivity can multiply value:
the knowledge worker, Drucker's atom
the network of the Knowledge Worker
the organsiation
the network of organisations
the policy level of region or other infrastructure that is above even networks of organisations

Here we seek KM to facilitate matches/agencies at infrastructure levels and clarity of contexts. Of all the things that are most missing today is organisations with transparent relationship gravity -deep and unique contexts of human care. Without that the focus of concentration changes in the wind with every new top mamnager or speculator. We need governance systems that reward those who concentrate on the declared organisational purpose (preserving core whilst stimulating progess around that) and all this must be driven by a consistent win-win pattern between stakeholders' demands. None of that is yet how organsiations are governed by. Whence knowledge must manage the organisations FIRST then the people will get on with concentrating their learning and behaviours productively and have fun doing so.

All this will require the mother of all benchmarking facilitations -and Amngel interventions - so that organisations learn systems, context, transparency of human purpose and true intangible productivity goverance systems of open trustflow anchored on making a difference/innovation that matters. Until policy makers insist on enabling that like the US did with the system dynamics of quality 20 years ago, organisations preach knowledge whilst destroying their knowledge workers (accounted as costs not productive hubs). There is a lie in KM today as it is organised by classically accounted management admins and we humans must take it apart and put back until it systemises true and open.
chris

Don Mezei, 12-Mar-03 @ 18:16PM

na

na

Chris Macrae, 12-Mar-03 @ 09:25AM

Two Defintions

I believe instead of hunting for 1 definition - we should hunt for at least two. The one CEN seems to be at risk of obsessing over is the core definition for whomever is the core of the KM profession. But this misses a bigger point - do you see KM as the Metadiscipline for constructing and animating all organisations people should want to see develop. If you do not then KM deserves to be dismissed to some tiny part of the whole agenda of how people productivities and social values can be developed now that we have internet as well as real work places. If you do see Km as integrating everyone's rights to produce value and connect in actionable learning then you need a very open definition of KM and one that connects with the way that knowledge must channel every organisation to benchmark the knowledge gaps in its system dynamics as an even greater priority than the gaps in quality in the 1980s. We need to popularise this agenda at every level:
the people who do knowledge work
the policy makers who fund regional advantages and any organisational level in between. Your open definition needs to excite every person from a 12 year old upwards who should be asking what should my teachers be instructing about KM so I am well prepared to use my strengths to make a difference.

Don Mezei, 12-Mar-03 @ 00:02AM

na

na

Nikolai Krjachkov, 08-Mar-03 @ 13:52PM

About know how

Hi Don!
If to understand “language of knowledge” as the specialized vocabulary used by a particular group (knowledge managers for instance) and “ application of knowledge” as the act of applying “language of knowledge” to any practical use we will need a subject for KM – wordings of actions as a result of use of common language (belonging to more than knowledge managers).

I think your formula confirms this, because in your point of view:
know how = knowledge + (information + data).

This also means:
knowledge = know how – information – data (knowledge is know how without information and data) (?).

People who want to extract knowledge from information and/or data and manage it try to create a standardized use of common language. KM vocabulary based on natural limitation may outlines the structure of the standardized use of common language.

But some people use common language as a kind of program tool for destroying life of other people (intellectual weapons). Please see: “Textual viruses: samples of problems” - a comment for the article I have already mentioned.

I also think that “know how” is not enough for implementation of action. What about “know when”?

Don Mezei, 07-Mar-03 @ 18:04PM

na

na

Don Mezei, 07-Mar-03 @ 16:18PM

na

na

Pierluigi Assogna, 07-Mar-03 @ 13:55PM

KM workings

Hi Don.
I imagine my ideal knowledge place as a vast lab where I can easily do conceptual bricolage, that is building new ideas, concepts, solutions, etc. by searching for and grabbing bits ad pieces (data, information, knowledge) that I can find on disparate shelves, pertaining to different conceptual sectors.
I believe that knowledge mainly evolves by a mechanism of endosymbiosis, that is by a multi-level nesting of working hypotheses and concepts originated in different environments.
Beside this warehouse of raw materials an semi-finished objects, I imagine a nice work-bench with tools, to be able to do my bricolage, and a board where I could pin outstanding issues, reminders, and so on.
The Web is the nearest thing to a part of this vision, where I can find the shelves, the bits and pieces and the searching mechanism. My computer and my desk are not so good a reification of the work-bench and the board.
The point is that this view is solipsistic: I can try to define and design what I would like as a KM environment, but I have problems in figuring out how I could effectively interact with other knowledge-nauts in this virtual lab or even in metaphorical environments that are totally different.
Out of metaphors, I can see a KM system as one that can provide its users with a rich conceptual structure, navigation tools, access to any type of information and the capability of maintaining a private conceptual space. I have problems in defining specs for the organizational conceptual space, that must evolve somewhere between the private space and the world.
Pierluigi.

Don Mezei, 06-Mar-03 @ 21:42PM

na

na

Pierluigi Assogna, 06-Mar-03 @ 11:33AM

The old shoe

I like Don's concise scheme of the old shoe and the relevant line of reasoning. I would like to add a comment on the fact that, in my opinion, when we "acquire knowledge", for instance by reading a text, we don't read letters, and not even words, but sentences: in fact if we are pressed by time we can understand the meaning of any text even by reading "diagonally" (an Italian expression) one tenth of the words. This top-down acquisition is made possible because in our mind we apparently have a multi-level conceptual structure, that in turn could only be built bottom-up, where we can anchor and link any new "piece of knowledege", depending on the particular goal we have, while learning or reasoning. In my view KM tools and methods should facilitate this capability of dynamically changing the level of conceptual linking, so that (old) could be, depending on the situation, either data or information or knowledge.

Don Mezei, 05-Mar-03 @ 21:43PM

na

na

Don Mezei, 05-Mar-03 @ 15:41PM

na

na

Nikolai Krjachkov, 05-Mar-03 @ 05:26AM

An alternative definition of Knowledge Management concept (a draft version)

My English explanatory dictionary tells:

KNOWLEDGE
- the facts or experience KNOWN by a person …

KNOWN
- IDENTIFIED

IDENTIFY
- to prove or recognize as being a certain person or thing, determine the identity of, to UNDERSTAND …

UNDERSTAND
- to KNOW and comprehend the nature or meaning of, to KNOW what is happening or why is happening …

This allows to define the concept “knowledge” first.

KNOWLEDGE is understanding of action within natural limitations.

Natural limitations should be defined.

People understand something using concepts. Most of concepts are polysemantic – take a look at any explanatory dictionary. Thus it is necessary to understand the alternative meanings of wording of action.

You can learn more about this from my article at KnowledgeBoard “Text, civilization and textual viruses in science and practice (in Russian)”.

The second – MANAGE.

MANAGE
- to succeed in DOING something …

DOINGS
- deeds or ACTIONS …

CHOICE
- the ACT of CHOOSING … an alternative ACTION or possibility …

Thus MANAGEMENT is choice of necessary variant of action.

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT is choice of necessary variant of action within natural limitation in accordance with understandable meanings of wordings of actions.

I think this way of defining terms may gives an outline of not conflicting terms for KM dictionary including definitions of measurements, methods and methodology for integrating sciences and practice.

All above mentioned should be defined more precisely and considered critically. Is this draft version acceptable in principle?

Pierluigi Assogna, 04-Mar-03 @ 11:07AM

choice of a definition

I would vote for the definition:
"an approach to improving an organization’s capabilities through better use of the organization’s individual and collective knowledge resources. Knowledge Management is a discipline that uses technology to share and leverage information for innovation." because I consider very important to underline the value of personal knowledge to make up organizational knowledge.