Please help us define whether or why is knowledge work everyone's business? Will its outcomes be more valuable than anything people have ever worked before?
27-Dec-02
Defining Knowledge Work by J.Y.
There has been an upsurge of interest in knowledge. In business there are now positions such as ‘Chief Knowledge Officer’ and ‘Organizational Learning Officer’. The subject of knowledge has been around since the pre-Socratic philosophers and has now become the new ‘buzz’ word of industry.
The definition of knowledge that I would like to put forward is as follows. In business terms, knowledge is the awareness gained from experience, or information, that is used to increase an employee’s understanding of something that leads to innovation or improved business practice. Knowledge can be in a physical form, for example papers stored in a filing cabinet, or in an intangible form stored inside somebody’s head.
Today, knowledge is seen more and more as a competitive advantage and is added to the list of factors of production (land, labour and capital). This has led to an interest in Knowledge Work and Knowledge Workers.
Ever since Peter Drucker first coined the phrase ‘Knowledge Workers’ in 1979 there has been increased interest in the growing population of ‘Knowledge Workers’, and as a result Knowledge Management. However, although there have been many published papers, conferences and discussions on the subject there remains a lack of consensus as to the definition of ‘Knowledge Work’. Indeed, definitions are poled from ‘all workers are Knowledge Workers’ to ‘Knowledge Work does not exist’.
The latter definition shows criticism of the term ‘Knowledge Worker’. Many writers state that Knowledge Work is synonymous with ‘Information Age Work’ and is therefore a redundant term. Indeed, some suggest that if you take an article discussing Knowledge Work and substitute the term ‘Knowledge Work’ for ‘Information Work’ the article will still make sense and have the same meaning.
However, those who believe in Knowledge Work have proposed numerous definitions including Knowledge Work defined as that work conducted by technical professions, such as IT and Research and Development industries. Some writers see a good level of education as a prerequisite of being a Knowledge Worker. At the other end of the spectrum Knowledge Workers are seen as any worker that adds value to a company. By this definition assembly workers and waitresses may be classed as Knowledge Workers.
The purpose of this discussion is to elicit your personal definition of Knowledge Work and to determine why your definition differs from other people’s definitions of Knowledge Work. Do people from different countries define Knowledge Work differently? If so is this due to differences in the culture and economic climate of a country?
Details
- Author:
- Chris Macrae
- Publisher:
- KnowledgeBoard
- Date:
- 27-Dec-02
- Categories:
- Emotional Intelligence
- Sections:
This article has been read 17735 times.
Tools
Member comments (85)
Share your views with other users: add your own comments to this item.
I reaserch about k.m
If you contact with me .my email is
eramezani2002@yahoo.com
k.m :procces of content.identification.acquisition.development.sharing.utilization .protect
I reaserch about k.m
if you work with me I am happy and I appreciat It from you.
KM project on line
Dear all,
Just to say thank you for your interest in my project on cross cultural KM practices, it is now completed and handed in!
If you are interested in viewing the final report, it can be found at
http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~kimble/teaching/students/Anna_Dening/Anna_Dening.html
Thanks again,
Anna
cross-cultural knowledge management practices
Dear all,
Thanks for your interest regarding cross-cultural knowledge management practices.
I wonder if you could further help me with my project by filling in my questionnaire on these topics, by following this link for the English version, http://www.bluemonkeyskunk.com/q.asp or this for the French version if you prefer http://www.bluemonkeyskunk.com/qFR.asp .
For those of you who have already done so, many thanks!! Anna
Thanks
Chris,
Many thanks for your comments - it is interesting to hear what you have to say about the class systems, and that you think there will be a differences between the cultres.
It is seeming apparant from my literature search..
Anna
interesting question
I lived and worked in Paris for 8 years in the 1980s before KM was anything more than tacit, so I will have to leave a fromal answer to others.
we worked in a 100% knowledge business researching people cultiures around the world and developing databank benchmarks that synthesised millions of hours of interviews
my guesses are:
there will be big differences
there is less class system in France than the UK at least within the office most people have the same title ingenieur unless they are a director, and at least in the 50 person company I worked in the directors ate lunch with the office workers; compared with Britain social spaces are alive and well in France for most communal practices
all 18 year olds were already online in France by 1984 because of an odd telephone networking system (forget its name)
at the end of the day the rituals in France of every day behaviour are highly individualistic - and respect for the theatre of such is everywhere, so a bit like the Netherlands but for a different reaon, you dont have the English boss culture, at least not in the same way
There is however extraordinary respect paid by almost everyone to intellectual status as it is seen to have been studied, schools went to, qualifications achieved
What this makes for is an extraordinary mix- for example far better raiolway engineering architecture - and probably all architecture - than Brits can manage, yet sometimes a sort of groupthink that I cant quite put my finger on
then there's language which is almost the poetic opposite of English's apparent but misleading precision
perhaps these are rambling thoughts but tehy are enough to convince me that whatever the most suble challenges of Km are in France they will likely be different socially than whatever Brits mist subtle KM challenges are
-Francophones come and help me out please!
Cross Cultural Knowledge Management
Hi everyone, I am doing a project which is related in some wasy to Jennie's - mine is a cross cultural comparison of knowledge management practices. I am also at the university of York, and would appreciate your views on the topic. My hypothesis is that there are differences between knowledge management practices in the English, and the French language. Is the English perception of KM different to that of the French ? I would be very interested to hear your views on this matter. If you would like more information, please look at my web site at http://www-student.cs.york.ac.uk/~ad141/
triple collaboration
Sample of current discussion of Human KM at
http://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=117257&d=1&h=417&f=56&dateformat=%o%20%B%20%Y
------------------------
Collaborative innovation is in its infancy in spite of the fathers of the internet (Vint Cerf) and the worldwide web (Berners-Lee) insisting that they were openly designing technology so that worldwide innovation opportunities would bring whole new value multipliers to organsiations and people's productivity.
Tell me your favourite bookmarks on collaborative innovation to register here:
1 2 3
Transparent branding's 4-multiplying ways to value collaboration imply that organisational systems must be changed inside-out to collaborate with:
A) Governments
B) Businesses
C) People as individual (knowledge) workers
D) Coworker groups such as teams, personal netorks and practice communities
Inside-out collaboration with government means no more furtive lobbying for protectionsism or rights to ruin local environments. Instead only get together with government where you can openly do something so wonderful locally that its a win-win-win for the company, government and humans in the local democracy.
Similarly, each of A-D has an inside out change leadership issue to systemise; for example companies will never learn to collaborate with their best knowledge workers whilst booking them as costs (unlike machines which tangible accounting compounds -as its meanest cuts of all - by arbitrarily framing as an investment)
PS I also have a personal colaboration project- outlining a future affairs 12 year olds curriculum to prepare for a transparent networked world - please tell me your bookmarks 1 2
join our conversation
I thought this conversation between Edna Pasher and myself (chris) was worth transporting in case members of this thread want to expand it
Q. What is the nature and importance of strategy in the current day environment?
Edna Answer: All we need in this turbulent environment is an "organizational compass" - vision, core values and core competencies - and an on-going strategic renewal culture.
Q How to use strategies for business transformation and turn them into real value for your company?
Edna Answer: We constantly need to check, both in organizations and in our own personal careers, if we are going in the right direction to make our vision come true, if we are exploiting emerging opportunities and organize to cope with emerging threats. This calls for on-going scanning of the external environment, and for an innovation enabling culture because without innovation there is no renewal.
Chris : Edna, perhaps we could invite KM people to stop being so shy- I would go as far as to say to a company in our knowledge age, show me what we can see through your knowledge compass, otherwise you have no startegy worth developing- we need to evolv a breed of KM person who refuses the belief that K is secondary to strategy
I believe strategy is often an old fashioned word pulling us backwards (often made all the more costly by academics where they are rewarded for intellectual apartheids of disciplines and sub-disciplines) wreaking of non-participation by most people in a company, blocked by need to know disconnects. It needs openly transforming until it is democratically for everyone at the core for living system behaviours, learning and communications
I am also absolutely certain that strategy does not exist without deep and specfific context and customised metrics. And context is a word which introduces big tensions with any attempt to standardise or vocabularise - do these within contexts by all means but stop global accountants trying to command over all with a one fits all methodology which defeats every performance purpose
chris macrae www.valuetrue.com
Defining Knowledge Work - Dissertation online
Hi,
I would like to thank you all very much for your participation in this discussion on knowledge work, without which my dissertation would not have been possible. I have now finished writing this up and as promised this is now online if you are interested in the results. My dissertation can be found at:
http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~kimble/teaching/students/Jennifer_Yau/Jennifer_Yau.html
If you have any queries regarding my dissertation I will be happy to anwser them. I will not be monitoring this discussion board any more but you can contact me via jennie_yau32@hotmail.com with any feedback.
Happy reading! And once again many thanks for your help.
Jennifer Yau
Proposes EI style rules for interacting with rest of knowledgeboard and KM
At its simplest, EI should put human excitement and joy of trusting peers around you back into every organsiational process and wakes up every administrator's mind to the bigger social canvass that every business conflicts with unless it knows absolutely what its social cpaital interactions are.
It is now widely known that corporate and policy governance is missing something quintessentially human with devastating future consequences unless KM people can solve the riddle of people produce economics not the other way round as MBAs have been led Android-fashion to micromanage. I feel we must go round challenging every other sig where we do not see this EI dimension singing out of the way they humanise KM. Let's try and adopt our editorial challenge constructively - but don't be shy let's just do it as devil's advocates who earn our way to being seen to have angelic purpose in our persisence of questioning.
chris http://www.knowledgeboard.com/community/zones/sig/kmei.html
parallel survey - YOU
I have started a parallel - what is knowledge survey? - starting from the cultural context of you. Do come and play if you have time to tell us your most urgent learning needs
http://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=103981&d=1&h=417&f=56&dateformat=%o%20%B%20%Y
I have started a thread on what is each person here's greatest current research dream and action learning pursuit. Currently mine revolves round how do people tell the stories needed to dare to change the system at times of revolution such as moving up from industrial age to knwowledge age. I expect that open Angels need storytellers now more than ever.http://www.knowledgeboard.com/community/zones/sig/angels.html
We meet in Luxembourg March 6/7 to reherase them and to tenderise and anyone passing through is more than welcome
knowledge's Trivial Pursuit
knowledge TRIVIAL PURSUIT
If you have any opening oneliners you would use first in navigating 12 year olds or others who got industrialised pre-knowledge age- do you have entries for x1 to x11? No prizes but I will try and Angelise you!
Please post any answers in this thread
THE X of knowledge has no value unless
The STRATEGY of knowledge has no value unless it is actioned
The ADVANTAGE of knowledge has no value unless it is collaborative ( any knowledge product is defined as one that does not get used up but multiplies value in use)
The LIVING SYSTEMS of knowledge have no value unless they have deep context and make a difference to humanity
Examples (above; quiz topics any below)
Quiz
x1 Strategy
x2 Advantage
x3 Living System Environments
x4 Trade Networks & Open Association Capitals
x5 Design & Flows
x6 Mobile-life
x7 Worker-Energies
x8 Technology Potential
x9 Usability & Harvesting
x10 Quality (processes of)
x11 Intellectual Capital Measurement
more on x1 to x11 at http://www.knowledgeboard.com/community/zones/sig/angels.html
80% emotions
I was quite intrigued by something that I read which suggested that decisions and organisational behaviours ultimately are 80% driven by emotion and only 20% by information. I'm not sure if this 20% was less in the sense that in terms of what information is actually selected or atended to we have another emotional filter as well as the system one of what is actually available contextually right time, right place. Anyone else reading up on this area or with comments on how it might impact your view of KM?
cheers for 2 wonderful recent contributions
Lilia's is great - wonderful compact summary
Meanwhile, perhaps there's a tension. Academia may prefer a perfect subject as pedagogically boxed in; as practice person I believe today's most valuable disciplines need to open interface out (because so few do even though that's where the human connections dynamics surely leads us)
So I love Don's Dec13 contribution with extracts such as:
"the questions we're raising point to something fundamental about KM. That knowledge is universal, that everything is a subset of knowledge, and hence, when we manage knowledge, we are managing a fundamental building block that serves as the basis of all subject matter.
It's kind of like managing atoms.
One of the things I'm going to be doing on kmprofessor.com is offering an online course that specifically addresses your questions - namely how do we manage knowledge across the board, in all disciplines. I think that's what's missing in all this discussion of KM, a simple explanation that makes sense and can be practically applied. I have the answers, its just finding a way of packaging them."
I do believe the greatest favour KM should do to the world is to want to be an open meta-discipline and one that has an open hand in reorganising governance away from those who would divide and conquer us all by numbers. The trouble is that the lifeless object approach that was so precise to account by when companies made products by making people stand in line for dumb machines is more than a little wrong to monopolise governance of knowledge workers by or to contribute to networked organisational value worldide in ways that make both good economic sense and inspiring socilal capitals
Come join the debate on how to get KM to expand leader's mindsets - out of what the 2002 BBC Reith Lecturer on trust called herculean micromanagement of accounting by numbers - at
http://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=98044&d=1&h=417&f=56&dateformat=%o%20%B%20%Y
My definition of knowledge work
Chris asked me to add my definition of knowledge work here. So, my version in brief:
Characteristics that define knowledge working
- knowledge and it's sharing is valued
- awareness of personal and organisational knowledge needs and ability to make choice if those two conflict
- responsibility for managing personal knowledge and knowledge activities (creating, sharing, learning, using knowledge) - internal, not emposed
- networking/ being connected
- having fun from all above
Conditions that is needed to make it happen
- motivation or need
- time and space
- low treshhold instruments/ways to access/share knowledge
- capabilities (e.g. language or computer use skills)
Lilia
Knowledge Work Questionnaire
Hi,
Please can you me with my dissertation by filling out the questionnaire below. This is about 'Knowledge Work'. If you are not familiar with this phrase, don't worry, all is explained in the questionnaire:
http://www.amigosreunidos.com.mx/kw
Many thanks
Jennie Yau
_______________________________________________
Hola,
Por favor puede usted ayudar a una estudiante de la Universidad de York con su tesina rellenando la encuesta abajo. Ésta relacionada con el 'Trabajo del Conocimiento'. Si no esta usted familiarizado con este término, no se preocupe, todo se explica en la encuesta:
http://www.amigosreunidos.com.mx/kw
Muchas gracias
Jennie Yau
interdisciplinary approach
Hi Chris,
I think the questions you're raising point to something fundamental about KM. That knowledge is universal, that everything is a subset of knowledge, and hence, when we manage knowledge, we are managing a fundamental building block that serves as the basis of all subject matter.
It's kind of like managing atoms.
One of the things I'm going to be doing on kmprofessor.com is offering an online course that specifically addresses your questions - namely how do we manage knowledge across the board, in all disciplines. I think that's what's missing in all this discussion of KM, a simple explanation that makes sense and can be practically applied. I have the answers, its just finding a way of packaging them.
Basically we do this by understanding what knowledge, information, data and intellectual capital are, and how they relate to knowledge in action, or know-how.
It's actually pretty straightforward, but its taken me a long time to see the simplicity of it.
Don
KMProfessor.com
Is KM a metadiscipline?
Here is a slide of an expert territory of mine, which I need to see as a metadiscipline because it aims to connect openly with every valuable thread of organisational governance of trust-flow
Some questions, I would like to raise. Do we agree that we need some metadisciplines to help translate across all the intangibles of the knowledge worker and organisational value in a network age? and beyond to implications of open boundaries beyond the organsiation's current one to social and human capital in communities/constituencies it impacts? , eg through developing and being develoed by their knowledge??
Do some of the practices which transparency needs to interface with match ones knowledge needs to interface with? -and how well connected are knowledge and transparency through such core common practical applications as those in the left column for developing the organsiation's system and those in the right hand column for innovation and colaboration architectures?
Has anyone begun to make a metadisciplinary listing of practical approaches within KM's scope and if so could we see it?
SNAP: could we agree that you can only ever get half of a formal ed in KM?
Snap, Don.
I would love it if we could sign up some academics to the slogan KM is a discipline where you can only get half of it by formal education.
What sorts of things do I mean by this:
great questioning is as important as great answering , especially if you want to grow participation of other human beings rather than close off your community to those who are already insiders
isnt it the case that knowledge's value dynamic is by being open rather than closing off? this might be the defining difference becasue its the totally opposite dynamic from that assumed by industrial age economics or policy
the context or the practice is where the value gets activated; the generality can help as a translation to get a fast start but is a disaster if you believe it provides the whole application in ways that humans in the context should be force fed (whether by technology or bossy command)
the value of KM paradoxically - at least for the rest of my life - will be to stay open as a metadiscipline to others, and so that people keep building higher; after all there's a dynamic that mathematicians might call integration - namely what knowledge can do (and even what the next great boundary for learning knowledge will be) depends on at least 2 infrastructures:
all the existing net-usbale tools commonly in use
all the people understanding so far common enough to be able to up-value to the next level of organisational intelligence
so this is why I would like to ask eductaors (profs of km etc) to join us in the slogan of you can only get half of KM by formal edu
any takers? (by the way I expct there are another 20 reasons to say snap - anyone got some more)
do we need a new way to think
Einstein once said that we could never solve our present day problems using the same mentality that created them. Therefore we would have to develop heightened awareness etc to address them.
Speaking from experience, I've always been more interested in the big questions than the big answers. Because the big questions allow us to ruminate, to consider how 'we' might respond, using our own intelligence, our own creativity, and our own ability to search out and find the best answers.
This kind of approach, also speaking from experience, is rarely taught in school. So we've become a society of non-thinkers, where we have to literally go outside the societal norms and figure things out for ourselves, for the most part. Schools always have an important place in our lives, but not when it comes to 'thinking'. They give us the rudiments.
Which is what attracted me to KM. Now, here's a subject that hasn't been subjegated. And for good reason. Managing knowledge, first and foremost, requires that we think for ourselves. It's really that simple. You can't really manage knowledge. But you can manage the process that manages knowledge - thinking.
So getting a formal education in KM is a bit of a slippery slope. If it smacks too much of traditional ways of explaining and absorbing the right answers, it's not KM.
Don
KMProfessor.com
do we need new way to think? would we know if we did?
This converation extract is mainly going on here
but I thought it might be worth mixing here too:
have you looked into this before? (if there are already bookmarks, please tell us) is there a point we need to explore?
There are several obvious choices for answers to the question of why this question isn't asked any more:
1. We might have been able to put humans on the moon in 1969, but not today. Good point. And the reason for this circumstance — lack of political will, and the community of know-how it took NASA a decade to assemble, not lack of technical capabilities — is instructive.
There is no market for solving social problems, and it isn't the business of government to get into the technology or any other kind of business.
Throwing technology at problems can be helpful, but the fundamental problems are political and economic and rooted in human nature
There's some truth to each of these answers, yet they all fall short because all assume that we know how to think about technology. Just because we know how to make things doesn't guarantee that we know what those things will do to us.
Perhaps knowing how to think about technology is a skill we will have to teach ourselves the way we taught ourselves previous new ways of thinking such as mathematics, logic, and science.
A few centuries ago, a few people began questioning the assumption that people knew how to think about the physical world. Neither philosophy nor religion seemed to be able to stave off famine and epidemic. The enlightenment was about a new method for thinking... the way of asking and testing questions known as science...
The Duality of knowledge, and what is knowledge, info and data
Hi Chris,
Here's what my take on knowledge, information and data are. It's a bit of a different take, which I summarize in my paper The Formula for KM. You can download it here
Knowledge is a thought or idea that comes into existence when it's encapsulated by information + data. So knowledge, information and data co-exist at the same moment. All three are required. Take away one aspect, the others vanish. Now, why is this?
Because information and data are always linked together. For example, the knowledge I'm conveying via this email is made up of the words I'm using (information) and the words are made up of letters of the alphabet (data). But knowledge could not exist without the information and data.
It's a wholistic relationship.
Don Mezei
KMProfessor.com
has anyone asked Nonaka directly?
1) My guess is that what western researchers call tacit knowledge is not what Nonaka means by it in his Japanaese context
2) Because of that I believe deeply that tacit is better than eg technology if you are going to take one lens but I don't care to read much about western views of tacit knowledge; indeed I can never understand what the terms of reference are: individual, organisational, human/social as in both organisational and human knowledge is contextualised by country; Panama might not lead the world on manythings but when it comes to water canal systems everyone in the world goes to them
3) personally I'd get much more emotionally alive on this controversy if we began with tacit knowledge unmanagement - a much more interesting scope to start finding western meaning with ??
The debate on Tacit and Explicit Knowledge
It has been a while since I tuned into this thread and the topic seems to have wandered off of the original theme of the influence of culture on the definition of knowledge work.
However, discussion of tacit and explicit knowledge seem to be the order of the day in a number of groups at the moment, so for what it is worth here are my thoughts on the topic, which seem to fall in line with those of Don Mezei.
Those interested in the detail of the argument can find more in the recent paper by Paul Hildreth and myself called "The Duality of Knowledge":
In the introduction to the paper we say:
It is not our intention in this paper to prolong the seemingly interminable debate as to what constitutes knowledge, what is data and what is information. Our position is that this debate, although intellectually stimulating, is ultimately fruitless
I guess this is really sums up our view on this topic – as long as we continue to argue about what is and what is not tacit knowledge we are missing the wider point that tacit and explicit are inextricably linked. Thinking of one in isolation from the other in KM is a sure route to disappointment and failure.
The bulk of the paper is concerned with the analysis of the supposed tacit – explicit dichotomy, Nonaka and the so-called knowledge conversion process and, of course, Polanyi and his view of tacit (implicit) knowledge.
The conclusion of our analysis is that all of these approaches (including those that focus exclusively on tacit knowledge) are flawed, because in reality tacit and explicit knowledge are inseparable. One can not exist without the other: both need to be taken into account. Knowledge is in fact a duality.
wonderful comment Don
It let me see lots of connections
Yellow Card Mr Grohn - I invite you to tell us what you really want - click this thread to do so
tacit knowledge
Laurie,
Pure tacit and explicit knowledge don't, in my opinion, exist. Knowledge is always holistic.
Don
KMProfessor.com
Knowledge is like electricity
It's a form of energy, hence power, that we encapsulate using language, symbols, materials etc. We call it tacit when we can't define it, and explicit when we give it an external meaning. But knowledge itself is like a force that flows throughout, and provides the outline, of what our reality is.
part 2
At Entovation.com we will learn that there is nothing to hold, when we have the knowledge and we can (use) manage it, so we can do anything we think. We have to work on the borders of our mind to see the full potential." (Maciewski)
Individuals, organizations and nations alike must reestablish their 'Value Quotient' based upon knowledge-driven innovation. Entitlement is dead Exploitation of non-renewable natural resources is not sustainable, use knowledge and experience to create a new balance between need and resources on a global scale." (Macnamara)
Knowledge is comparable (but not identical or similar) with 'material' and 'energy'. Economy is always based upon knowledge." (Mahdjoubi)
A world in which you can access knowledge and use it to create value without restrictions." (Malpartida)
A new value-system in which people are motivated to exchange knowledge and do collaborative work." (Mercier-Laurent)
A World in which man would be at the service of man and not using him for his own benefit." (Montero)
An economy that works for the people, by the people, and of the people. An economy that is not controlled or led, but supports a decent living for all." (Preiss)
wonderful debrief on what knowledge work is -part 1
Whilst this bookmark here is not a new bookmark, its kind of wonderful to be a fly on the wall of what 100 experts discuss as being the history and future of the knowledge worker concept. Of course, if you have another bookmark where another 100 experts debrief us, let's see it
Here are a few quotes picked almost randomly from this gracious assembly's vision of what we can now all help to make possible:
Unlimited opportunity to make a difference." (Ackerman)
Knowledge is more important than raw material." (Al Subyani)
A world full of satisfied stakeholder." (Bart)
An economy grounded solidly in moral and ethical standards." (Benetiz)
The vacuum of ignorance is filled with understanding, world is freed from poverty, disease and violence, people are stimulated and satisfied by learning and innovation" (Brewer)
A world without nations, just human beings working for the common good." (Calderon)
The emergence of a global consciousness, a critical mass of individuals realizing the potential of knowledge to leverage a universal process of sustainable development." (Carillo)
Knowledge is shared all along the value and supply chain, using stakeholders as a source of knowledge." (Chiaromonte)
The government can act as an articulator and promoter of the interaction process (across government, companies and universities), aiming at the generation of innovation." (Cunha)
Really treat education as a national asset that is planned for and managed in innovative ways." (Davenport)
New meaning to the importance of combining human capital and structural capital." (Edvinsson)
Knowledge Economy, in a paradoxical way, is becoming the most equalizing force in the world/the West acquiring a humility which helps us become better citizens of the earth." (Evans)
Multinational groups with members out of different disciplines, forming and disbanding around their subjects of interest, enabling collaboration and innovation, both international and national/local, where valued intangibles materialize in increased quantity." (Fazekas)
I have a dream - technology will be our first resource to reach vast amounts of our population to allow them to access qualified knowledge without current limitations they are now facing." (Fernandez)
The more I give you, the more I have. The more I change, the more I have to change, I do not negotiate a contract, I negotiate a relationship. Thus, the invisible hand of the market must be accompanied by an invisible handshake." (Formica)
Real knowledge management is about the flow of meaning." (Kilpi)
With knowledge being a universal language, this is a form of economy which will promote collaboration rather than competition or conflict, and one that promotes a business environment that reduces wastage of earth resources and human years due to replication and re-inventing wheels, insecurity and isolation." (Lau)
what is quality of learning
I'd like to hear other people's views as it seems to me one of those basic questions which goes on to frame what you think knowledge management is. But some of the things I would grade learning on for employees within a learning organisation are:
-1-whether there is an elearning system that provides 360 degree appraisal- you would have to research all the possibilities this includes but its very different in its openness from previous appraisal systems. So managers are appraised by those they manage as well as vice versa. Patterns of appraisal are used to suggest next training. If someone disagrees with a next training suggestion, they can take an online test and see how their grade compares with others who have taken the test. Much of what anyone in the company has ever found useful is bookmarked within the system
-2- whether the organisation rewards those who learn and how it steers learning relevant within practice communities (this assumes however that the practice communites have been designed as horizontal structures rooted in the practice situation); here we come to whether CoP and all other learning structures have been designed for the benefit of action learning for employees, or as some old management facade. The point being that when a CoP is applied fully in an organisation , it is revolutionary in that it is buying horizontal learning time outside the remit of old command and control management strictures - especially those measured by accountants' numbers which are known to destroy intangibles productivity. Whereas a CoP facade wastes everyone's time and learning energies by being of the hierarchy even while it is sold in as being situated.
-3- How much learning is done on the job; how much co-learning is done from the job; how is relemtless consistency of purpose of the organisation helping employees prepare their lifelong journey plans? eg if the organisation goes through a major change, does it give employees as much notioce and relearning help as possible
-4- Ultimately you could appraise an organisation as to whether it treats knowledge workers as learners or as costs. That segmentation would give you many more clues about best and worst quality of learning as systemised in today's organisations.
In the above, I have used some of the vocabulary of "learning organisation". If you feel unfamiliar with learning organisation systems but want to know more let's start an egroup
too good to miss?
I thought there was something too good to miss from this extract:
Mark Feenstra at discussion group of http://www.learning-org.com
I suggest, for the purposes of this forum, that by their learning learners
create knowledge about how to take effective action to create the results
they desire.
Knowledge is a fruit of their learning. The quality of this knowledge is a
direct function of the quality of their learning. The value of such
knowledge can be found by assessing its utility to assist learners to
apply this knowledge in the future to create results they desire.
A second fruit of their learning is the results they create, which will be
what they desire if the necessary ingredients are applied appropriately,
as Mark points out. A couple of further important ingredients in the
process of creating desired results might be any relevant contextual
circumstances over which learners have little/no influence and the quality
of the systems and processes underpinning the way work is done that
learners were not free to change.
d) the many dimensions of openness
...which include being able to see why my head isnt ever going to be imprisoned by your value system (ie will it keep on growing and if not how much care will you take to prepare everyone in it to see before it runs out of steam)
please explain incubating often
...it sounds interesting - does it include in its values ideas like openness, iteration, questioning being as important as answering, seeing alll stakeholders transparently, doing the opposite of 5-year planning?
I ask because I am not sure I know wthat the values of ancubator angel are; I havent worked with enough of these to know
what is knowledge work
Knowledge is the impetus behind everything we do. Whether its solitary, or working within a group, the motivation and direction our work takes can be characterized by the knowledge impetus behind it.
Don Mezei
kmprofessor.com
Top ten characteristics of knowledge work
b) Formulating questions as well as answering them.
this decade's responsibility for knowledge's 4th revolution
You may wish to consider the 4 ages of knowledge revolution and you part in the fourth one
top 10 characteristics defining knowledge work
We're inviting nominations for what should be in this top 10 and later we can take a communal vote
First nomination in from the fun threaders:
a) being in control of one's own time
some useful stuff to know about flow
Most value today in companies is flowing. In other words to separate it into a quarterly period is sleight of hand. To do that you compound rules that trash human beings or worsen behaviors. A way to trash human bseings is to cut emp[loyees becasue accounting rules shows them up only as costs - rather stange way to treat whomever is the knowledge worker who is comning up with your bext great innovation. A way to worsen behaviors is to reward those who do not share knowledge - most timesheets and incentive schemes compound this vicious flow
Equally relationships flow. So for example in a service industry, research shows that if for example you ask front line service employees whether customers are getting happier, their predictions are usually right on
There are also human physiological reasons why eg fun and trust flow as in the Goleman cited research on the bottom left hand column of the EI front page.
So flow can be a very valuable construct to start inquiring about if you want to know
creative knowledge work
Some slides on te creative and fun persectives of knowledge work are available here.
This includes serious stuff on flow - the oft neglected currency of social participation, which I wouldnt neglect if I were a researcher
global festival of knowledge
Seems like there was an around the world of knowledge 24 hour marathon at http://www.entovation.com/whatsnew/globalization.htm
Forgive me for having a favourite in such a multicultural festical:
Thomas F. Malone (NCS). Formerly at MIT and now with North Carolina State, most recently he has been catalyzing an effort with the National Academy of Sciences in the Americas. An article of his CIENCIA Y TECNOLOGIA HOY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TODAY CIENCIA E TECNOLOGIA HOJE1 is available upon request (Tfmalone@aol.com). He suggested in closing remarks that this is a defining moment in our history where the issues of values are involved.
"I believe we are at a historical choice point in determining the kind of world our children's children will inherit. If we make these choices based only on the models of our industrial-age past, we will almost certainly miss the true opportunities before us. Knowledge does have the potential to create economic sustainability in our society. The path to a prosperous, sustainable, and equitable society is long, winding, and difficult, but a start can now be made with a knowledge-based and human-centered strategy. This strategy empowers individuals to renew rather than degrade the physical and biological environment, aid to enrich rather than impoverish the social and cultural environment. Entry into this knowledge society will require new patterns of collaboration among the scholarly disciplines. New modes of partnership must also be established among all levels of government, academia, business and industry, and local community organizations."
Berlin next stop
Lauri, en passant - i hope nov 14 wasn't the end of the thread you cite; I understood 100 people are coming to Berlin to continue the theme of Angel networking late January (whether the rtds and FPs are what they choose to discuss is due to be "open spaced")
Meanwhile, I think there are some slightly bigger issues that we should keep a focus on-
A : Knowledge worlds can be those where "if we share, we can win"
B: There is something in the essence of “sharing” that captures much of the philosophies we are all attempting to demonstrate but also distances our approaches from the Taylorist philosophies of control and command and knowledge equals power. However, it remains to be seen as to whether these latter philosophies remain the dominant outcomes of Business Schools as they were for so much of the 20th century, or whether they will be a new generation of business leaders who share our sense of purpose
C: I think it was Buckminster Fuller who first said that technology will be mankind's final examination. My interpretation is if we DON'T use the ubiquitous connectivity of this knowledge to share... we don't have a future. Quite a responsibility for our generation to have but equally one which many futurists have been advising us to anticipate about now (give or take one or two RP cycles.)
let's get FP6 out of the way
As far as this thread is concerned, I only want simple comments on FP6 (of the sort that do not require pople to read 60 page documents). And only one per person until other people have had a go.
For example, as a taxpayer I would have the concern that FP6 seems to be sponsored by a vision of using the most expensive technologies; I would forward the motion that this is not where knowledge productivity of any widespread social or human capital value will be this decade. And even if it there is some value in such advanced tech scenarios, they are nothing to do with this thread's inquiry as to how knowledge work envelops everyone.
If someone wants to start an FP6 thread and can begin it with a short list of intelligible questions that an average person can understand without having to read reams of documents, that I am happy to try such a thread out at this sig.
Regarding RTDs only one per person. And the starting place is to volunteer to take questions about the RTD not to splurge all sorts of comments about that RTD
For people who want to talk about something other than these things that sound like a robot studfarm gone wild out of starwars, please do lets get back to knowledge planet earth.
Lest we forget a focus of Euro K-development is
Angels' values and RTDs.
Straight out, as sig-moderator I'm very comfy with taking any questions people may have on the Angel's values but I quickly get lost in the 10 RTDs. If anyone would like to nominate themself as an allcomer's question replier for one of the RTD's please tell me which of the 10 you volunteer to be Angel guardian for within this sig.
In order to create an integrating effect, the network's principles will be to:
build on smart relationships
act as a living system
to be open, transparent, excellent
to think big.
The Key RTD Priority Areas for European business could be the following:
RTD Area 1. Emphasise Knowledge Advantage: Understand and emphasise practical ap-proaches to gaining knowledge advantage.
RTD Area 2. Explore Winning Knowledge Strategies, Competencies and Leadership: Consider and explore the linkages and requirements of a winning KM strategy, knowledge-based compe-tencies and the influence of leadership.
RTD Area 3. Establish Flourishing Knowledge Environments: Investigate those environments, which foster the knowledge creation and communication within living systems.
RTD Area 4. Learn about Knowledge Networks, Connections and Community Dynamics: Iden-tify, develop and evaluate appropriate approaches, methods and tools for KM in small and me-dium organisations, for eLancers, and for networked workers.
RTD Area 5. Design Enhanced Knowledge Flows: Identify knowledge flows that enhance the value within business processes.
RTD Area 6. Mobilise Knowledge Activity: Consider the aspects and requirements of mobile KM.
RTD Area 7. Stimulate Knowledgeable People: Consider the aspects and requirements of people to people KM.
RTD Area 8. Unlock Technological Potential: Analyse, Design and Develop those core techno-logical fields with a bright future potential for enabling knowledge-based work.
RTD Area 9. Develop Mechanisms for Harvesting Knowledge: Understand the implications and develop practical solutions for harvesting knowledge.
RTD Area 10. Ensure Quality of Knowledge Efforts: Look for ways to make sure that quality of any knowledge management efforts are boosted, through certification, standardisation and guide-lines.
http://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=82324
http://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=82339
Learning from the experiences gained in a variety of clustering activities and thematic networks in the 4th and 5th FP, and in particular by learning lessons from one of its most prospering communities, the European Knowledge Management Forum, KA wants to support a new way of researching KM in Europe.
Real Cool
http://www.ottoscharmer.com/downloads2.htm
Gustavsen's account of cross-institutional democratic dialogues in Sweden in order to develop “learning regions” is a good example forwhat we refer to as community action research. In short, community action research places as much emphasis on building cross-organizational learning communities as on undertaking action research projects.
Such communities grow from common purpose, shared principles, and common understanding of the knowledge-creating process. The purpose, building knowledge for institutional and social change, defines why the community exists. Shared principles establish deep beliefs and ground rules for being a member of
the community. Understanding the knowledge creating process enables everyone to see how their efforts fit within a larger system — a continuing cycle of creating theory, tools, and practical know-how — and how they inter-depend on one another.
Today, this knowledge-creating system is profoundly fragmented in the fields of
management and institutional change. The consequences are ivory tower university research disconnected from practical needs (Levin and Greenwood, Chapter 9), consulting projects that generate intellectually appealing change strategies that never get implemented, and “flavor of the month” management initiatives that lack any underlying theory or long-term strategic coherence and engender more cynicism than commitment within organizations.
The ultimate consequence of this fragmentation is the inability of Industrial Age institutions of all sorts — corporations, schools and universities, and public and non-profit organizations — to adapt to the realities of the present day. Especially in times of deep change, sustaining adaptive institutional responses requires better theory,method and practical know-how. But bringing the theory of community action research to life involves conditions that are only just now being understood. It starts with genuine commitment on the part of a group of managerial practitioners from diverse organizations, consultants and researchers to work together. It further requires an agreed upon system of self governance and learning infrastructures that enable relationship building,collaborative projects, and sharing insights across the entire community and beyond. Lastly, it entails appreciating and encouraging emergent learning networks that arise in ways that can be neither predicted nor controlled.
vip
very important paper to stretch our imaginations of knowledge. if you read it, please do cut and paste either a bit you like best. or least or one you want to question. Ta!
http://www.dialogonleadership.org/WhitePaper.pdf
The physical, dialogic-social, and intellectual-spiritual qualities of places are foundationalin transforming organizations. A good ba, says Nonaka, is characterized by the
following five elements:
- Self-organization, with its own intention, direction, and mission. Participants in a ba, says Nonaka, must "get involved and cannot be mere onlookers." A good ba needs creative chaos, care, and love, as well as intention and direction.
- An open boundary. An open boundary allows for both cocooning74—i.e., developing one’s own context—and openness to other contexts.
- Transcending the habitual patterns of time, space, and self. Ba lets participants share time and space and transcend their own limited perspectives or boundaries.
- Multi-discipline and multi-viewpoint dialogues. A good place enables essential
dialogues, which allow participants to see themselves through one another. The quality of the conversations we create is one of the most important measures of the quality of place and the health of an organization.
- Equal access to the center and maximum capacity with minimum conflict. Every
participant in a good place, says Nonaka, is at the same distance from the center.However, the center is not a fixed point. "In a ba, anyone has the potential to be a center, and the center can change as the context evolves. Ba as a sphere is constantly moving."
on another tack...
one might argue there's little point in any knowledge work unless we use our communal knowledge to live up to the founding purpose that the EU was conceived in - explore this Neighborhood thread to discover what that was
top 10 knowledge omnibus spaces
You will find some contenders in column k0 of the grid on right hand side of this sig's homepage; each may be worth a visit to get its perspective of knowledge; equally, your vote on what the top 10 bookmarks should be are most welcome. Entry no 4 in k0 is new today, thanks to Chris Kimble via NGO sig. Whilst browsing I sited an article on Practice Communities by Verna Allee.
seemed good to me..
http://www.odnetwork.org/odponline/vol32n4/knowledgenets.html
Extract:
Champion new ethics and values. Perhaps most important is an opportunity for OD practitioners to champion the new ethics and values that are at the heart of a knowledge-based enterprise. Knowledge cannot grow where there is no trust. At the core of this new understanding about knowledge and innovation as the key to success lies a very simple ethic that I call the principle of fair exchange. Do people feel they are being treated fairly for the intelligence, creativity, innovation, experience and passion they bring to their work? A fair exchange for knowledge may look somewhat different from culture to culture. Just as communities negotiate their roles and purpose, companies need to negotiate exchanges of knowledge that take place with everyone, both within the company and with the extended enterprise. Further, in this world of instant information, companies are being forced to act from the highest possible levels of integrity with openness, honesty and deep respect. Business tactics that were acceptable in the past destroy trust and erode the social fabric that companies need for success in a knowledge-based economy. OD professionals have an exciting opportunity to champion understanding of the new business fundamentals and the ethical underpinnings for success.
CONCLUSION
Knowledge and learning are now at the heart of strategic thinking about success in the new economy. Sir John Browne, Chief Executive of BP says that "in order to generate extraordinary value for shareholders, a company has to learn better than its competitors and apply that knowledge throughout its businesses faster and more widely than they do." BP, like many other companies, is supporting learning and knowledge by focusing on communities of practice.
Of course, we have much more excellent stuff on:
Cops at Sig on CoPs
Trust at Sig on Trust
For those who see Trust as something they want to research for a long time, one of our wings is emerging as a global Network of Practice
continuing
Thanks everyone for making this thread full of learning content and humanity. Long may we learn from our deep strengths and our diverse ones. Now, I realise that though quite a capable networker I'm one of the more superficial KM experts around this space. I would like to stress that if people see an emerging topic area that they believe a whole sig needs forming around and which they are passionate enough to develop solely or through co-content managing, please do feel free to make such nominations any time. I have no official weight but I'll put all that I have around supporting plurality of sigs wherever there is communal and passionate inquiry.
Please note two of the wonderful sigs we already have in case they might interest any of Babu's prospective co-workers and other people:
http://www.knowledgeboard.com/community/zones/sig/research.html - our KM student researchers around the world
http://www.knowledgeboard.com/community/zones/sig/kmap.html -everyone interested in KM in Asia Pacific
It's fine to mention other communities you spend a lot of time in if you are passionate enough about their cause, and eg prepared to help guide any interest K'Board newcomers around them. A topic I regard of huge importance being rehearsed by friends in India - some I've openly known for years is a social and openly productive strategy for India in a 21st C world. Bookmark begins at: http://www.egroups.com/group/strategyindia
In part this group emerged from the triad of social capital discussions our sig started at http://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=94246&d=1&h=417&f=56&dateformat=%o%20%B%20%Y
and you may know I believe it is vital that a spectrum of K'Boarders get involved in debating the Knowledge Society vision of the European Commissioner of Employment and Social Affairs http://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=95100&d=1&h=417&f=56&dateformat=%o%20%B%20%Y
These issues are too big not to have people who practice community and networking informing their development spaces. If amongst our 3500 members we dont find those able to flow into these great policy areas, we'll be wasting our time on small bits rather than big pictures of the knowledge century -one being to make K'Board a world's greatest open co-content managing community. This claim isnt intended to be boastful; if you know of a better one, tell us where, and let's go...A secret of Knowledge work is that time is a very precious thing... I don't ever want to link people to time-wasting spaces
Nice, educated people
I think everyone in the forum have proved they are nice and educated people.
Many thanks to Chris for his encouragement and thanks to Lauri for showing his good intentions.
I think we are going to see several interesting debates in the forums here.
Babu
Great Debate
Hi All,
There have been some fantastic comments, and I have learnt a great deal about a lot of people and how they think.
Thanks!
A very good friend Tony Jackson once said,
“At a time when an accelerating wave of change continues to transform everything we do; it will take exceptional individuals to create and embrace change and to have the vision to see that people and organisations need to continually re-invent themselves through cycles of powerful change.
If you recognise that the development of your peoples commitment and ability to learn can be matched by the organisations capacity to harness that learning, then you can achieve the most critical business revolution, in allowing people to achieve personal and business goals.”
Education is emotional and soulful. It is personal.
There are some exceptional people in this SiG.
Thanks again!
Routine work
I thought I should clarify what I meant by "routine work":
Software programming is treated as technical work but once you have a good foundation in programming, you will begin to feel that you need to do some routine stuff without innovative thinking. However, most programmers don't focus on building a good foundation and therefore even a routine work will appear challenging(or even innovative) to them.
To build a world-class product, the best method is to build a strong architecture so that a complex task could be split into several simple tasks. Each simple task can be accomplished by a normal engineer. Of course, the engineer will find a simple task interesting and challenging when he is doing it for the first time. But to me, it will be a "routine work".
Hope this clarifies.
Babu
softworld@pppinfotech.com
Ethics of Babu's model?
Though my business is running well, my company size is less than 15 employees and I don't intend to increase my size for the next two or three years.
My Ethics
=========
Netscape web browser was written by University students for a paltry sum of $7 per hour(I guess). The company made millions but these programmers did not gain anything.
In my case, I developed 100% of the software single-handledly for the first two years. Once my software products became stable and gained market recognition, I started hiring students for my research and development. Most of my employees travel abroad after working under me for a couple of years or less. When they leave, they express their gratefulness for nurturing them.
They(fresh graduates) were also paid normal salaries.
Babu
softworld@pppinfotech.com
oh dear...
Lauri
Did you make the last remark from any basis of knowledge? I guess you'll be advising me next to take the EU to court for the slave labour rates I get paid to moderate
I am not sure whether Babu is the first person to have graced these boards from India, but I would have hoped we Europeans could be more welcoming.
I like fierce debate about content -and what knowledge is - but I will not accept unfriendly remarks about people
chris
centres of ignorance - part 2
Douglas: You’ve just described what I have been calling connect and collect. When a person has a business problem and needs to talk with somebody else to help solve the
problem, he or she is often reluctant to expose any ignorance. So you first need to provide a knowledge base that people can access for answers before they expose themselves by saying, "I don’t know how to do this." But you want to have some threshold above which they are encouraged to ask those kinds of questions. That’s where the real
creativity comes in. The best thing that I’ve ever experienced is when somebody asks a question and we go late
Hal: I think we all recognize that organizations are constantly changing but they do not know where they are moving.
Micahel: You have to find a way to make it possible for people, when faced with unanticipated problems, to try something new; to ask, "Has anyone else run into this before?"—and get answers into the night trying to find answers. But we need follow
up: New insight and successful improvisation need to be communicated to other people. A way to accomplish this is to collect such conversations from the small groups that
engage them and feed it back into some distribution mechanism. I call it a knowledge base, some repository that is instantly accessible to the organization.
Gary: I see two people talking to one another about a problem that elicits innovation and having the salient points captured and made available—but not just the pieces of
information, but the dynamics of the conversation that resulted in the creative solution.
Michael: What we are talking about demands an enormously difficult cultural change within the organization. You have to get people to trust and to reveal their ignorance.
Sometimes people are reluctant to give up what they know and share it. Sometimes managers are reluctant to let people experiment. But I think any organization that is serious about KM must face the reality that it entails really hard work at cultural change management
centres of ignorance - part 1
Changing tack again when I first started consulting on KM I used to find out quick whether a company was serious by seeing whether they were happy to build c of i
Consequently I love this discussion
Extracts:
Gary: The description of KM that I’ve come to really like is that knowledge is not an attribute of information, but is an attribute of human beings regarding how they use information in their actions.
Yogesh Malhotra [2000] talks about the myths of
knowledge management, such as equating information processing
with KM. Another myth is that, in the context of
business, future success can be predicated on "best practices"
that reflect yesterday’s success. In fact, finding a successful
business model today is based more on your ability
to anticipate surprise in the context of decisionmaking than
following any pattern of past success. So, what is the relationship
between knowledge management and this new
business paradigm that success is based on your ability to
anticipate surprise around decisionmaking?
You have to find a way to make it possible for people, when faced
with unanticipated problems, to try something new; to ask,
"Has anyone else run into this before?"—and get answers
quickly—and to let other people know when they come up
with solutions that work so that the solution becomes available
to others in the organization. This is an enormously difficult
problem to solve. It is at the heart of KM. Whoever figures
it out is going to make a huge amount of money!
.
connect the disconnected - part 3
Norman Macrae (The Economist of 1984):
The 2024 Report: net's first 40 years
Extracts from 1984 preferred future of nets:
Telecommunications are now recognised as the third of the three great transport revolutions that have, in swift succession, transformed society in the past two hundred years. First, were the railways; second the automobile; and third, telecommunications-attached-to-the-computer, which was bound to be the most far-reaching because in telecommunications, once the infrastructure is installed, the cost of use does not depend greatly on distance. So by the early years of the twenty-first century brainworkers - which in rich countries already meant most workers - no longer need to live near their work.
All three revolutions were opposed by the ruling establishments of their time, and therefore emerged fastest where government was weak. All three brought great new freedoms to the common man, but the railway and motor-car ages temporarily made access to capital the most important source of economic power. As most men and women did not like being bossed about by capitalists who could become more powerful because they were born stinking rich, they voted to give greater economic power to governments during the railway and motor-car ages. This was economically inefficient, and also made tyrannies more likely and more terrible. The information revolution was fortunately the exact opposite of the steam engine's industrial revolution and of Henry Ford's mass production automobile revolution in this respect. The steam engine and mass production has made start-up costs for the individual entrepreneur larger and larger, so that in both the steam and automobile ages to quote Bell Canada's Gordon Thompson in the early 1970s, there was 'no way an ordinary citizen could walk into a modern complex factory and use its facilities to construct something useful for himself'. But, as Thompson forecast, the databases of the next decades were places into which every part-time enthusiast could tele-commute. In all jobs connected with the use of information, start-up costs for the individual entrepreneur in 1984-2024 have grown smaller and smaller. It was 'never thus', said Thompson, 'with power shovels and punch presses'.
In consequence, in the TC age, the most important economic resource is no longer ownership of or access to capital, but has become the ability to use readily available knowledge intelligently and entrepreneurially.
connect the disconnected -part 1
the greatest net value comes from innovating this. Just like new trade arose from ships once people realised the world was round; but with one exception , we must keep it open for the world to see that trades are socila relationship good not enslavening.
Babu's story sounded like a great inspiration so I'm extracting parts. Equally I would love to see other stories of hwat people have started to net together
It’s amazing how quickly someone can go from being a computer novice to a successful shareware author. I recently interviewed PPPinfotech founder, Parameshwar Babu, a shareware author who was introduced to the industry only seven years ago. In fact, his father, a lawyer in India, had bought the first family computer only as recently as 1992. While Babu attended college, he began creating Dbase applications for the family business in addition to playing with innovative mathematical and engineering ideas. By the time Babu had graduated from college, his family was sharing two computers. In April of 1997, a mere six months after his graduation, Babu had launched his first networking application, PPPshar. He attributes the time as a very significant step toward his success as he had put in enormous energy sacrificing everything else to make his business successful. Within a year of its launch, the revenues of the application as shareware were supporting the family. He developed PPPshar because he felt the necessity in his home office. He had to find out what skills would be required to develop such an application. He decided to use Java when nobody could say if this language was really suitable for the purpose. He didn’t want to waste too much time studying existing technologies.
Fortunately, it took less than four months to create a stable version of the software. It turned out PPPshar was the first of its kind in Java. PPPshar is an internet connection sharing software described as "...a tiny, yet powerful proxy server that enables you to share a single internet connection of any type among several computers in a home or office network ."
connect the disconnected part 2
continuing Babu's story:
The company, started as PPP, began its operations in 1995 by providing internet training and Java training/projects services for University students. It was just around 150 square feet of office space(initially constructed for his father’s law office). After launching his first product in 1997, he felt the need to increase his company’s infrastructure. to work with him. In 1998, they added another 600 square feet of office space on long-term lease. In 2002, three years of shareware income enabled them to purchase a new office with full residential facilities. Currently, they have about 15 computers in the office and the majority of them are used for training and R&D work.
Babu’s tremendous success stems not so much from successful programs as from making himself an active partner within the community of computer professionals. He’s designed his company around the tenet that to learn, one must teach. Apart from family members, a team of about five to ten programmers (mostly students) work on various projects under Babus’ guidance. This team has been changing every four to six months since the program began in 1998.
In his words, his business is different from other companies in India because almost all companies in India have spent a lot of money in hiring software engineers. "...they just lost their revenues because they had to pay hefty salaries to mediocre programmers. However, I devised a very cost-effective way of managing university students . . . and inspired them to work under me. I built my own modular software architectures but I used my team of people for experimentation and time-consuming work. Software development activities would continue in full swing if my team members were changing frequently."
In India, product development is not an accepted practice. Most companies look forward to contract projects from America and Europe. They feel it’s much easier than developing software products. Babu’s company is one of the few companies in India that is able to sell software products globally....
Big Truths and Small Truths
Lauri- please understand I was trying to paint the big picture with my imperfect memory; I surely said the small details need researching
It is the big picture that is needed to understand the social revolution of all our digital and knowledge working divides; if only technologists, policy makers and leaders saw the whole view before looking for digits to punctuate we might have a knowledge society that communally made sense. Instead they have been bullied out of human-caring knowledge by accountants into herculean micromanagement: as if the last 90 days is a law unto itself. Unfortunately living systems compound dynamics which make such precise looking numbers the liars of leadership. The Result: to cause every disatrous future that comes from being too certain about small digits and not daring to look forward to where to invest in human beings. Such bullying by what mow remains of Big 4 accountants would perhaps be tolerable if their maths embedded open conflict resolution in evey audited decision; instead it does mathematically the opposite and the knowledge-maps of our futures are now more depressing than any time in my 50 years of being.
chris macrae BA Maths !st + Distinction, York, 1972...
Transparency Governance 2002
Incidentally we of 1984 had network visions and in Sweden's Policy Case futures, these were translated about the time you say upon our advice.
timelines of inexperience
I think one of the things you should study and contextualise is our timelines of inexperience. So even in the most advanced country America:
the average internet user has less than 7 years of use of net and its social experience; and the old are less proficient than the young
apart from Amazon, almost no business was done virtually exchanged more than 6 years ago
before early 1990s being networked in large companies was unheard of in most sectors; even office tools like wordprocessing only came in widely with pcs in late 80s
there is as yet not one really good model of virtual and real communities reinforcing each other in ways that franchise from one space to another or one place to another
I dont know how these sorts of virtual things timeline in some of your other countries, but clearly they are even newer, as well as potentialy more social-gap divisive. As the OECD has forecast the net will change career learning needed even more for those currently with least learning access
Part 2 is that not all knowledge work is anything to do with the virtual/digital enabling. Roughly Drucker includes in knowledge work virtual stuff plus all service stuff plus office stuff plus in effect any work where a person's value is more for individual talent/craft than for mass subjection to a factory line where individualism (other than energy and compliance) had no merit. By this broad defintion, probably most western economies were already more knowledge in GDP than non-knowledge before 1990 and nets and webs started to become the extra potential multiplier. The simple point to begin with here is that even without digital, managers would have become less and less valuable (without very deep people caring) because more of the actual value productivity has to be managed by the individual who knows his working strengths better than a manger of many people ever can
Early economics and policy scenarios on : intrapreneurial revolution ; net revolution
Governance Revolutions 1and2
The scope of knowledge
Hi,
I'd like to correct myself. It has been noticed that my definition of knowledge is too restrictive and that my trying to define knowledge has also caused concern with a few respondents. I realise 'knowledge' is a very wooly concept and will try to correct myself now.
I have enphasized that knowledge is that which is in the head of an employee (tacit knowledge). However, this definition should also encompass organizational knowledge. There is a difference between that knowledge that an indivudual holds and the knowledge developed, shared and retained by an organization. A company must overcome the barriers to knowledge sharing and create a culture of knowledge sharing. A company must learn how to go through the process of developing -> sharing -> reraining knowledge as important knowledge can be lost when an employee leaves the firm.
While 'how to create a knowledge-creating culture' is out of the scope of my dissertation I will be researching barriers to knowledge creation and sharing.
There is also concern in my definition that knowledge can be stored in physical form, e.g. inside a filing cabinet. But wouldn't this just be information? My confusion with this is well documented in the literature - what is the difference between information and knowledge? Can knowledge be represented in physical form? Everyone in this forum has turned their internal knowledge into a physical/electronic message, does this mean that these messages contain knowledge?
I believe that physical things are information until the reader understands them and internalizes that knowledge. The amount of detail in the physical form, e.g. a memo, will define if this is information or knowledge. If this is simply numbers and data not in context, then this is information. If this information is explained in detail and the reader understands this and internalizes this memo, is it information or knowledge that is written on the memo?
These are quite complex issues and I will have to do more reading to firm up my ideas.
Take care
Jennie
Role of technology
Hi,
Although people are the key to Knowledge Work and Knowledge Management I believe that technology does have a part to play. I'm not too sure to what extent bespoke systems are useful and effective, but I think that communications technology is vital to knowledge sharing especially in non-colacated teams and virtual teams. Email is the one that appears most important to me as it greatly aids communication, even within the same building, e.g. if it is difficult to get hold of someone in person email can be very effective. Things like video and phone conferencing are vital for knowledge sharing in virtual teams. However, some knowledge cannot be conveyed as effectively via email, e.g. intonation, and the communicator may not say everything he wants to say because typing is not as speedy a process as speaking so the dialogue may not be as rich.
Many thanks
Jennie
Role of technology
Most companies spend on IT because everyone else is spending heavily on IT. However, this does not mean technology is unimportant for the growth of an organization.
The real benefits of technology are convenience and cost-effectiveness. KM is an added bonus. As a technology provider, I tell this fact to my clients frankly and they really appreciate that.
Babu - softworld@pppinfotech.com
Technology may not be important to knowledge sharing
This is taken from a weblog:
_____________________________________________
In the recent KM review Catherine Connelly shares results of the study focused on finding factor that are significant predictors of knowledge sharing among employees [more here].
Among other results (not in the article) the following factors were found important:
perceived management commitment to knowledge sharing positive social interaction climate (e.g. feeling easy approaching others with questions) But this one I like more - technology doesn't play a significant role:
...the findings of this study suggest that an organizations' information technology did not significantly affect the amount of knowledge exchange among employees. That is, employees who didn't have access to intranets, repositories or even e-mail were just as likely to share knowledge as their counterparts who had access to a wide variety of information technology (p.7).
______________________________________________
Catherine Connelly's comments are very interesting. I thought that IT was important to knowledge sharing, especially in a business environment. If IT does not effect knowledge sharing as much as I thought why are so many company's Knowledge Management initiatives dependent on developing some sort of technology to support it?
I understand that an organizational culture geared towards knowledge sharing will enhance this but first employees need to get out of the mindset of 'knowledge is power' to enable innovation.
What do you think?
I thought that technological development, which would link to levels of education, would effect Knowledge Work, however this is a case against it.
Jennie
The role of culture in the definition of knowledge
Quality of education, governments and cultural elements do play a great role in shaping knowledge industry. However, with the help of the Internet, it is possible to bypass all barriers - namely lack of quality education, weak governments and cultural narrow-mindness. If you take my lifestyle since 1995, I was able to overcome most limitations caused by the lack of government support. I am now able to think beyond the knowledge imposed by the local culture. You can read how I have been running my business with the help of the Internet from here:
http://www.mailvalley.com/formmail/aspects.htm
I guess there will be a new breed of people who will be shaped by the Internet culture.
Babu - softworld@pppinfotech.com
my favourite knowledge areas
I have to say that from the perspective of someone who organses creativity, emblodens preferred future scenarios of leaders, plans network architectures and cares about botyh the economic and social consequences of corporations I consult with that Debra Amidon's curriculum for knowledge is my home vision. The contents of her latest book the innovation highway read like this:
Part One: The Innovation Frontier
Chapter 1 - A Global Imperative - Sustainability (Why)
Chapter 2 - The Knowledge Value Proposition (What)
Chapter 3 - Migration from Planning to Innovation Strategy (How)
Part Two: Architecting a Future
Chapter 4 - Knowledge Economics
Chapter 5 - Knowledge Structure
Chapter 6 - Knowledge Workers
Chapter 7 - Knowledge Processes
Chapter 8 - Knowledge Processing Technology
Part Three: The Globe as a Network
Chapter 9 - ENTOVATION - A Case Story
Chapter 10 - The E100 Global Momentum of Knowledge Strategy
Chapter 11 - Trends of Innovation Strategy
Part Four: Innovation Leadership in Practice
Chapter 12 - Modern Knowledge Leadership: 7C’s
Chapter 13 - Exemplar Ken Practitioners
Chapter 14 - Evolving Innovation Infrastructures
Part Five The Millennium Vision
Chapter 15 - The Knowledge Millennium Generation
Chapter 16 - Blueprint for 21st Century Innovation
Chapter 17 - Creating the World Trade of Ideas
chris london 0208 540 5304 wcbn007@easynet.co.uk
Focussing the discussion
Hi again,
To focus answers here is what I would like to discuss:
1. What is your personal definition of Knowledge Work and the Knowledge Worker?
2. Do you think that levels of education in a country effect levels of adoption of Knowledge Work and therefore definitions of Knowledge Work? contrasting collectivistic and individualistic societies.
3. Do you think types of rule, e.g. dictatorship vs. democracy effect knowledge sharing and Knowledge Work?
4. Do you think that language affects Knowledge Work, especially in a country that multicultural and multilingual?
My target audience is the UK, Spain and Latin America, however no matter what nationality all answers will help me. In Latin America I am concentrating on Costa Rica and Mexico. If anyone knows anyone or any institutions in these countries that will be willing to share their opinions with me on this topic please let me know. I will be contacting the World Bank and Spanish universities. I have chosen Spanish-speaking countries because I have learnt the language for several years.
I have chosen to concentrate on Costa Rica and Mexico because they have been cited, by the World Bank, as the countries of highest economic growth in Latin America. Costa Rica due to the establishment of Intel and the subsequent interested generated and because of the high level of the English speaking population. I believe Mexico is a high growth area due in a lot of ways to it's proximity to the US and it's size. Although I am concentrating mainly on these two areas all opinions from any part of Latin America will be taken into account.
If you agree or disagree with anything I have said I will be happy to discuss this with you. If you have any questions I will try to answer them as best I can.
I look forward to your replies
Jennie
Introducing myself
Hi everyone,
I just wanted to introduce myself, I'm the student who started off this discussion and I would firstly like to thank everyone for their contributions.
Just to give you an idea as to the reasons behind this project:
I believe my project will help people in understanding the differences between developed and developing countries and how cultural, economic and historical factors can effect a country's adoption of work practices. For example, language, types of government rule and the topography of a country may explain why some countries are more advanced than others. For example, Latin America has had long periods of harsh dictatorship, which has repressed people and made standards of living more difficult. As people have lived with these circumstances for some time they may not share their feelings and ideas with others as freely as in a democratic environment. Knowledge sharing is key to Knowledge Work as this allows a company to progress with innovation and new ideas. However, I have had discussions which refute this theory, one respondent stated that he thought that long periods of dictatorship would aid knowledge sharing in that when the country comes out of a dictatorship people feel much more liberated and much more willing to share knowledge.
Moreover, world debt may mean that Knowledge Work is not being considered to a great extent as there are other pressing matters to deal with first.
The economic climate of a country may explain why some countries define Knowledge Work different to others. For example, a country whose main economy is agriculture may define Knowledge Workers as being workers in this sector, whereas a services intense economy may regard Knowledge Workers as being more to do with businesses and consultancies.
I hope that readers of my project will become more aware of these cultural differences and understand how they affect a country's present situation. I will not be including any advise on how country's can move into the Knowledge Age, rather pointing out the differences between countries which affect levels of Knowledge Work.
If you agree or disagree with anything I have said I will be happy to discuss this with you. If you have any questions I will try to answer them as best I can.
Jennie
Parallel Conversation on Human Capital & World Cultures - part 3
via Jack Yan, New Zealand
A note on this must be made. Like many concepts, the term 'Confucianism' was used improperly as a label to fool the public, especially in times when China was prospering and the emperors worked to institutionalize their power. Sir Humphrey Appleby is not an exclusively English concept. The Sung Dynasty was one such period where art flourished but the innovation of prior centuries did not. I believe Marco Polo hit town around this time. The Chinese had no real desire to do their own expeditions and even when sailing around a few hundred years before Tasman and Cook, were ordered to discontinue future missions. The system was no longer being followed; China saw little duty to spread what it thought was right and instead stagnated. This led to the decline of the empire system and an accepted failure of the emperor's (or empress's) Mandate of Heaven, giving birth to the Republic of 1911. Thanks to the slowness of uniting the country and what a certain other empire claims was a "military exercise" in '33 (I don't think the Americans were told the same thing about Pearl Harbor) and teaches in schools today as "the liberation of Asia", the Republic never got off the ground unless one counts what little of it remains in exile in Taiwan.
Knowledge-sharing can be equally used for the collective good through an individualistic focus. The model may be different today as the nation-state becomes more outmoded. New Zealanders see this every day with the America's Cup. Formula One fans see a German driving a Ferrari and no one really cares about nationality on the racetrack.
Individuals see the benefits of sharing knowledge for global betterment, but the question today is whether the state will reciprocate by permitting free exchange of such knowledge, and whether it will permit a foreign state to make gains over which it sees some national ownership. Enlightened politicians will see that global betterment means a reduction in the potential of regional conflict. Sadly, many will call the transfer of knowledge to other states unpatriotic. The answer does lie in educating our own state first. To quote John Major in 1991 and Tony Blair in 1997: 'Education, education, education.' (Just as applicable: 'Participate, participate, participate.' :)
Parallel Conversation on Human Capital and World Cultures -part 2
via Jack Yan, New Zealand
This definitely does touch upon some Confucian concepts, since they were first offered by the philosopher as societal tools – while preserving the liberty of the individual, or at least, taking into account the way humans act. In that respect, the Analects and a great deal of Confucius's works are both collectivist and individualist. Interestingly, however, Confucius refused to deal with spiritual matters and it is perhaps in this respect (I am open to being corrected) that one could draw the conclusion that his thoughts are more collectivist.
The notion of reciprocity at the individual level extends to the national level (corporations were not really dealt with, bearing in mind that this was the time of Buddha out east and Aristotle out west; the philosophy was targeted at good government – or good governance) in Confucius's view. It would be interesting to see how these concepts extend into knowledge-sharing.
The discussions I have had over the years about the ideas, including with my father who has also read the Analects in its native language and many times more than I have, centres around how willing people are to be educated. If they can be logically convinced that education is good for the advancement of the state, then they will fulfil their duty to learn in return for the state's caring for them, the guarantee of freedom to learn and the opportunity for that learning to be practised to the collective benefit.
There is great appeal for me in these ideas. I believe naturally, or even spiritually, we are inclined to fulfil a purpose; in the language of so many, from spiritual writers and Oprah Winfrey to the US Army, it is about being everything you can be. Confucianism provides a somewhat cold approach to permitting this.
It's where the yin and yang again beg to be noticed. As I mentioned on the Group Partners' Forum, this was the raw appeal of Confucianism which made it so easy to understand in a few millennia before Christ. Perhaps in a very round-about way in answering Chris's question, there is a duality again, between individualist and collectivist: perhaps in a crude way, what is good for all is also good for the one. But the one here does not lose out. It is not Mao's crazed vision where the one never fulfils one's purpose.
A further note on this must be made. (part 3)
Parallel Conversation on Human Capital and Culture - part 1
From Jennifer Yau, York Uni
Hi Chris,
Through reading about the culture, history and economy of each country I have formed many ideas that may affect definitions of Knowledge Work. The economic history and climate of a country is certainly one aspect, however
I will be discussing others. For example, types of society including collectivistic vs. individualistic and how this affects education and levels of Knowledge sharing. Collectivistic societies like Latin America
are more concerned about the group rather than the individual. In this case regarding education the parent is more interested in how the child is interacting in the group and creating social relationships, academic
achievement is almost of secondary concern. This may affect the general level of education of a country and therefore quality of the work force which in turn may affect the quantity of Knowledge Workers. One lady who works in education pointed out that if all countries were on an equal par Latin America may prove better at knowledge sharing as it is a collectivistic society, and they may not have the notion of 'knowledge is power' as in many companies in the UK.
The topography of a country may affect the economy and perhaps definitions of Knowledge Work. E.g. a country that is dependent on an agricultural or services industry may define Knowledge Workers as workers in these industries.
Language may also affect knowledge sharing in that if you have to communicate in a second language your communication may not be as rich as if conducted in your native tongue. Because there are so many languages in Latin America and Spain, to a lesser extent Britain, this may affect knowledge sharing and therefore levels of adoption of Knowledge Work.
These are just a few of my thoughts
Roles, not people
I appreciate the 2X2 is a bit of a cliche. However, I don't think we have to assume that he's classifying people, more the roles that they are fulfilling at any given time.
For example, a call centre rep could be co-opted onto a process improvement group where they'd be operating in a collaborative role.
And as you suggest, managers have to do many transactional functions, but that isn't, or shouldn't be, their primary role.
2X2 world view
That picture by Davenport is a typical product of consultants.
In the real world, working alone and collaboratively, as well doing routine work or more judgemental work alternates. Using computers e.g. managers work more and more alone, doing more and more (secetarial) routine work, managing less and less...
Davenport typology of knowledge work
I wasn't able to attend Thomas Davenport's keynote speech at KM Europe 2002, but I see from the Powerpoint slides that he presented a classification which was new to me, but seems very obvious and natural. Basically it's a 2x2 matrix dimensioned by level of complexity and level of interdependence, which gives 4 types of work.
Transaction (low complexity/interdependence) - e.g. a call centre rep needs knowledge of products and customers. (I'd observe knowledge comes into play here more when exception handling is needed, which is when automated systems fall down)
Integration (low complexity/high interdependence) - e.g. design engineering team. (not sure my engineering husband would agree that's the right choice of example!)
Expert - high complexity, low interdependence (eg physician)
Collaboration - high on both (e.g. a Mergers & Acquisitions team)
Each of these types of work has different knowledge challenges.
http://www.kmeurope.com/presentations.asp
Grading knowledge by connecting creative human spirit too
Please keep the ideas on knowledge, especially as they are contextualised by national or other cultures rolling in. I am most comfy not with there being one knowledge but many ways in which knowledge does stuff; and then we come to what's done that is of most value. Here at least in the organisational sense, it seems to me that valuable knowledge is the stuff of connections and relationships between people which patterns behaviour that is valued more than another lesser pattern. This comparative suggestion may sound unimportant until you clearly see that in organisational systems: knowledge patterns compound stuff, and in recent times not only have many large organisations specialised in stuff of doubtful human value, but in many cases where numbers or technology took over from any grounding inhuman common sense - extraordinary acts of value destruction flow thus. So whatever knowledge is: its darn important to relentlessly make sure its human patterning of the right stuff.
I am not eloquent when speaking of creative spirit and its systemised sustenance; BUT Ed Schein is: as I hope you will agree if you look bottom right of this sig's homepage.
Two frameworks of knowledge, which would you rather?
I’d like to put forward two frameworks for your consideration. Which would you rather? Then we could continue our discussion on knowledge further.
It is very popular to adopt a Leibizean monadological hierarchy of data, information, knowledge and wisdom in the discussion on knowledge. Analogically, it is very easy to perceive that data is just like the inorganic entities or plants that they only possess slight perceptions. Then came information which would correspond to the living animals that could have perceptions. The third is knowledge that is a unique feature of human beings that could perceive clearly. The last but not the least is the God who is omnipotent with his intuition we call wisdom. Parallely, in the actual practice, if we still adopt the terms of ‘knowledge worker’, ‘knowledge manager’ or ‘knowledge officer’ etc, the hierarchy might fall into the following correspondence: data means the tool for the workers with low skill; information is for the middle skilled workers; knowledge needs to be the tools of advanced workers. And wisdom, of course, belongs to the wisest one on top of an organization. Do you agree with me? Don’t you think the hierarchy irrational?
However, if the paradigm of explicit/tacit dichotomy proposed by Polani is adopted, I would raise another question: Is there still anything as knowledge at all? Arguably, the explicit knowledge can be anything expressed such as linguistic statements, mathematical formulae, papers, symbols, figures, etc, namely, the totality of symbols, which can be treated digitally or can be codified, therefore, they are informational. The tacit aspect cannot be expressed as that of the explicit. And it is very hard to tell what it really is. Therefore, the tacit knowledge (if there is any) is by all means private. There is not any common measure to determine what an individual’s mind thinks. The British philosopher T. S. Green had put forward a famous proposition that ‘to know is to relate.’ I think it is very suitable for the tacit aspect. It is not a noun, but a verb. Thus, it is action or process of knowing. One has to relate with his environment to know something. And if this is the case, our mind is nothing but a computer to process both natural and artificial information, then is it still necessary to define knowledge? Maybe this argument is too strong to be accepted, and a weaker version, in my opinion, is only a retreat.
knowledge maybe culturally bound
Hi all
Will write more later cos its an interesting concept. First thoughts are that what constitutes knowledge in different countries is largely dependent on what philosophical base learning springs from. That is the defining of those social institutions (ie Education) that helps to retain and shape the culture of the future. More on that later!!! Secondly it also depends on whether you live in an open or closed society. Closed societies have a tendancy to withhold knowledge, ie not fling it around so liberally as the west, as knowledge is power to be used as a medium of exchange for unobtainable goods or services and to protect the family or tribe!!!
km & Trompenaars
I wonder if any researcer has used Trompenaar's 7 cultural dimensions to try to see through different country's interpretations of knowledge (work)
The recent book 21 leaders for the 21st century is awesome. As well as trying to read between the lines of what company leaders in 21 countries say leadership is about, they instruct anyone who uses their 7 dimensions for profiling national differences to:
1) think through each stereotyping dimension
2) then observe the trouble it causes if you get too literal in use
3) move beyond it
That's actually a great learning process which I can't do justice to in 2000 chars. But I'd better just observe the 7 cultural dimensions for those who may not have had a first intro:
1 Rule-making (Universalism) versus Exception-finding (Particularism)
2 Self-interest & Personal fulfilment (Individualism) versus Group interest and social concerns (Communitarianism)
3 Preference for precise, singular, "hard" standards (Specificity) versus Preference for pervasive, patterned, soft processes (Diffusion)
4 Emotions inhibited (Neutral) versus Emotions expressed (Affective)
5 Status earned through success and track record (Achievement) versus Status ascribed to person's potential, eg age, family, education (Ascription)
6 Control & effective direction comes from within (Inner-directed) versus Control & effective direction comes from outside (Outer-directed)
7 Time is conceived of as a race with passing increments (Sequential) versus Time is conceived as a dance with circular iterations (Synchronous)
Cultural interpretations of knowledge
This issue was recently brought (rather forcibly) to my attention when teaching a group of management students from mainland China. We were discussing the classic "triangle" of data, information and knowledge. The following realisations gradually dawned on me:
1. I was not convinced that there is a 'universal' distinction between the three terms. Certainly, an electronic engineer acquaitance did not agree with my classifications of the first two. The Chinese students were equally baffled.
2. I "synonym-ised" the notion of "information" with management information. The Chinese students (many of whom are Party workers) had a quite different interpreatation.
3. The Chinese tradition of "wisdom" (as evinced by Confucius) is entirely separate.
Knowledge is different from one country to another
It is very interesting to note that you are dealing with such a problem. So far as knowledge is concerned, I took part in the study of the OECD definition of knowledge. However, it is obvious that OECD is very strong at the expression of such a view that the developing countries should learn from the developed countries. And it is thought that is very important, for in China we have to learn much knowledge, whatever you may define, the scientific, technological, managerical and other governmental knowledges. But how to make all of the new things to fit with the milieux of our culture is a great problem. I also hope to have your opinions on this. Therefore, I may draw my conclusion that the knowledge in different countries should have different meanings.
Some of Fred Nickols' extraordinary insights relayed from another conversation
In my experience, what so-called "knowledge engineers" really do is assist the equally so-called "domain experts" in articulating the kind of knowledge that can be articulated (which I refer to as making implicit knowledge explicit). Task analysts have been doing this for more than 100 years. But the tacit knowledge, the kind that can't be articulated, by definition can't be articulated. Another thing knowledge engineers do is devise new routines and processes that typically (a) can be carried out via a program and (b) are consequently much more consistent and cost-effective.
Example: I used to "pick the brains" of claims examiners, insurance underwriters and others who engage in a class of work I call
"adjudication." When done, we usually had one of two products: (1) a set of documented decision-making processes for performing the work in question (usually in the form of flowcharts and decision tables and/or (2) a set of algorithms that could be and often were incorporated into a computer program, thus automating the work previously performed by people. But,unlike some others I could name, not once did I ever think I was capturing
or making tacit knowledge explicit. I was simply devising a work routine that could apply a set of decision-making rules to a specified array of decision-making situations and consistently come up with the correct resolution or underwriting decision.
In response to another's comment:
>That "knowledge management should be more concerned with people" has been
>said since the beginning by many KM specialists: the problem is that they
>could not find ways of HOW TO DO that, how to implement that need (leading
>principle) into sustainable KM solutions.
Fred wrote
I agree that people have often been pointed to as the proper focal point for KM efforts but that is usually in the context of claiming that whatever it is those darn human beings know and however it is that they know it, it
can be captured and locked up in a computer where it can be controlled and managed and disseminated at will by those who run the show. Whether that is because those taking this approach to KM are doing it because they don't know how to do the other (and, by the way, would you be so kind as to enlighten us as to the other approach) or because they genuinely believe in what they're doing or because they're simply jumping on the latest
bandwagon is immaterial. Machine-based KM comes perilously close to being a scam.
(Fred also has a wonderful web site)
Commitment is needed for individuals to knowledge share and act
I have done a lot of work on the purpose of organisational identity and its connections with individuals. I use the phrase "pride and passion" to picture the loop between pride in the whole organisation (and its unique organising purpose) and passion being driven by an individual's self-identity and awareness-match with the organisation. The only knowledges that will always get (remembered to be) actioned are those that match the peson's union of pride and passion. I think this is where knowledge and commitement are human twins. We are talking here about such subliminal loops as recall and discretionary energy to go beyond what the organsiation rewards to what feels vital to do as well as being able to live with your behaviour.
Commitment is especially needed for:
learning and doing
unlearning and doing
sharing beyond your silo or what you are directly rewarded for
taking co-responsibility for each other's actions or communal practices
sharing bad news with the boss
etc
Knowledge workers or Information groupies?
Knowledge-based theory of the firm has never been built on a universal truth of what knowledge really is, but on a pragmatic interest in being able to manage organisational knowledge. (Knowledge into economics)
Epistemologically, should we address the difference between 'tacit' and 'explicit' knowledge by taking into account some of the views more commonly found in literature? - Yes - I also believe that these need to be questioned and crticised.
There does seem to be a prevailing assumption that tacit and explicit are two forms of knowledge.
Are they *really*?
In industry and the public sector, there appears to be two tracks followed with regards to knowledge
1, Commodity
2, Community
Which is right? or is it both?
The terms 'knowledge' and 'information' are quite often used interchangeably, even though the two entities are far from identical.
However, Nonaka (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995) correctly argues that knowledge and information are both about meaning, in the sense that both are context-specific and relational.
Knowledge and information are thus similar in some aspects, but different in some:
While information is more factual, knowledge is about beliefs and commitment. Further, knowledge is always about action - the knowledge must be used to some end.
hi ehsan
If you have time, tell us a bit about your self and culture - which country are you in, and what are the reasopns why people around you feel Km most urgently needs research; what are the first applications you would like to apply KM to?