Replying to LO30538 --
Dear Hal:
Thank you for raising this most important issue. I co-teach an
advanced class on Knowledge Management and have also written three
books on the subject. I subscribe to the definitional view expressed
in all of these forums under the rubric of 'The New Knowledge
Management.' Here are my thoughts on the distinction you make, or
propose:
- Knowledge is actually a type of information in the sense that it
contains assertions about things, or for things.
- I take your reference to "facts" to mean claims about the world, or
about circumstances in your business. These are descriptive
assertions about things that exist. They attempt to describe states
of affairs.
- When you say knowledge is what to "DO" about facts, I take this to
mean that knowledge, in your view, argues for what ought to be, or how
to do something. It is, in this regard, an argument FOR something.
It is well known in semiotics that language is used, among other
things, to make descriptions and arguments. These are the two senses
I see you using in your "Facts" versus "DO" distinction. What this
means is that BOTH statements about what things are and how to do
something can be either information or knowledge. Why? Because it is
not the semantic content of a claim that makes it information or
knowledge; rather, it is something else.
The something else I speak of here is veracity, or truth. Above I
said knowledge is a type of information. More specifically, knowledge
is a type of information whose semantic content we believe to be true.
Remember, just because you say something is a fact or that 'X' is the
right way or best way to do something, doesn't make it true. You
might be wrong; most of us often are. What we need is a way of
distinguishing between claims that are true, false, or undecided.
This is where the knowledge distinction comes into play.
A claim (of either type you describe) that has been made, but not yet
tested and evaluated, is "just information." A claim that has been
made and falsified is "false information." A claim that has been made
and which survives our tests and evaluations is "true information," or
"knowledge." What makes it knowledge is our belief in its veracity,
and not its content, per se.
But truth is fleeting and uncertain. What we regard as true today, we
may think of as false tomorrow. This is not because true claims can't
or don't exist. Rather, it's because we cannot know the truth with
certainty -- we are fallible in this regard. The best we can do is
try and get close to it, but even then we can't be sure that we ever
have.
Bottom line? Knowledge is a type of information -- it is information
consisting of claims that we believe are true. So from my
perspective, assuming the "facts" and the "Do" statements you
referenced above are viewed by your organization as both true, they
are both knowledge, and not "just information." But then again,
knowledge is a type of information, so they are both.
Regards,
Mark
Mark W. McElroy
President, KMCI, Inc. [www.kmci.org]
CEO, Macroinnovation Associates, LLC [www.macroinnovation.com]
(802) 436-2250
>From: GaltJohn44@aol.com
>
>I have been "lurking" here for many months and would like to start a new
>thread for those whom are interested.
>
>At my company we have a somewhat novel definition of knowledge and
>information.
>
>Assertion: Information gives you the "facts" - knowledge tells you what to
>DO about the facts.
[..snip by your host..]
--"Mark W. McElroy" <mmcelroy@vermontel.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.