Mike Jay wrote:
> I hypothesize that knowledge is in fact free and abundant and that knowledge
> is not power. Knowledge by and of itself is worth nothing. ... As an
> organization, we should not be worried about the containment of knowledge and
> information--but how it is connected and transformed into value.
I both agree and disagree with the above statements. If I stick with my
definitions of information and knowledge, then I cannot convince myself
that knowledge is abundant -- information yes, knowledge, no. If
information is a collection of facts, and knowledge does in fact extend
beyond this to encompass "ideas inferred from these facts, and connotes an
understanding of what is known", then to my mind, knowledge is built from
information which has had "value added work" performed on it (hence: not
free).
As for your assessment of "connectivity" and its role in the
transformation of knowledge and information into value -- I totally agree.
It is precisely this issue of connectivity which is the focus of my work
(hobby?). I offer just a few thoughts on this.
"knowledge is Power" -- I still use this as a root principle. (I
apologize for my limited ability to express myself more clearly in my
earlier contribution on this topic). Individual and closely held
knowledge equals individual power. This is the paradigm of the past --
not that it is no longer true, but that it is no longer adaptive. Where
once this paradigm conveyed benefits (no moral connotation) to both the
individual and the organization, this is no longer true. In fact, just
the opposite is true. The old model of the manager/leader knowing
everything that needs to be done and everyone else performs the role of
"worker bees" is not just outdated, it is a survival threat. The new
paradigm must be something like, "Knowledge shared (connected), is
knowledge gained (by the individual AND the organization)".
I wonder how close your concepts on the "transformation" of knowledge and
information into value are to the concepts of Mattias and Peter on
"competence" and the "ability to solve a certain task". This issue of
knowledge being used to create value, or knowledge being integrated into a
competence-based system, are in an area which I think of as "goal-focused
knowledge".
In my work, I deal with knowledge in two very broad divisions. First,
there is the area we've been talking about -- competence and value
oriented knowledge -- or as I call it, "goal-focused knowledge". This is
knowledge that is created, discovered, begged, borrowed (purchased?), etc.
with a PURPOSE in mind. This is the domain of "logistical learning" (not
my term, maybe Senge's?). It is goal/task oriented. It is logistical
because you are collecting things (knowledge) that you know you need. You
know, or have a good idea ahead of time, what knowledge you require; and
maybe even some ideas on how various knowledge streams need to be
connected to generate value or specific competencies (as measured against
movement toward the organizational goal).
The second, and perhaps even more important area for knowledge
exploration/generation, is the area of knowledge that is NOT goal-focused.
This is the domain of "nutritional learning" (again not my term but I
can't remember where it came from). To paraphrase an old saying, I don't
know what knowledge I'm looking for, but I'll know it when I need it.
This is the fuzzy area of "future critical knowledge" that you (the
organization) doesn't know that it doesn't know. From this domain comes
innovation, creativity, and the ability of an organization to be in the
best position to seize opportunities when they suddenly appear and to see
threats far enough in advance to avoid the train wreck.
The interesting thing to me, and the main thrust of my work, is in the
very large cognitive differences between these two knowledge domains. The
processes that support "logistical learning" are quite different from the
processes that support "nutritional learning" -- and this difference
becomes extremely critical in designing computer-enhanced collaboration
and cognition systems (my expression of Mike's Cyberculture).
Got to run. Thanks for your ideas and comments.
--Doug Jones <djones@asheville.cc.nc.us>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>