Hi Tony,
I did not mean to say that A or AA = KM. And you are right about the use
of the term "KM." It is only been used deliberately over the last few
years by some anthropologists, though several have used the term in
general discussions for at least 20 years, if not longer. But when they
use it, they are using it to refer to the same issues that many
anthropologists have been studying for over a century. When I was at the
University of Washington in the 1970s, several of us in used the phrase
"knowledge governance" and just as easily switched to the term "knowledge
management" to refer to mechanisms within a culture that influence the
production, acquisition, and transmission of knowledge. Thanks to the
press, the term "Knowledge Management" seems to have stuck. No thanks to
the press, IT professionals are trying to claim the territory with a
narrow perspective.
As I was writing this response, I found a book in my collection called
"Anthropology of Organizations" Ed. by Susan Wright (1994). There is a
chapter on "Managing Knowledge" and in that chapter is a reference to an
article on "IKS and Knowledge Management: Utilizing indigenous knowledge
in institutional knowledge systems." (1989). I am sure if I dig deeper,
the term might be found in print in the 1970s. Regardless of the term, the
questions that the term refers to are they same ones asked by
Anthropologists since the 1800s.
>... anthropologists would not presume that organizations 'have
>culture'; rather organizations are cultures. To take the former view
>leads to presumptions such as - some organizations have more culture than
>others, culture can be measured, culture is either good or bad.
I did not mean to imply otherwise. Also, I also did not mean to imply that
KM = culture. The mechanisms involved in transmitting cultural knowledge
are mechanisms of KM. BTW -- M. Mead seems to go so far as equate culture
with knowledge; the two being intertwined.
I was using the word "applied" in the same sense as applying the knowledge
gained from scientific research to change or effect something; "applied"
used in the same sense as "Applied Science." Anthropologists, and other
social sciences, have collected a body of knowledge that is extremely
useful in helping KM practitioners develop tools, measures, and methods to
improve KM processes. I believe that KM practitioners should take the
point of view of an anthropologist, but they also intentionally try to
change the KM processes, therefore "applying" that knowledge toward
knowledge process improvement.
I heard a news story recently that there seems to be a trend where many
companies are starting to hire applied anthropologists to help them
understand and improve the business. Xerox and Hallmark are the names of
two companies mentioned.
The real point of my use of the word "Applied Anthropology" was to look at
KM in the same way as an anthropologist studies knowledge governing
mechanisms within a culture and "Apply" this knowledge to help
organizations do KM better. We are not trying to become applied
anthropologists.
Ed
Edward Swanstrom
President/CEO
Knowledge Management Consortium International
B (301) 590-0102
F (301) 519-9197
swanstrom.e@km.org
http://km.org
--"Ed Swanstrom" <swanstrom.e@km.org>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>