Replying to a number of posts on this subject ....
Central to any debate about knowledge and information are the working
definitions that each participant has of these terms. Without agreement,
there is the danger that each of us merely gets satisfaction about being
right, without really furthering understanding of the subject.
Definitions are not divinely ordained, i.e. there is no inherently right
definition. Therefore I believe that definitions should be judged firstly
by their general concordance with common usage and dictionary definition
(this is admittedly difficult with an international community such as
ours), and secondly by their utility.
The American Heritage Dictionary (AHD) defines knowledge as "familiarity,
awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study". The
Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines knowledge as "familiarity gained
by experience". The Gage Canadian Dictionary (GCD) defines knowledge as
that which "applies to all that one knows and understands of facts and
general truths and principles, whether gained from books and teachers or
by personal experience and observation". These definitions suggest that
knowledge exists in people (and also artificial intelligence systems to
some extent). Therefore, a "knowledge database" is an oxymoron. In the
knowledge literature, this type of knowledge is also more explicitly
referred to as "tacit knowledge".
AHD defines information "is usually construed as being narrower in scope
than knowledge; it often implies a collection of facts and data". GCD
defines information as that which "applies to things one has learned
through having been told by people or books or through observation, and
often suggests isolated or unrelated facts". OED defines information as
"items of knowledge". These definitions suggest that information can
exist externally to people, for example, as writing on paper, or as data
in a database. Information is also referred to as "explicit knowledge".
By these definitions, knowledge and information are essentially different.
You need knowledge to comprehend information, e.g. knowledge of medicine
is required to understand the information in a medical reference text.
The utility of these definitions lie in the fact that they represent
concepts that differ in essense.
The AHD defines perishable as "subject to decay, spoilage, or
destruction'. Can we agree that knowledge has perished if it is no longer
usable?
Regarding whether knowledge is perishable:
John Dentico said (LO20602):
> I mean knowledge is perishable, what is needed is the
> ability to create, recreate, and apply learning.
> I mean really, is the knowledge we use today going to
> be the same knowledge we need six months from now ...
Stephen Wehrenberg said (L020656):
>Some knowledge is perishable, and I'm sure you are referring
>to that type ... things like competitor's sales tactics, stakeholders'
>concerns in implementing a particular policy, etc.
I agree with Stephen's clarification. Knowledge is relative to the real
world. When the real world changes, knowledge about that part of the real
can perish. The same is true for information. For example, suppose you
know only one way to get from A to B, that includes crossing a bridge. If
the bridge collapses, do you still know how to get from A to B?
Debbie Blackman said (LO20902):
>Reading both of these I was interested to work out what you consider to be
>the difference between information and knowledge. It seems to me that what
>you mean by 'perishable knowledge' is really information and that this is
>where much confusion is arising.
By the definitions above, 'perishable knowledge' is --not-- 'information'.
Doc Holloway wrote (LO20925):
>I think that it's possible to store this knowledge using
>knowledge management technology, is it not? .... Perhaps knowledge is
less >perishable than the method with which we "manage" its' storage and
retrieval?
Explicit knowledge, i.e. information, can be stored. Let's say it's on a
PC's hard drive, if the hard drive blows up, has the information perished?
What if you had a backup?
It looks like knowledge can perish in two ways:
1. the real world changes, and the previous knowledge about the changed
part of the real world perishes (becomes unusable)
2. the last person that held that knowledge loses it (dies, suffers from
Alzheimers's Disease, etc.)
Steve Swan wrote (LO20636):
>That raises the question, are we talking about knowledge
>management or information management? A difference? I hope so.
>
>Any ideas on a research project? Good question. As I get closer to
>completing course work and must focus on a dissertation topic, the more I
>am captured by the distinction of information and knowledge management. I
>see something here.
>
>Hypothesis forming. The ability of the individual or group to discern
>relevant knowledge is related to the ability to identify types of
>information. This process then enables the individual or group to form a
>specific strategy of knowledge management, directed to a single or group
>of goals, objectives and outcomes.
I think there IS a difference between knowledge management and information
management.
You can't directly manage (tacit) knowledge, since it's in people's heads.
You can directly manage information, which exists in databases and document
repositories (hard copy in libraries, soft copy on disk drives).
--"Patrick Sue" <psue@inforamp.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>