James La Trobe-Bateman wrote:
> I like Eli Goldratt's definition of Information: "the answer to the
> question asked". But on what basis do you ask questions? It seems to me
> that our questions are based on our own (tacit) knowledge. The
> consultant, then, uses his knowledge (about manufacturing, say) to get the
> client to pose questions which he has led the client to pose, so that the
> appropriate DATA is collected. Armed with this INFORMATION, the client
> then UNDERSTANDS (explicitly) and takes WISE action. However, it all
> started with the consultant's KNOWLEDGE.
I also held a similar viewpoint regarding the
data/information/knowledge/understanding/wisdom taxonomy for much of my
life. Sadly, though, I abandoned it several years ago in favor of an
alternative and (I believe) much more effective construct. Your proposed
notion that information begets understanding I find deeply flawed,
especially when you factor the role of the consultant's knowledge into the
equation. My perception of the consultant's role is not that they should
provide the client with the questions--their knowledge of manufacturing in
your example is irrelevant to increasing the client's understanding--but
rather to provide the client with the means of formulating more relevant
questions.
By providing the client with the questions, the consultant may well
improve the quality and quantity of the client's knowledge, but they will
likely have done little or nothing to improve their understanding.
Information is not understanding. In fact, information can act to detroy
understanding if it is incorrect, out of context, or simply so voluminous
as to be overwhelming. The implications your the proposed taxonomy are
profound.
Personally, I find the knowledge discussion a bit of a trap. Knowledge is
fleeting and substantially a function of 'experience within the moment'.
Instead, I try to concentrate my clients efforts on improving the quality
of their thinking not by trying to accumulate more knowledge but by
operating from within a framework that dynamically incorporates 1.)
information--as a reflection of the breadth of an individual's or an
organization's knowledge; 2.) perspective--as a reflection of that
individual's or organization's experience; 3.) insight--as a reflection
of the quality of a person's or organization's judgment; and 4.) reach--as
a reflection of the extent or impact of the person's or organization's
actions. Taken together as related nodes within a system where each node
affects each of the others dynamically, it becomes possible for the client
to begin to concenrate their efforts on improving the quality of the
questions they ask. With a little practice, they rapidly find themselves
producing meaningful ansewers such as they've never known before--without
the consultant present!
For what it's worth, Goldratt's definition still holds, only now the
experiential dimension is added.
> Sounds like leading them on. Should the consultant feel guilty?
As the saying goes, it takes two to tango. The consultant should feel
guilty, but only if they are misleading the client into thinking that they
have an understanding. In my experinece, however, many (most?) business
clients don't want understanding, they simply want answers. Rather, I
suggest the client should feel guilty for outsourcing their thinking.
> Does it make him/her a Knowledge Manager?
Under no circumstances. Imagine for a moment what it would feel like to
hand over your personal 'knowledge' to another to be 'managed' on your
behalf. For myself at least, this sounds like the most preposterous
notion I can imagine. The only knowledge that can be managed is your own.
I can, however, envision an organization where the benefits of one's
knowledge can be widely shared. In my humble opinion, knowledge cannot be
taken separately from the human mind. The means of sharing one's personal
knowledge derive from a state of mind that respects
information/perspective/insight/reach as the principal dynamic of its
organizational ethos.
I use the term ethos very carefully here. In this context, I intend ethos
to serve as a reflection of "all that a person or organization acts or
desires to create, preserve and protect." Carl Jung theorized that "the
mind does not oscillate between right and wrong, but between sense and
nonsense." An organizational ethos based on having the 'right' answer
becomes inflexible and incapable of adaptation and evolutionary survival.
Conversely, an ethos which is based in making sense is much more capable
of leading to an organization that is that can make decisions and take
actions that are truly meaningful within a dynamic and rapidly changing
business climate. An organization based on such an ethos understands
inherently the value of making knowledge everybody's business. In fact,
it may well lead to an organization where knowledge is the business.
Cheers, Arnold
--Arnold Wytenburg <arnold@originalthinking.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>