psue@inforamp.net wrote:
> I think this is as close as you can get to a chicken and egg argument
> without the chicken and the egg.
Agreed. I suspect we could could on for millenia and still not feel that
we've resolved the question. On the other hand, if we simply stopped
asking, would our purpose be lost?
> I had said "suppose you know only one way to get from A to B". So if you
> ask me if I know how to get from A to B, and I responded by describing
> that route, and then ended with "but the bridge is out", then I'd say I
> USED to know, but I don't know now.
I suspect that buried in this is a means of understanding a meaningful
difference between information and knowledge. Knowledge is more than just
information--I perceive it as a capacity for being able to select and
combine information in ways that are immediately useful. For example,
should someone "know only one way", they may be well-informed but not
necessarily knowledgeable. In this sense, I consider knowledge as the
capacity to derive deeper levels of understanding from the information
available, even to the extent that it drives the search for other
information. What you call 'previous knowledge' in your example, I refer
to simply as information. I describe knowledge as the capacity to make
use of that information within the moment of its application. In this
context, I do not equate 'awareness' with 'knowledge'--the essence of
awareness lies in being informed, while the essence of knowledge lies in
the capacity to act upon that information in a purposeful way.
> >While information is defineable in terms of its structure and its
> >elements, knowledge is not. I would argue that knowledge is then not a
> >'quantifiable' thing but instead a Complex Adaptive System that by its
> >nature arises from the interaction of information, reflection, intent and
> >action. From that point of view, the term 'knowledge management' is
> >indeed useless techno-babble. Instead, I would urge us to learn how to
> >'manage our organizations for knowledge' rather than trying to manage
> >knowledge itself.
>
> I agree completely. I think we're stuck with knowledge management until
> the understanding catches up. I think "knowledge husbandry" comes closer,
> but it could also give the wrong impression.
I beleive neither term does the issue justice, although I'm ill-equipped
to provide a resolution. My concern is less with what we call it and more
what we understand the term to mean. If we mean to express the idea that
knowledge can be treated as a 'thing', either tangible or abstract, then I
am troubled. If on the other hand, we intend knowledge as a 'state of
being', then I am less troubled (but no more certain).
Instead of setting our organizations upon a path of managing/husbanding
knowledge, what if we were to set ourselves in the direction of
managing/husdanding 'knowing'? Where the former is aimed at managing
'thoughts', the latter aims at managing 'thinking'. Taken from my basis
in understanding the dynamics of complex adaptive systems, I suspect our
future--as individuals, as companies, and as a human race--lies in the
latter rather than the former.
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>