Dick:
I am quite concerned about what some might call "the commercialization of
KM." But I don't see the problem as "commercialization" so much as
reductionism. Equating KM with software solutions is like associating
composition with MS Word or equating art with canvas! My concern is that
the *management* of *knowledge* will be lost to the storage, analysis, and
dissemination of facts. I'm afraid that companies will start their KM
initiative by looking at software systems.
Silver did this himself in the statement you quoted:
"The basic confusion...comes about because we've allowed a single term
[KM] to embrace a whole raft of disparate technology products..."
I would say instead that the confusion comes because "Knowledge
Management" has been used to embrace technology products at all. KM is
not a technology. It is a humanities discipline, such as Psychology or
Philosophy. And just as computers can be used to facilitate psychological
assessments, computers can be used to facilitate some parts of the
management of knowledge. But calling certain technologies KM is like
calling Myers-Briggs assessment software Psychology. [I guess I've used up
my daily allotment of metaphors for today].
I do share Silver's frustration over the seemingly endless dialog in
attempting to define "knowledge." That's like ... [just kidding; no
metaphor]. But if we ARE going to call it "knowledge management," we do
need to have a good hold on what both "knowledge" and "management" mean.
So the wearisome dialog is not without merit. The problem, it seems to me,
is that so many people are saying the same thing in their own words, each
looking for wide acceptance of their own definition. It's more a vanity
thing than a definition thing. I think there really is broad agreement of
what knowledge is. Adding to the dilemma is that "knowledge" is such a
multifaceted concept that something new pops up as soon as one thinks he
has a complete definition. I guess we could go on until we re-invent
cognitive science. To think we can wrap up several millennia of history on
"knowledge" definition throughout philosophy, psychology, cognitive
sciences, etc. in a one-paragraph glossary entry is ludicrous. We just
need a working definition that's pretty close.
I have to concur with Bruce Silver's self-assessment that he was just
ranting, not really writing. The substance of the article is just
identifying four types of knowledge: Operational, Collaborative, External
("knowledge about the world"), and Customer knowledge.
OK, let's assume these cover everything (which they do not do by any
means). So much for knowledge, we might agree. But what about management?
See, the *management* part is what seems to be overlooked so often. I have
on my desk a stack of unread magazines, books, and articles, most of which
are about Knowledge Management. These contain a huge amount of good
quality information. The information has been taxonomized (it's all
related to a single field and has tables of contents, titles, and indexes
that categorize it further). It has been transferred to me (by mail) and
is presented in an attractive and usable format. It even has relevance
(this is the field I am most interested in and I read every chance I get).
But it just sits there. I have no time to look through it all. And it
remains "information" at best but has done nothing to increase my
knowledge.
In the world of the theoretical I'm rooting for the leaders who are
looking at other words to supplement "knowledge" -- words like "wisdom"
and "meaning" and "value" and "purpose." I think they are on the right
track.
In the practical world, I'm watching the culturalists -- the ones who are
doing everything that can possibly be done to manage knowledge apart from
technology and then using technology to assist in the gaps.
In the technology sector I respect the vendors that strive to *support*
the management of knowledge rather than *define* it. The ones who are as
concerned with the whole human-centered process as with where their
products fit in are at the top of my lists.
--J.B. Bryant Knowledge Strategist Chemical Abstracts Service (614) 447-3838 ext. 2503 jbryant@cas.org
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>