J.B. Bryant wrote:
>KM is
>not a technology. It is a humanities discipline, such as Psychology or
>Philosophy.
My dictionary defines psychology as "the study of the mind and the ways of
thought", and philosophy as "the study of the truth or principles
underlying all knowledge; study of the most general causes and principles
of the universe". [Am I the only person that uses dictionary
definitions?] Therefore I disagree that KM is a discipline such as
psychology or philosophy, since it's not about studying anything.
>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.
Do we have a working definition? Who has it? And what is it? I think
we've gotten pretty close to one with the discussion thread "KM in whose
hands? Ha!".
>I have on my desk a stack of unread magazines, books, and articles, ....
>I have no time to look through it all. And it
>remains "information" at best but has done nothing to increase my
>knowledge.
Consistent with "the" definition of knowledge!
--Patrick Sue <psue@inforamp.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>