Patrick:
-----1-----
I feel the need to respond to this, but I hope this part of the discussion
doesn't take the limelight of this thread as I think there's more substance
in here than this disagreement.
I said:
=======
KM is not a technology. It is a humanities discipline, such as Psychology
or Philosophy.
In reply, you said:
===================
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.
My current reply:
=================
There are two problems I see here.
(1) You are missing my primary point: My focus was on KM not being a
technology.
(2) You defined the wrong word. You consulted Webster's on "psychology"
and "philosophy." My point was simply that those are disciplines and that
KM is also a discipline. So you should have looked up "discipline." Here
it is, from "Webster's New World Dictionary - 3rd edition":
DISCIPLINE
1. A branch of knowledge or learning
2. a) training that develops self-control, character, or orderliness and
efficiency...
3. The result of such training or control; specif., a) self-control or
orderly conduct...
4. A system of rules...
5. Treatment that corrects or punishes
Now, tell me what about those words does not apply to KM? The "..."
scattered throughout are parts of the definition that are primarily about
its meaning in the punitive sense.
"Knowledge Management" is the discipline of managing knowledge, and THAT
requires a whole heck of a lot more than technology to accomplish. In
fact, it doesn't even REQUIRE technology, though it certainly can be
facilitated by it.
"Organizational Learning" is likewise a discipline.
-----2-----
I said:
=======
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.
In reply, you said:
===================
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!".
My current reply:
=================
Sorry, I have not followed this thread and don't have time right now to go
back and read it. I'd be happy to read a short summary of it if you want to
provide one. How does that thread define "knowledge" (not "knowledge
management")?
I didn't say that we have a working definition, I just said that one would
suffice. I like the statement by some author in something I once read, but I
have lost the source: "We all know what knowledge is, even if we can't agree
on its definition." I think that's basically correct. When it comes down to
it, I believe we all do know what it is, and if we were competent at putting
it in words we'd find out we are pretty much in agreement. Webster's (the
dictionary, not Dick Webster who started this thread) definition isn't bad
either.
My biggest concern in addressing this is that, though my nature yanks me
hard toward the theoretical, I want us to get past the theory to the
application. If I spend all my time defining knowledge I'll never get down
to the point of managing it.
J.B. Bryant
Knowledge Strategist
Chemical Abstracts Service
(614) 447-3838 ext. 2503
jbryant@cas.org
--"Bryant, JB" <jbryant@cas.org>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>