At 14:55 23-07-1999 -0400, Mark W. McElroy wrote:
>In the current issue of Knowledge Management Magazine, Peter Senge is
>quoted as having detected " 'a second wave of knowledge management' that
>addresses some of the same critical issues SoL members have been
>struggling with -- the sustainable creation, transfer and dissipation of
>organizational knowledge."
>
>Having just completed a white paper on the subject of SGKM and its
>impending influence on organizational learning and innovation, I'd like to
>offer a copy of that paper to anyone who might be interested in tracking
>this exciting development. Just let me know by e-mail and I'll send you a
>copy.
First at all, I would like to thank Mark for sending me, at my request, a
copy of his paper, that I found very enlightening, indeed. I will try to
explain why but that, I am afraid, is not easy.
[I think that for all of you to fully understand the reason I found the
paper so interesting I would have to explain my background, my work in
these last 15 years as a consultant for "Strategic Information Systems
Planning", the type of "model" a use for creating an "Information
Architecture" (a business process model and an information model, I mean)
for the companies I consult with (as a first step for I/S planning), the
reason why I become interested in LOs (after reading, as you can imagine,
Arie de Gues's HBR article on "Planning as Learning"), the reason why I
first became interested in KM, and why I felt dismayed with it; how I
decided to give away KM concepts and how I have tried to develop a
"Knowledge Architecture" (again a "knowledge processes" and a "knowledge
information" model) as part of a greater Enterprise Architecture. I will
not try to do that now - first because I am not sure if that is of any
interest to the list (even if, IMHO, this relates closely to "how to
create an LO" - but that is only my opinion, or my "model"); secondly,
because I think that the majority of you do not understand Portuguese...
So I will make only a more limited comment].
After reading some of the papers and books about KM published until 2-3
years, I become completely uninterested in the subject. If KM is about how
to "code" and disseminate previously known Knowledge, or about to buy some
more "Knowledge IT products", no thanks.
I have followed partially some previous discussions about KM in this list.
I have learnt that one could even be "certified" in what I was considering
"useless KM" (my error, I am afraid).
It is true that I found VERY INTERESTING the fact that Ed Swanstrom and
Mike were trying to incorporate an anthropological (dynamic) view to KM
(and some of their "references" were also my references - even if
Watzlawick (*) was not included in them...) But (my error, again) I have
not been able to understand how this could apply to KM as I saw it in the
papers and practices.
It was (for me) very interesting that it was a "name" that allowed me to
"see". What took my attention was Mark's title: A "second generation KM"
must be something different from the "first generation KM", wouldn't you
agree?
I quote from Mark's paper (suppressing one word I don't like):
"It's not Knowledge management; it's Knowledge PROCESS Management" that we
must care about. And that includes, of course, not only "Knowledge
dissemination", but also "Knowledge creation/production" (including
"validation").
[Really, and even if I don't like the expression, I felt a bit "stupid" -
because Mike had already used the expression "Knowledge process
management" in a previous mail, and that was indeed very close to what I
was trying to do - so why couldn't I SEE IT, in the previous message?
I am sorry if this personal comment is (or seems to be) out of subject.
But I found it enlightening about a very close subject - why sometimes we
can't understand "the contents and practices" of a fellow learner, not
only when he/she is saying something we disagree with, but EVEN when
he/she is saying something we should agree with...
Piaget wrote one day that "Data is not given to us; it depends on the
theory that allows us (or doesn't allow us) to see it". The quotation is
even more interesting in French: "les donnees (data) ne nous sont pas
donnes (given);...".]
A final quotation from Marks's paper:
"Information systems and business processes, then, have much in common.
Both are nothing more than codified expressions of organisational
knowledge".
Exactly; that's why, coming from "IS and Business processes", I became
interested in "organisational knowledge", in first place...
Regards
Artur
(*) Just to complement Ed's references
Watzlawick, Paul (and others) (1974) Change - Principles of Problem
Formation and Problem Resolution. W.W. Norton, New York.
--Artur F Silva <artsilva@individual.eunet.pt>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>