On the subject of how OL relates to KM.
I don't think Mark's version of this should be accepted as is, without
significant clarification and context. Reader's might well be seduced into
doing so, since his contributions on "2 generations of KM" and "supply vs.
demand side KM" are so cogent and useful.
Here's my thought and concern:
on one level it (intellectually) it doesn't matter what names we give to
the work, if we understand what work we are talking about -- creation of
new K, individ. learning, collectively testing and selectively integrating
new K, disseminating, documenting, building learning skills, strengthening
relationships, etc. ALL of this can be considered OL, or ALL of it can be
(less convincingly IMHO) defined as KM. Or we can argue till the cows come
home about where to draw the line, sharing the wealth as it were.
on another level (the economics and politics of our livelihoods as workers
in these vineyards) it matters a lot -- and you don't have to be much of a
marxist to suppose that this concern may be behind some of the former
discussion. Specifically, what I mean is that IF I have identified myself
professionally (thru publications, membership of organizations, titles of
projects that people associate me with) with "OL" I naturally tend to see
this work thru OL glasses and frames, with KM as subordinate -- picking up
certain pieces of the work, but not the core; my main mental models for
this are those of OL; conversely, card-carrying "KM' folks the reverse.
No prizes for spotting that I'm am in the OL camp on this. One of the big
differences between the two sets of mental models, which I think
differentiate OL and KM approaches, is a process (OL) versus a
product-focus (KM). OK, they are two sides of the coin. We know this; Mark
surely does. But many of the unsophisticated proponents of "KM" are not.
These are the people who give KM a bad name and give me nightmares.
The notion of "knowledge" as something that can be "captured", stored,
replicated cheaply is a very powerful notion (and a valid one, within
limits) -- not just for "get-rich-quick" merchants, but also to economic
historians, anthropologists and other "big thinkers". But it's a dangerous
way of thinking and we have to tread carefully, lest it blow up in our
faces when we are under pressure to produce rapid results for short-term,
shallow thinkers. Is it just my imagination, or has it become much harder
to make an honest living as a consultant in this field?
>> Can someone tell me the relationships (or differences) between
>> organisational learning and knowledge management please? it seems to me
>> they are interchangeable terms.
>>
>> Lee
>>
>> [Host's Note: I don't see these two terms as interchangable. I'll let
>> others comment and will add more when I can. ..Rick]
>
>Lee:
>
>I agree with Rick. While the two terms are indeed closely related, there
>is a difference. Organizational learning refers to the social process by
>which organizational knowledge is created (i.e., collectively- or
>mutually-held knowledge). Knowledge management, on the other hand, is a
>management discipline that seeks to facilitate or enhance organizational
>learning through a variety of people, process and technology
>interventions. You could think of knowledge management as "organizational
>learning PROCESS management."
...snip by your host...
--BARRY SUGARMAN <sugarman@mail.lesley.edu>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>