BARRY SUGARMAN wrote:
> 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.
Barry:
As I read through your post, I kept waiting for the "clarification and
context." It never arrived. Beyond the inference that my views might be
influenced by what I do for a living (whose aren't? and so what?) what,
specifically, do you question about the points I made on the difference
between KM and OL? Seriously, I'd like us all to get this important issue
resolved so we can move on. Until we do, as you so aptly observed, it
makes it difficult to "make an honest living as a consultant in this
field." Allow me to provide you with some additional fodder for thought.
The definitions I put forth are based on the following logic:
a) Learning amounts to the creation of new knowledge in the minds of
individuals and in the minds of GROUPS of individuals;
b) The creation of mutually-held knowledge in the minds of groups of
individuals strikes me as a suitable definition for what we all mean when
we say "organizational learning";
c) Group learning can be traced to processes that account for the anatomy
of learning which you described rather well, I think: "...creation of new
K, individ. learning, collectively testing and selectively integrating new
K, disseminating, documenting, building learning skills, strengthening
relationships, etc." At IBM, we're attempting to depict precisely the
linds of things you list in a learning process framework that will give us
the ability to make intelligent consulting recommendations based on their
likely effects on parts of, and the whole, learning process. The
descriptive form of that model is nearly complete. Would you (and others)
like to see it? The PREscriptive extension of our model will be done in
January.
d) Organizational learning is what ORGANIZATIONS do; knowledge management
is what a certain class of MANAGEMENT PRACTITIONERS do in their attempts
to influence the rate and success of organizational learning (i.e., for
their "clients"). The former is the subject group, the latter is the
applied science that's provided to the subject to help improve its
performance (its learning performance). Another way to think of it is
that organizations learn with or without KM, much less being subjected to
KM interventions. On the other hand, not all organizations learn well --
or as well as they could. The practice of KM is an attempt to help
dysfunctional organizational learners learn better, or up to their full
potential. To do this, KM focuses on organizational learning PROCESSES
with an emphasis on strengthening or reinforcing those processes, or in
some cases by amplifying them.
e) The importance of focusing on organizational learning processes in the
practice of KM is why I continue to claim that what we should all be
talking about is not knowledge management, but knowledge PROCESS
management! We can't manage knowledge, but we can manage the process
conditions by which knowledge is created in the minds of individuals and
groups of individuals.
Comments on the above are most welcome.
Mark
Regards,
Mark
--"Mark W. McElroy" <mmcelroy@vermontel.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>