>... 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."
Mark, what is the definition of "knowledge" in the modern KM arena?
I follow Senge and others in using: Knowledge is the capacity for
effective action. That is, it's "know-how" not "knowing facts." Learning
is an increase in knowledge.
Even if you define the term "knowledge" otherwise (e.g. as information
relevant to effective action or decision), we are all ultimately
interested in effective action.
And, this leads us to the question: Just how does one person's capacity
for effective action get "transferred" to another person. Or even more
generally, how does that capacity arise in another person?
And, to another question: How does capacity arise in a group? (This would
be organizational learning.)
>I also find it useful to distinguish between "supply-side" KM versus
>"demand-side KM." Supply-side KM focuses mainly on knowledge capture,
>codification and sharing, while demand-side KM focuses more on knowledge
>creation. KM strategies that reflect a balance between the two are more
>effective in the long run.
I like this distinction.
Then one difference is that Org Learning is quite interested in knowledge
creation (learning) and tends to dismiss capture, codification and sharing
as missing important elements. OL tends to think that KM underestimates
the degree to which knowledge is tacit (vs. explicit), underestimates the
need for practice, repetition, and coaching, in creating abilities, etc.
The exaggerated version of this bias is an unpleasant stereotype... That
KM is a short-sighted attempt to capture anything convenient, place it in
databases, focus on the computer system and not the knowledge system, etc.
This bias comes from experience with short-sighted efforts that were
labeled "knowledge management." I propose we acknowledge these as
in-effective attempts at KM, just as there have been ineffective attempts
at OL.
Setting aside the extremes... and ineffective approaches... I still feel
that KM is much more confident about the ability to transfer knowledge
from one person to another by passing information. Or more precisely,
about the importance of the passed information in creating the capacity
for effective action in another individual. OL sees this as a big question
mark. I can explain to you how to hit a golf ball, but that won't help you
very much. Some, but not much.
>From prior msgs by you, Ed Swanstron and others, and from reading Nonaka &
Takeuchi, I believe there's a forward-thinking KM community which is
addressing these points and that there is a basis for a very fertile
interchange between the KM and OL commuinities.
So... In summary, I think that
- OL defines "knowledge" differently, as the capacity for effective
action.
- OL concentrates on knowledge creation.
- KM has balanced concentration on creation and on capture,
codification and sharing.
- KM is more confident about transfering knowledge from one person to
another
- OL wants to look at a collective capacity that's more than the sum
of the capabilities of the individuals (e.g. the creative capacity of
a product development team to solve problems and create a terrific
product). I believe KM is more focused on spreading individual
capacities throughout a group (e.g. so that everyone knows how to
perform a certain operation individually).
- OL believes that something has to change in the individuals (pers
orientation, abilities in the learning disciplines, together these are
sometimes called "transformation") in order that learning occur in the
group.
- OL (in extreme) thinks that KM people are naively thinking that
just putting stuff in a computer system will actually help someone.
- KM (in extreme) thinks that OL is just a soft bunch of theorizers
and won't try anything practical.
- To make progress, each community will have to step up beyond the
biases now carried about the other community.
>In sum, human organizations are learning, knowledge production systems.
>Organizational learning theory helps us understand how such learning
>happens from a social system perspective. Knowledge management is the
>applied science of helping organizations reach their full learning
>potential by either removing barriers to effective learning and/or by
>strengthening, if not amplifying, natural knowledge processes that account
>for the production, validation and diffusion of new knowledge in human
>social systems. KM is the practice side of OL.
Yes, and... OL people would say that we focus on practice as well!
I think both OL and KM are focusing on achieving meaningful results
and improvement, as measured by the organization involved.
-=- Rick
--Richard Karash ("Rick") | <http://world.std.com/~rkarash> Speaker, Facilitator, Trainer | mailto:Richard@Karash.com "Towards learning organizations" | Host for Learning-Org Discussion (617)227-0106, fax (617)523-3839 | <http://www.learning-org.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>