At 4:30 PM -0500 12/13/99, Mark W. McElroy wrote:
>Richard Karash wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Rick:
>
>Ultimately, the question you raise is an epistemological one.
>Philosophers through the ages have wrestled with the "nature of knowledge"
>problem for centuries...
>...snip... the KMC's current definition of knowledge is one
>that I personally subscribe to. According to this
>complexity-theory-inspired definition, knowledge - strictly speaking -
>cannot be defined, per se, but can be REPRESENTED in the form of rules and
>rule sets. ...snip...
Thanks, Mark, for the thoughtful response...
Let me play this back in the terms I use... I think we are in
complete agreement.
1. What we are REALLY interested in is the capacity for effective action.
2. There is great debate about what it requires to have the capacity
for effective action.
3. I think you are using the word "knowledge" to refer to that
portion of the ingredients for effective action that can be codified
or "represented".
I just wanted to be clear about the terms.
As I mentioned earlier, I use the term "knowledge" differently; I'm using
"knowledge" to mean the capacity for effective action, and "learning" to
mean an increase in knowledge. I'm not trying to win you over, but I like
the fact that my definitions are not circular.
It still leaves open the big question of what it takes to have the
capacity for effective action.
I think we all agree, both KM and OL communities, that there are two
major components to what is required to have the capacity for
effective action. We probably don't use the same terms. Following
Nonaka and Michael Polanyi, I describe these two major components as:
- Explicit Knowledge: the part that can be stated, written down,
codified. I think this is exactly what you are referring to as the
part that can be represented. I don't know if your modifier "in the
form of rules and rule sets" changes this or not. I suspect not;
"rules" is not very limiting.
- Tacit Knowledge: the part that cannot be stated. For example, we
know how to walk, but it is extraordinarily difficult to write down
basic instructions for walking. Or talking. Or forming effective
utterances. Or expressing love. Or giving a good performance review.
I think where the OL and KM fields differ is that KM is more
confident of the impact of explicit knowledge in creating the
capacity for effective action. Or, in short, KM places more value on
explicit knowledge and therefore pays more attention to capturing and
passing it on to others.
And, the OL field places more weight on tacit knowledge. OL is more
confident in the possibility of increasing learning skills so that
people can increase their capacity for effective action, that is,
that individuals and groups can learn the tacit knowledge they need.
Senge's five disciplines are one attempt to describe the skills that
would improve learning.
One more comment on terms: In general usage, the term "knowledge" has
two distinct meanings:
- "know-how", which is the capacity for effective action
- "knowing-about" which is ability to remember, recite, and
(perhaps) apply relevant facts in some area.
For example... I know a bit about driving a motorcycle. But, never
having done it, I doubt that I have the "know-how" to drive a
motorcycle effectively and safely.
OL emphasizes achieving "know-how" for an organization.
KM has more confidence that "knowing-about" will help and therefore
seeks to capture and pass-on.
Now, I wonder... acknowledging different terms and different
emphasis, do we both believe that both tacit and explicit are
important? And, do we take the same actions?
>With all due respect to "the map is not the territory"
>argument, I and many others, believe, nonetheless, that we can build
>surrogate models of knowledge and cognitive processes that provide us with
>satisfactory replicas, imaginary worlds, that mimic the embryology and
>diffusion of knowledge in living systems, and which we can use as the
>basis of formulating KM practice in the real world. Complexity theory
>provides the most credible framework in this regard.
Mark, can you say more about how complexity theory fits in this? This
may be another area of difference... OL would be interested in
complexity theory in terms of understanding the world, but I don't
see much impact of complexity on our actions to create learning and
knowledge.
Finally, I have notes of a recent talk by Peter Senge on Knowledge
Management. I'll try to put these in a msg sometime soon.
-=- 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>