Richard Karash wrote:
> 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.
On #s 1 and 2, it's clear to me that the OL community DOES view knowledge
and learning in terms that speak to one's capacity (or an organization's)
to take effective action. I'm not prepared yet to accept that definition
because I see it as one that is loaded with value implications (i.e., some
learning leads to "ineffective" action, but is still learning) and is
solely action-oriented. While I can easily accept the connection between
new knowledge and new capacity for action, not all new knowledge is
necessarily action-oriented (e.g., know-what or know-why knowledge may
never inspire action, but instead may simply inform). I'd like to think
about this issue a while longer.
On #3, that is NOT what I'm saying, nor do I support the association of KM
with only explicit knowledge (although I agree, most KM'ers do). Let me
put it this way. ALL knowledge is inwardly held by individuals. Some
inwardly-held knowledge, however, can be outwardly expressed. We call
this outwardly-expressed knowledge "explicit knowledge." We call the kind
of inwardly-held knowledge that can't be expressed, or that can't readily
be expressed in explicit form, "tacit knowledge." KM (and OL, I think)
deal with the sum total of knowledge held by individuals and
organizations, whether it be tacit or explicit. (Incidentally, "knowledge
artifacts" refers to outwardly-expressed knowledge that has been
explicitly codified in artificial form -- documents, information systems,
films, etc.).
> 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.
Yes. This ties in with my notion of knowledge as being representable by
"rules." Broadly speaking, rules are either "declarative" (know-what,
know-why, know-about), or they are "procedural" (know-how). Rules,
however, are only symbols, or models of knowledge. They can be used to
represent knowledge, but not to define it.
> 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?
Yes. As I stated above, both are important. The distinction only stems
from an understanding of anthropomorphic limitations (i.e., our inability
to express all that we know). That limitation aside, however, we should
all be no less interested in working with the sum total of an
individual's, or an organization's, knowledge.
> 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.
Rick, with all due respect, you're missing something here of pivotal
importance to OL. The impact of complexity theory on learning is
profoundly significant, and deeply germane. This is not the first time
I've noticed the apparent disconnect between the study of "complex
adaptive systems," or CAS, in particular, and BOTH the OL and KM
communities. To help bridge the gap, I've written a paper that attempts
to expose and explain the strong connections between all three
disciplines, which I see as rushing inevitably towards a desirable
convergence in the very near furture. Let me put it this way: complexity
theory, or CAS theory, is nothing if not the study of HOW LEARNING HAPPENS
IN LIVING SYSTEMS! I strongly urge you and the OL community, in general,
to give this idea the serious consideration that it deserves. In the
spirit of "knowledge = capacity for effective action," I think that you
will find that acquiring knowledge of CAS theory will dramatically
increase the OL community's capacity to formulate ways in which
organizations can, in turn, increase their own capacity for action. In
other words, complexity theory is a rich source of insight on not only HOW
organizations learn, but how to help them DO SO better and more
effectively. Let me know if you'd like to see my paper. Otherwise, I
suggest LO readers turn, first, to the writings of John Holland for a
basic understanding of CAS theory and how it relates to how individuals
and organizations learn ("Hidden Order," 1995, Perseus Books).
Respectfully,
Mark
--"Mark W. McElroy" <mmcelroy@vermontel.net>
[Host's Note: Thanks Mark. I'll admit that I may be overlooking something important here. In assoc with Amazon.com, this link:
Hidden Order : How Adaptation Builds Complexity by John H. Holland, Heather Mimnaugh (Editor) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0201442302/learningorg
..Rick]
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>