On 18 Dec 99, at 4:41, 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.
If that's our starting point, then our criterion for defining the terms
should be that it leads us to the above result.
> 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:
Actually, we don't all agree (or shouldn't). I don't think that explicit
and tacit knowledge are effective concepts in THIS context. Because one
can have both kinds of knowledge in the knowledge about and knowledge to
do (procedural knowledge). I think you are confounding several things
here.
I can't remember the term in cognitive science for knowledge "about", but
procedural knowledge can be EITHER TACIT OR EXPLICIT. If I had to choose
useful terms, I would focus on the different KINDS of knowledge, NOT
whether people can state the knowledge.
One reason is that much tacit knowledge CAN be teased out, which is often
how training gets designed using SME (subject matter experts).
> - 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.
Normally when we talk about rules and rules sets, we are talking about
procedural knowledge, as related to carrying out a task. The rule set
would resemble in the simplest form a set of steps, in the complex a set
of steps and branches, like a flow chart.
> - 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.
Tacit knowledge is an interesting area psychologically, but it is clear
that while we all have it, some of us can turn it into statable rules and
or knowledge.
So the key question is how do we mobilize that information to create
organizational learning.
Strictly speaking, actually the use of rules concepts can be used to
provide a common understanding of both knowledge about (representational?)
and procedural. If you look at the areas of concept formation and use, and
linguistics, you find that rules are often used and developed in THAT
arena. So they apply to both representative and procedural knowledge.
> 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.
To me it's clear the power lies with making the tacit knowledge explicit
for one reason - it can then be shared. I don't dichotomize it since one
can become the other and often does.
> 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, but it's a false dichotomy. Explict knowledge becomes tacit over
time. Tacit knowledge can be converted to explicit knowledge (although
this is less common). There is no fundamental difference between the two
that is permanent. How the knowledge is used by an individual (frequency,
for example, or need for problem solvling) determines tacit or explicit.
> >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.
I think one gets lost when trying to talk about human information
processing unless one is familiar with the disciplines under the
psychology umbrella.
Visit the work911.com supersite at http://www.work911.com
for work related articles, or to find almost anything including
book reviews and suggestions, discussion lists and more.
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>