Re: Is learning the missing emphasis of knowledge management? #learning

carlgaertner11 <carl.gaertner.bkaw@...>

--- In sikmleaders@..., "Tom" <tman9999@...> wrote:

Steve - interesting point - I think you're onto something, especially given the way the wind is blowing regarding companies and their use of the term "knowledge management" (see my latest post).

Your comments remind of two KM-related concepts/truths. One is the notion of the Learn -> Do -> Know loop (don't know the source), which says (at least in part) that knowledge emerges from doing something; and doing something is made possible or enhanced by learning something. So to your point, from an organizational perspective perhaps this is a way of saying that knowledge is an outcome, not a point of control or direct influence.

The second thing I'm reminded of is David Garvin's wonderful learning organization framework which lays out three modes of learning: learning before doing (aka training), learning while doing (mentoring, OJT), and learning after doing (AAR). I used this on a large consulting engagement to organize eight individual "KM" initiatives into a conceptual framework that made it easier for us to explain to stakeholders how all the initiatives hung together. Again, knowledge was the targetted outcome, but the locus of control was clearly on learning.

Good point, Steve. Thanks for sharing.


Tom Short Consulting
Knowledge Transfer
Knowledge Strategy

--- In sikmleaders@..., "StevenWieneke" <swieneke@> wrote:

SIKM Leaders,

Is learning the missing emphasis of knowledge management?

I recently presented at the 2010 KM Symposium in Chicago, addressing two

Q: Which comes first, learning or knowledge?

A: "…Unlike the chicken-egg circular cause and effect, learning
ensures knowledge, but knowledge does not necessarily ensure learning.
There must be a learning aptitude and mechanism for existing knowledge
to be adopted or internalized by any of us. If the knowledge does not
exist, the same learning aptitude can discover new knowledge through
experimentation and even accidental incidents…"

Q: Which comes first in an enterprise, managing learning or managing

A: "…If learning is beneficial for us, then learning should be
beneficial for an enterprise. Like people, an enterprise needs a
learning aptitude (culture) and learning mechanism (visible learning
process). Even if employees are individually learning, the enterprise
may not, resulting in rework, remediation, rediscovery, reinvention and
customer dissatisfaction…"

Find the presentation
ing.pdf> and paper
.pdf> at <> .

Your thoughts?


Steven Wieneke
enterprise learning & knowledge awareness coach
Steve, I appreciate your post. Since learning is universally accepted as a valuable endeavor, (ie. we send our children to school)one would assume that its value would be easily accepted and adopted within all organizations.

If an employee attends training related to the core business, an assumption is made that learning has occurred and the application of the knowledge will also occur. If an employee takes a class on how to become more proficient for broad based skills, then a concern is oftentimes expressed about applicability.

It seems that organizations continue to struggle with justifying the investment of time and resources for associate development beacause a direct relationship to delivering customer value cannot be clearly represented for every learning activity.

The question of: "How have you delivered value to our customers today?" may need to be modified to "How can we anticipate the needs and desires for our customers tomorrow?

Bottom line: How can we innovate without learning. I'm interested in hearing an "elevator speech" that any of our communites member may have regarding the link between learning and delivering customer value.

Join to automatically receive all group messages.