Re: When is knowledge managed? #definition #strategy #periodicals


Marc Solomon <spinvillage@...>
 

I concur, Neil -- an elucidating and rich discussion that's grounded more in
community of practice than theory of action.

To Stephen's point I can recommend a knowledge facilitation tome from fellow
SIKMer Kate Pugh. Here's my review of her new book Hidden Know-how -- a
conference table how-to for fusing the disconnects, and plotting and executing
on those KM coordinates.

Marc Solomon, Founder
__________________________________________________

The Society for Useful Information | Amherst, MA | Established 2011
email: attspin@gmail.com
blog: ututilis.com
column: AIIM SharePoint Communities
twitter: attspin
tumblr: sfui.tumblr.com





________________________________
From: "sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com" <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
To: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, April 25, 2011 8:55:25 AM
Subject: [sikmleaders] Digest Number 956

There are 5 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1.1. Re: When is knowledge managed?
From: Stephen Bounds
1.2. Re: When is knowledge managed?
From: Richard Vines
1.3. Re: When is knowledge managed?
From: murphjen@aol.com
1.4. Re: When is knowledge managed?
From: Stephen Bounds
1.5. Re: When is knowledge managed?
From: Neil Olonoff


Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1.1. Re: When is knowledge managed?
Posted by: "Stephen Bounds" km@bounds.net.au guruj_42
Date: Sun Apr 24, 2011 3:42 pm ((PDT))

Hi Neil,

I actually don't think that knowledge is the problem. Techniques for
creating and exchanging knowledge are well understood -- from books,
teaching, apprenticeship and universities through to parenting, child
psychology and neurology.

The problem our discipline needs to address is quite specific: how does
knowledge creation and exchange work in an *organisational* context?

In many ways, all the discussions about tacit, implicit, explicit and
embedded are sideshows. Kenneth Arrow way back in 1974 put his finger
on the problem space for KM very succinctly:

"An organization can acquire more information than any one individual
... [but] there is a price to be paid ... information has to be
coordinated ... communication channels have to be created"

"Error is unnecessary when the information is available somewhere in the
organization but not available or used by the authority. The reason for
this failure is, simply enough, the overload of the information and
decision-making capacity of the authority ... an individual or a small
group cannot be aware of all that is relevant"

Today, we would use "knowledge" instead of "information" but the upshot
is the same. KM is (should be?) the research of ways to overcome this
modern problem. It's not an accident that the first known reference to
KM was by Caldwell in 1967 when governments sought better ways to manage
the increasing influx of information and turn it into sound policy
outcomes. All that's changed in the 5 decades since is that many more
organisations are complex enough to ensure that errors due to knowledge
coordination are much more frequent.

If KM is to become serious we need to look at how we quantify and
measure outcomes in this space.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

On 24/04/2011 7:16 PM, Neil Olonoff wrote:
Patrick, Murray and all,

This is a fantastically interesting conversation!

My ideas on the following are inchoate and embyonic at the moment but
perhaps they may move the dialogue along.

I think it may be obvious that the reason that KM is having such
difficulties as a discipline is the inconvenience of our subject of
study: human knowledge. We have seen earlier in this thread and many
places elsewhere the slippery, even ineffable quality of human
knowledge. Knowledge is not "observable" in the wild, such as water,
gravity or even light. Those things are difficult to observe, but not
impossible. Knowledge is. You simply can't see it, measure it, hold it
in your hand. Western objectivist methods are inadequate to study it, or
appear to be at this moment.

(I can predict someone will respond with "of course you can!" and cite
the many examples of explicit content that exist. I'll stipulate to
that; but that's only half of knowledge. What about the other half?)

You can possibly see the effects or results of knowledge, but even that
is highly equivocal. Which knowledge caused which effect?

As a result, I think (as I say, these ideas are embryonic) that even as
cognitive science, sociology and psychology move into maturity,
knowledge management theory will always remain, hand in hand with
philosophy, a theoretical area of unresolved debate.

We can, and will, come up with practices that work, and refine those in
alignment with culture. I'm sure of that. Technological solutions will
be refined as well.

But basic theory, at least of knowledge creation and exchange, inasmuch
as it is allied to epistemology, may forever remain as unresolved as
that branch of philosophy.

Thus while KM may have the trappings, business-suit, and briefcase of a
science or discipline, the briefcase may forever be empty of reliable
theory.

I'm hoping someone will find the arguments that shoot this down, because
I don't really want it to be true.

Neil
Neil Olonoff




Messages in this topic (55)
________________________________________________________________________
1.2. Re: When is knowledge managed?
Posted by: "Richard Vines" plessons@netspace.net.au vinesrichard
Date: Sun Apr 24, 2011 11:19 pm ((PDT))

Helpful and practical comments for me Stephen.

In reflecting on this I would add that the economists perspective perhaps also
needs a knowledge filter. The current film "The Insider'sJob" is an interesting
expose of how decision making capacity is not a neutral space - the film shows
how the role of markets are distorted by biases, even if it takes years for
these distortions to become evident. The film is a timely critique of the role
of economists in determining the shape and nature of regulatory interventions
and the means of doing this in the lead up to the GFC

The extension of this raises the question as to what is meant by "errors"?

There is an element associated with this that involves continued interventions
to amplify organizational and higher level system propensities towards open
rather than closed systems. These boundary spanning activities necessarily
involve negotiating professional and other types of differences.

This is more than a coordinating role. It does become highly charged as well. To
this extent I think I find myself agreeing with Neil in that so much of the
foundations upon which we base our work might be unresolved for some time to
come. I hope not!

I would agree with you that there is a coordinating function -in part- simply
because there is so much an organization can forget. Working out what can and
cannot be forgotten is one of our big coordination challenges. Can we facilitate
some sort of valuable organizational memory across the distributed cognitive
activities of an organization?


To this I say I hope so - however I think a whole range of new skill sets will
be required if we are to achieve this in a sustainable way.



Richard
On Apr 25, 2011, at 8:42 AM, Stephen Bounds <km@bounds.net.au> wrote:

Hi Neil,

I actually don't think that knowledge is the problem. Techniques for
creating and exchanging knowledge are well understood -- from books,
teaching, apprenticeship and universities through to parenting, child
psychology and neurology.

The problem our discipline needs to address is quite specific: how does
knowledge creation and exchange work in an *organisational* context?

In many ways, all the discussions about tacit, implicit, explicit and
embedded are sideshows. Kenneth Arrow way back in 1974 put his finger
on the problem space for KM very succinctly:

"An organization can acquire more information than any one individual
... [but] there is a price to be paid ... information has to be
coordinated ... communication channels have to be created"

"Error is unnecessary when the information is available somewhere in the
organization but not available or used by the authority. The reason for
this failure is, simply enough, the overload of the information and
decision-making capacity of the authority ... an individual or a small
group cannot be aware of all that is relevant"

Today, we would use "knowledge" instead of "information" but the upshot
is the same. KM is (should be?) the research of ways to overcome this
modern problem. It's not an accident that the first known reference to
KM was by Caldwell in 1967 when governments sought better ways to manage
the increasing influx of information and turn it into sound policy
outcomes. All that's changed in the 5 decades since is that many more
organisations are complex enough to ensure that errors due to knowledge
coordination are much more frequent.

If KM is to become serious we need to look at how we quantify and
measure outcomes in this space.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

On 24/04/2011 7:16 PM, Neil Olonoff wrote:
Patrick, Murray and all,

This is a fantastically interesting conversation!

My ideas on the following are inchoate and embyonic at the moment but
perhaps they may move the dialogue along.

I think it may be obvious that the reason that KM is having such
difficulties as a discipline is the inconvenience of our subject of
study: human knowledge. We have seen earlier in this thread and many
places elsewhere the slippery, even ineffable quality of human
knowledge. Knowledge is not "observable" in the wild, such as water,
gravity or even light. Those things are difficult to observe, but not
impossible. Knowledge is. You simply can't see it, measure it, hold it
in your hand. Western objectivist methods are inadequate to study it, or
appear to be at this moment.

(I can predict someone will respond with "of course you can!" and cite
the many examples of explicit content that exist. I'll stipulate to
that; but that's only half of knowledge. What about the other half?)

You can possibly see the effects or results of knowledge, but even that
is highly equivocal. Which knowledge caused which effect?

As a result, I think (as I say, these ideas are embryonic) that even as
cognitive science, sociology and psychology move into maturity,
knowledge management theory will always remain, hand in hand with
philosophy, a theoretical area of unresolved debate.

We can, and will, come up with practices that work, and refine those in
alignment with culture. I'm sure of that. Technological solutions will
be refined as well.

But basic theory, at least of knowledge creation and exchange, inasmuch
as it is allied to epistemology, may forever remain as unresolved as
that branch of philosophy.

Thus while KM may have the trappings, business-suit, and briefcase of a
science or discipline, the briefcase may forever be empty of reliable
theory.

I'm hoping someone will find the arguments that shoot this down, because
I don't really want it to be true.

Neil
Neil Olonoff

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links






Messages in this topic (55)
________________________________________________________________________
1.3. Re: When is knowledge managed?
Posted by: "murphjen@aol.com" murphjen@aol.com murphjen
Date: Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:31 am ((PDT))

good point Stephen, that is actually the focus of my KM research, measuring
outcomes...murray jennex


In a message dated 4/24/2011 3:42:26 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
km@bounds.net.au writes:

Hi Neil,

I actually don't think that knowledge is the problem. Techniques for
creating and exchanging knowledge are well understood -- from books,
teaching, apprenticeship and universities through to parenting, child
psychology and neurology.

The problem our discipline needs to address is quite specific: how does
knowledge creation and exchange work in an *organisational* context?

In many ways, all the discussions about tacit, implicit, explicit and
embedded are sideshows. Kenneth Arrow way back in 1974 put his finger
on the problem space for KM very succinctly:

"An organization can acquire more information than any one individual
... [but] there is a price to be paid ... information has to be
coordinated ... communication channels have to be created"

"Error is unnecessary when the information is available somewhere in the
organization but not available or used by the authority. The reason for
this failure is, simply enough, the overload of the information and
decision-making capacity of the authority ... an individual or a small
group cannot be aware of all that is relevant"

Today, we would use "knowledge" instead of "information" but the upshot
is the same. KM is (should be?) the research of ways to overcome this
modern problem. It's not an accident that the first known reference to
KM was by Caldwell in 1967 when governments sought better ways to manage
the increasing influx of information and turn it into sound policy
outcomes. All that's changed in the 5 decades since is that many more
organisations are complex enough to ensure that errors due to knowledge
coordination are much more frequent.

If KM is to become serious we need to look at how we quantify and
measure outcomes in this space.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

On 24/04/2011 7:16 PM, Neil Olonoff wrote:
Patrick, Murray and all,

This is a fantastically interesting conversation!

My ideas on the following are inchoate and embyonic at the moment but
perhaps they may move the dialogue along.

I think it may be obvious that the reason that KM is having such
difficulties as a discipline is the inconvenience of our subject of
study: human knowledge. We have seen earlier in this thread and many
places elsewhere the slippery, even ineffable quality of human
knowledge. Knowledge is not "observable" in the wild, such as water,
gravity or even light. Those things are difficult to observe, but not
impossible. Knowledge is. You simply can't see it, measure it, hold it
in your hand. Western objectivist methods are inadequate to study it, or
appear to be at this moment.

(I can predict someone will respond with "of course you can!" and cite
the many examples of explicit content that exist. I'll stipulate to
that; but that's only half of knowledge. What about the other half?)

You can possibly see the effects or results of knowledge, but even that
is highly equivocal. Which knowledge caused which effect?

As a result, I think (as I say, these ideas are embryonic) that even as
cognitive science, sociology and psychology move into maturity,
knowledge management theory will always remain, hand in hand with
philosophy, a theoretical area of unresolved debate.

We can, and will, come up with practices that work, and refine those in
alignment with culture. I'm sure of that. Technological solutions will
be refined as well.

But basic theory, at least of knowledge creation and exchange, inasmuch
as it is allied to epistemology, may forever remain as unresolved as
that branch of philosophy.

Thus while KM may have the trappings, business-suit, and briefcase of a
science or discipline, the briefcase may forever be empty of reliable
theory.

I'm hoping someone will find the arguments that shoot this down, because
I don't really want it to be true.

Neil
Neil Olonoff

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links








Messages in this topic (55)
________________________________________________________________________
1.4. Re: When is knowledge managed?
Posted by: "Stephen Bounds" km@bounds.net.au guruj_42
Date: Mon Apr 25, 2011 4:04 am ((PDT))

Hi Richard,

Agree that traditional decision-making criteria are often skewed or flat
out wrong, but if we are to be scientific about this, we *cannot* be in
the business of making *moral* judgements about desired outcomes.

In this context an "error" is simply when decision making leads to
non-optimal decision making according to whatever outcome criteria are
deemed appropriate. These could be short term or long term outcomes
(but generally we can consider insolvency of the organisation a bad
outcome!).

Now, if we can provide a theoretical framework and strong experimental
evidence for why doing X in context Y will result in outcome Z, then we
have a basis for getting people to listen on why some decisions are most
probably *wrong*.

The theoretical framework is critical because organisations vary in so
many dimensions. If we cannot control for at least some of these
dimensions through theory, any prediction of KM outcomes will be so
context-specific as to be useless.

Actually, I believe once we strengthen our theory some "obvious" things
about KM will turn out to be false, much like the caloric and phlostigon
of old. So I have an open mind about all of the normal KM prescriptions
at the moment!

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

On 25/04/2011 4:19 PM, Richard Vines wrote:
Helpful and practical comments for me Stephen.

In reflecting on this I would add that the economists perspective
perhaps also needs a knowledge filter. The current film "The
Insider'sJob" is an interesting expose of how decision making capacity
is not a neutral space - the film shows how the role of markets are
distorted by biases, even if it takes years for these distortions to
become evident. The film is a timely critique of the role of economists
in determining the shape and nature of regulatory interventions and the
means of doing this in the lead up to the GFC

The extension of this raises the question as to what is meant by "errors"?

There is an element associated with this that involves continued
interventions to amplify organizational and higher level system
propensities towards open rather than closed systems. These boundary
spanning activities necessarily involve negotiating professional and
other types of differences.

This is more than a coordinating role. It does become highly charged as
well. To this extent I think I find myself agreeing with Neil in that so
much of the foundations upon which we base our work might be unresolved
for some time to come. I hope not!

I would agree with you that there is a coordinating function -in part-
simply because there is so much an organization can forget. Working out
what can and cannot be forgotten is one of our big coordination
challenges. Can we facilitate some sort of valuable organizational
memory across the distributed cognitive activities of an organization?

To this I say I hope so - however I think a whole range of new skill
sets will be required if we are to achieve this in a sustainable way.

Richard

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 25, 2011, at 8:42 AM, Stephen Bounds <km@bounds.net.au
<mailto:km%40bounds.net.au>> wrote:

> Hi Neil,
>
> I actually don't think that knowledge is the problem. Techniques for
> creating and exchanging knowledge are well understood -- from books,
> teaching, apprenticeship and universities through to parenting, child
> psychology and neurology.
>
> The problem our discipline needs to address is quite specific: how does
> knowledge creation and exchange work in an *organisational* context?
>
> In many ways, all the discussions about tacit, implicit, explicit and
> embedded are sideshows. Kenneth Arrow way back in 1974 put his finger
> on the problem space for KM very succinctly:
>
> "An organization can acquire more information than any one individual
> ... [but] there is a price to be paid ... information has to be
> coordinated ... communication channels have to be created"
>
> "Error is unnecessary when the information is available somewhere in the
> organization but not available or used by the authority. The reason for
> this failure is, simply enough, the overload of the information and
> decision-making capacity of the authority ... an individual or a small
> group cannot be aware of all that is relevant"
>
> Today, we would use "knowledge" instead of "information" but the upshot
> is the same. KM is (should be?) the research of ways to overcome this
> modern problem. It's not an accident that the first known reference to
> KM was by Caldwell in 1967 when governments sought better ways to manage
> the increasing influx of information and turn it into sound policy
> outcomes. All that's changed in the 5 decades since is that many more
> organisations are complex enough to ensure that errors due to knowledge
> coordination are much more frequent.
>
> If KM is to become serious we need to look at how we quantify and
> measure outcomes in this space.
>
> Cheers,
> -- Stephen.
>
> On 24/04/2011 7:16 PM, Neil Olonoff wrote:
>> Patrick, Murray and all,
>>
>> This is a fantastically interesting conversation!
>>
>> My ideas on the following are inchoate and embyonic at the moment but
>> perhaps they may move the dialogue along.
>>
>> I think it may be obvious that the reason that KM is having such
>> difficulties as a discipline is the inconvenience of our subject of
>> study: human knowledge. We have seen earlier in this thread and many
>> places elsewhere the slippery, even ineffable quality of human
>> knowledge. Knowledge is not "observable" in the wild, such as water,
>> gravity or even light. Those things are difficult to observe, but not
>> impossible. Knowledge is. You simply can't see it, measure it, hold it
>> in your hand. Western objectivist methods are inadequate to study it, or
>> appear to be at this moment.
>>
>> (I can predict someone will respond with "of course you can!" and cite
>> the many examples of explicit content that exist. I'll stipulate to
>> that; but that's only half of knowledge. What about the other half?)
>>
>> You can possibly see the effects or results of knowledge, but even that
>> is highly equivocal. Which knowledge caused which effect?
>>
>> As a result, I think (as I say, these ideas are embryonic) that even as
>> cognitive science, sociology and psychology move into maturity,
>> knowledge management theory will always remain, hand in hand with
>> philosophy, a theoretical area of unresolved debate.
>>
>> We can, and will, come up with practices that work, and refine those in
>> alignment with culture. I'm sure of that. Technological solutions will
>> be refined as well.
>>
>> But basic theory, at least of knowledge creation and exchange, inasmuch
>> as it is allied to epistemology, may forever remain as unresolved as
>> that branch of philosophy.
>>
>> Thus while KM may have the trappings, business-suit, and briefcase of a
>> science or discipline, the briefcase may forever be empty of reliable
>> theory.
>>
>> I'm hoping someone will find the arguments that shoot this down, because
>> I don't really want it to be true.
>>
>> Neil
>> Neil Olonoff
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>





Messages in this topic (55)
________________________________________________________________________
1.5. Re: When is knowledge managed?
Posted by: "Neil Olonoff" olonoff@gmail.com nolonoff
Date: Mon Apr 25, 2011 4:23 am ((PDT))

Stephen,

Surely we can only judge the quality of complex outcomes in retrospect --
and far enough in the future that we can judge all the unintended
consequences. The problem as I see it with these problem-oriented knowledge
formulations is that they unduly simplify the extremely complex nature of
knowledge decisions.

As Richard points out above, political and social factors often chime in, as
with the Challenger disaster, when executives overruled engineers because
they wanted to launch in time for the President's State of the Union speech.


In that case, of course, the disastrous consequence was immediately seen.
But what about climate decisions, or economic decisions where we might not
see the eventual outcome for years?

I think there is something missing in this formulation. I find myself
grasping at straws here, perilously close to reaching for ethics and "what's
right." But even that doesn't help in many cases.

That, I am sure, is why most decision-makers "satisfice," in the words of
Weick.

Regards,

Neil

Neil Olonoff




On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 7:04 AM, Stephen Bounds <km@bounds.net.au> wrote:

Hi Richard,

Agree that traditional decision-making criteria are often skewed or flat
out wrong, but if we are to be scientific about this, we *cannot* be in
the business of making *moral* judgements about desired outcomes.

In this context an "error" is simply when decision making leads to
non-optimal decision making according to whatever outcome criteria are
deemed appropriate. These could be short term or long term outcomes
(but generally we can consider insolvency of the organisation a bad
outcome!).

Now, if we can provide a theoretical framework and strong experimental
evidence for why doing X in context Y will result in outcome Z, then we
have a basis for getting people to listen on why some decisions are most
probably *wrong*.

The theoretical framework is critical because organisations vary in so
many dimensions. If we cannot control for at least some of these
dimensions through theory, any prediction of KM outcomes will be so
context-specific as to be useless.

Actually, I believe once we strengthen our theory some "obvious" things
about KM will turn out to be false, much like the caloric and phlostigon
of old. So I have an open mind about all of the normal KM prescriptions
at the moment!

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

On 25/04/2011 4:19 PM, Richard Vines wrote:
Helpful and practical comments for me Stephen.

In reflecting on this I would add that the economists perspective
perhaps also needs a knowledge filter. The current film "The
Insider'sJob" is an interesting expose of how decision making capacity
is not a neutral space - the film shows how the role of markets are
distorted by biases, even if it takes years for these distortions to
become evident. The film is a timely critique of the role of economists
in determining the shape and nature of regulatory interventions and the
means of doing this in the lead up to the GFC

The extension of this raises the question as to what is meant by
"errors"?

There is an element associated with this that involves continued
interventions to amplify organizational and higher level system
propensities towards open rather than closed systems. These boundary
spanning activities necessarily involve negotiating professional and
other types of differences.

This is more than a coordinating role. It does become highly charged as
well. To this extent I think I find myself agreeing with Neil in that so
much of the foundations upon which we base our work might be unresolved
for some time to come. I hope not!

I would agree with you that there is a coordinating function -in part-
simply because there is so much an organization can forget. Working out
what can and cannot be forgotten is one of our big coordination
challenges. Can we facilitate some sort of valuable organizational
memory across the distributed cognitive activities of an organization?

To this I say I hope so - however I think a whole range of new skill
sets will be required if we are to achieve this in a sustainable way.

Richard

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 25, 2011, at 8:42 AM, Stephen Bounds <km@bounds.net.au
<mailto:km%40bounds.net.au>> wrote:

> Hi Neil,
>
> I actually don't think that knowledge is the problem. Techniques for
> creating and exchanging knowledge are well understood -- from books,
> teaching, apprenticeship and universities through to parenting, child
> psychology and neurology.
>
> The problem our discipline needs to address is quite specific: how
does
> knowledge creation and exchange work in an *organisational* context?
>
> In many ways, all the discussions about tacit, implicit, explicit and
> embedded are sideshows. Kenneth Arrow way back in 1974 put his finger
> on the problem space for KM very succinctly:
>
> "An organization can acquire more information than any one individual
> ... [but] there is a price to be paid ... information has to be
> coordinated ... communication channels have to be created"
>
> "Error is unnecessary when the information is available somewhere in
the
> organization but not available or used by the authority. The reason
for
> this failure is, simply enough, the overload of the information and
> decision-making capacity of the authority ... an individual or a small
> group cannot be aware of all that is relevant"
>
> Today, we would use "knowledge" instead of "information" but the
upshot
> is the same. KM is (should be?) the research of ways to overcome this
> modern problem. It's not an accident that the first known reference to
> KM was by Caldwell in 1967 when governments sought better ways to
manage
> the increasing influx of information and turn it into sound policy
> outcomes. All that's changed in the 5 decades since is that many more
> organisations are complex enough to ensure that errors due to
knowledge
> coordination are much more frequent.
>
> If KM is to become serious we need to look at how we quantify and
> measure outcomes in this space.
>
> Cheers,
> -- Stephen.
>
> On 24/04/2011 7:16 PM, Neil Olonoff wrote:
>> Patrick, Murray and all,
>>
>> This is a fantastically interesting conversation!
>>
>> My ideas on the following are inchoate and embyonic at the moment but
>> perhaps they may move the dialogue along.
>>
>> I think it may be obvious that the reason that KM is having such
>> difficulties as a discipline is the inconvenience of our subject of
>> study: human knowledge. We have seen earlier in this thread and many
>> places elsewhere the slippery, even ineffable quality of human
>> knowledge. Knowledge is not "observable" in the wild, such as water,
>> gravity or even light. Those things are difficult to observe, but not
>> impossible. Knowledge is. You simply can't see it, measure it, hold
it
>> in your hand. Western objectivist methods are inadequate to study it,
or
>> appear to be at this moment.
>>
>> (I can predict someone will respond with "of course you can!" and
cite
>> the many examples of explicit content that exist. I'll stipulate to
>> that; but that's only half of knowledge. What about the other half?)
>>
>> You can possibly see the effects or results of knowledge, but even
that
>> is highly equivocal. Which knowledge caused which effect?
>>
>> As a result, I think (as I say, these ideas are embryonic) that even
as
>> cognitive science, sociology and psychology move into maturity,
>> knowledge management theory will always remain, hand in hand with
>> philosophy, a theoretical area of unresolved debate.
>>
>> We can, and will, come up with practices that work, and refine those
in
>> alignment with culture. I'm sure of that. Technological solutions
will
>> be refined as well.
>>
>> But basic theory, at least of knowledge creation and exchange,
inasmuch
>> as it is allied to epistemology, may forever remain as unresolved as
>> that branch of philosophy.
>>
>> Thus while KM may have the trappings, business-suit, and briefcase of
a
>> science or discipline, the briefcase may forever be empty of reliable
>> theory.
>>
>> I'm hoping someone will find the arguments that shoot this down,
because
>> I don't really want it to be true.
>>
>> Neil
>> Neil Olonoff
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links






Messages in this topic (55)





------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links



------------------------------------------------------------------------

Join main@SIKM.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.