I’ve always been drawn to the way Larry Prusak describes information – as ‘a message with a sender, a receiver and an intent to inform’. I’d happily include within Larry’s definition, any messages explicitly encoded chemically as ant trails, digitally as content, or through the medium of dance by a waggling honey bee ☺)
I think this is one of those areas which we’ll all take different stances on, and all tailor where and whether we draw the boundary line – or overlap zone - for the needs of specific clients. It’s (as Nick M once wrote) probably a bit of a cul-de-sac conversation for KM enthusiasts – but it’s been really interesting to read the different perspectives in the safe-space which is SIKM!
From: <main@SIKM.groups.io> on behalf of Stephen Bounds <km@...>
Hi Chris & all,
I am not a fan of the tacit/explicit dualism because I think it is too reductive and privileges a human-centric view of knowledge. I agree with Nick that it is perfectly fine for something to be both information and knowledge.
Here are just a few scenarios which I think challenge traditional views of tacit vs explicit, and explicit knowledge = information:
Rather than tacit vs explicit, I believe that the key transition occurs as we cross a system threshold. Inside the system threshold, it is meaningful to talk about its knowledge; outside, we must talk about transmitting information. New information can only be accepted as knowledge into that system once it achieves a certain trust threshold.
Thus, a written process sent through by head office represents information received by a staff member, but can be knowledge once incorporated into the execution of their role's systemic practices.
The switch in language between a role and a person is important since it represents an enlargement of system scope; employees are often asked to undertake a role "performance" which includes a broad scaffolding of policies, processes, technology, and person-to-person relationships.
Executive, Information Management
M: 0401 829 096
On 16/01/2021 6:02 am, Chris Collison wrote: