Date   

Re: Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge? #case-studies #definition

Robert L. Bogue
 

I think that it’s helpful to think about this differently.

 

You’re not trying to convey every permutation that has ever been seen.  The goal is really to help the new people understand how the system works so they can simulate it in their heads.  This includes the product itself but also the client needs.  I’d strongly encourage reading Gary Klein’s work here.  (https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2011/10/23/book-review-sources-of-power-how-people-make-decisions/) The challenge was training fire commanders who claimed they didn’t know how they knew, they just knew.

 

Klein finally settled on the fact that they were running simulations of the fire in their head and using approaches that fit their simulations and worked.  When an expectancy was violated they updated their models and tried again.

 

There are a million permutations – but once you know the rule you don’t need to know them because you can regenerate them.

 

Make sense?

 

Rob

 

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

Robert L. Bogue

O: (317) 844-5310  M: (317) 506-4977 Blog: http://www.thorprojects.com/blog

Want to be confident about your change management efforts?  https://ConfidentChangeManagement.com

Are you burned out?  https://ExtinguishBurnout.com can help you get out of it (for free)

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Mirna Lessinger via groups.io
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 7:52 PM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge?

 

I definitely appreciate this discussion, and I agree with your perspective. The question then becomes, how does one determine the scope of the knowledge that can be made explicit? Is there a way to measure that to determine the percentage of knowledge that we should try to capture-or not? In my experience, a SME on X technical product would say that it's not possible to capture ANY knowledge and that new team members will need to spend 6+ months learning about the product, understanding how it works, figuring out how to solve X use case (e.g., "I have a customer trying to do X with Y and Z products (or more) that use A, B, C configuration...") where all the variables can have N combinations and various outcomes.


Re: Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge? #case-studies #definition

Mirna Lessinger
 

I definitely appreciate this discussion, and I agree with your perspective. The question then becomes, how does one determine the scope of the knowledge that can be made explicit? Is there a way to measure that to determine the percentage of knowledge that we should try to capture-or not? In my experience, a SME on X technical product would say that it's not possible to capture ANY knowledge and that new team members will need to spend 6+ months learning about the product, understanding how it works, figuring out how to solve X use case (e.g., "I have a customer trying to do X with Y and Z products (or more) that use A, B, C configuration...") where all the variables can have N combinations and various outcomes.


September 2020 SIKM Call: Guy St. Clair and Barrie Levy - Applied Knowledge Services: A New Approach for Management and Leadership in the 21st Century Organization #monthly-call #knowledge-services

Stan Garfield
 
Edited

This is a reminder of tomorrow's monthly call from 11 am to 12 noon EDT.

  • September 15, 2020 SIKM Call: Guy St. Clair and Barrie Levy - Applied Knowledge Services: A New Approach for Management and Leadership in the 21st Century Organization
  • Slides
  • For online chat, use the group chat in FreeConferenceCall.com, or visit tchat.io and sign in with your Twitter account, or use the #KMers hashtag directly in Twitter.
  • Guy and Barrie are the authors of The Knowledge Services Handbook: A Guide for the Knowledge StrategistBoth are affiliated with Columbia University in the City of New York, where they teach the course Managing Information and Knowledge: Applied Knowledge Services in the Postbaccalaureate Studies Program at Columbia’s School of Professional Studies.
  • Guy is also the Series Editor for Knowledge Services, the new series from de Gruyter Saur in Berlin. Barrie and Guy’s book, published last fall, is the first title in the series.
  • Barrie is the Knowledge Services Coordinator/Knowledge Strategist for Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates, PC, a global architectural firm headquartered in NYC.  She is a member of the 2015 graduating cohort of Columbia’s M.S. in Information and Knowledge Strategy program, where she also is an Associate Lecturer for the course Foundations For the Knowledge-Driven Organization.
  • In their talk, Barrie and Guy will describe knowledge services as a management and leadership methodology for working with an organization’s intellectual capital. By supporting intellectual capital as a main corporate asset, knowledge services becomes especially important as effective knowledge sharing is required throughout the organization to be most successful long term.

SIKM Leaders Community Monthly Call

  • When: Tuesday, September 15, 2020, 11:00 AM-12:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time
  • Where: (712) 770-4035 (US and Canada) Passcode 178302
  • International Dial-in Numbers
  • You can join online using your computer’s speakers and microphone at http://join.freeconferencecall.com/stangarfield
    - Online Meeting ID: stangarfield
  • If you join online, be sure to click on the grey phone icon and then choose your audio preference. If your audio is live, you should see a red phone icon.
  • If you have problems connecting, call customer service at 844-844-1322.
  • Occurs the third Tuesday of every month from 11:00 AM to 12:00 PM Eastern Time (USA)
  • Community Site 
  • Slides - There is no live screen sharing - you follow along by advancing the slides yourself.
  • Previous Calls
  • Future Calls
  • Calendar


Re: Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge? #case-studies #definition

Robert L. Bogue
 

My point regarding time horizon is that you can’t push the time horizon back far enough in the near term.

 

I think that I think of strong signals and weak signals differently.  I think of strong signals as me putting a stake in the ground and saying “this is a person with whom I have a permanent affinity.” (without defining what affinity is.)  FaceBook friends and LinkedIn connections are these because I made a conscious – or semi-conscious – decision to add a person rather than the relationship being inferred through weak signals.

 

As for COVID-19, I largely ignore the news because it keeps me more sane.  That being said, my wife is educating for COVID-19 in both the acute and long-term care settings.  COVID-19 is going to be with us for the foreseeable future.  Vaccines can’t solve the fact that our bodies don’t develop any long term immunity.  (Think days to weeks not months to years)

 

However, I’m not convinced that face-to-face is necessary (or for that matter sufficient) for the transfer of tacit knowledge.  I don’t actually believe there’s a large difference in the transfer of knowledge post-COVID-19.  Has there been research done to suggest that there are knowledge transfer differences that I’m not aware of.

 

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

Robert L. Bogue

O: (317) 844-5310  M: (317) 506-4977 Blog: http://www.thorprojects.com/blog

Want to be confident about your change management efforts?  https://ConfidentChangeManagement.com

Are you burned out?  https://ExtinguishBurnout.com can help you get out of it (for free)

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Laurence Lock Lee via groups.io
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 2:16 AM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge?

 

Rob, 

 

My point about the time frame is that it should not be a technical issue. While I’m committed to SNA based techniques I’ve been around long enough to know silver bullets don’t exist. I acknowledge that digital interaction levels can’t always predict a trusted relationship ....but  in many cases they can ... and strong signals are often made strong only by amalgamating many weak signals.

 

A challenge we will face is if the current COVID-19 crisis becomes an extended crisis (which despite Trump’s assurances to the contrary it is looking that way) we may only have digital signals from which to draw our insights from?

 

Despite my biases I would welcome suggestions from this list of techniques for managing large scale sharing of tacit knowledge in a world where face to face interactions are as compromised as they are today.


Re: Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge? #case-studies #definition

Laurence Lock Lee
 

Rob, 
 
My point about the time frame is that it should not be a technical issue. While I’m committed to SNA based techniques I’ve been around long enough to know silver bullets don’t exist. I acknowledge that digital interaction levels can’t always predict a trusted relationship ....but  in many cases they can ... and strong signals are often made strong only by amalgamating many weak signals.
 
A challenge we will face is if the current COVID-19 crisis becomes an extended crisis (which despite Trump’s assurances to the contrary it is looking that way) we may only have digital signals from which to draw our insights from?
 
Despite my biases I would welcome suggestions from this list of techniques for managing large scale sharing of tacit knowledge in a world where face to face interactions are as compromised as they are today.


Re: Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge? #case-studies #definition

Robert L. Bogue
 

David –

 

I think that “what’s in SharePoint” can be a bit misleading given that SharePoint can build a search corpus of basically anything. There’s an out-of-the-box connector for file shares but with one client we’re using it to index documents that were initially in SharePoint but were moved to NAS storage with a sidecar JSON file with the properties.  We’ve indexed all kinds of things with SharePoint.  If an organization WANTs to have an enterprise search it’s possible with either SharePoint or SOLR.

 

As for NLP, I don’t remember mentioning it but the practical application of NLP is really occurring with the Word group as they infer structure and syntax.  I’ve been impressed with their progress to identify grammar and syntax but it’s a long way away from being able to be implemented at the scale that would be required to make it viable for search.  The problem is that search works across millions or billions of documents and getting the computing resources at scale isn’t that easy.  For instance, right now I have a client that we custom built a file processor for.  It is in the process of converting 8 Million images from TIF to PDF.  We’re using Google’s Tesseract OCR engine.  We’ve allocated 2x 20 core 24GB of RAM virtual machines to the task.  They stay at 100% CPU utilization (or nearly that) continuously.  We anticipate it will be months (if not longer) before they complete their work of converting all the images.

 

Rob

 

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

Robert L. Bogue

O: (317) 844-5310  M: (317) 506-4977 Blog: http://www.thorprojects.com/blog

Want to be confident about your change management efforts?  https://ConfidentChangeManagement.com

Are you burned out?  https://ExtinguishBurnout.com can help you get out of it (for free)

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of David Eddy via groups.io
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2020 9:47 AM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge?

 

Robert -

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 02:01 PM, Robert L. Bogue wrote:

The Microsoft graph attempts to label edges/connections – but I’ve found those distinctions not particularly useful.

re: strength of signal.

I recently read Martin White's Enterprise Search: Enhancing Business Performance & was astonished to eventually understand the book's perspective of "enterprise search" was what was in SharePoint.   Stuff not in SharePoint was I presume over the proverbial edge where dragons live.

This is like saying... "Because my eyes only register (the signal) of visible light, xrays, infrared light, etc. do not exist."

Or... because I learned a brand new (to me) meaning of "application" yesterday... because NLP (natural language processing) does amazing things, un-natural language (UNLP?) does not exist.

Given  that UNLP is a thorny & unavoidable portion of cross generational knowledge transfer, I find this 100% focus on NLP odd.  Don't know how to or want to address UNLP, that's understandable.  Deny it exists... that's head-in-the-sand behavior.

Example of UNLP: in 2006 I found "cc" to have 298 meanings.  Now I find it to have 463 meanings.

- David Eddy
www.legacysoftware.co.uk


Re: Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge? #case-studies #definition

Dennis Thomas
 

David,

Your observation resonates with me.  According to a brilliant paper entitled: Climbing towards NLU: On Meaning, Form, and Understanding in the Age of Data by Eily M. Bender and Alexander Koller, NLP is mostly HYPE.  This research study is based on 266 research papers on the subject. 

There is good reason for this.  NLP is based on words, but not on the conceptual meaning of those words.  This means, as the paper states, that NLP cannot understand meaning, cannot comprehend, and cannot learn.  This goes for AI and ML.  These technologies have practical application for pattern recognition and manipulating data and information, but not for reasoning. 

My long standing reason for this is that there is a dichotomy between logical reasoning (machine-like thinking) and rational reasoning (innate human reasoning).   Linguistics, mathematics, and programming are rule-based systems that are based on logic and axioms.  Logic requires self-consistency, and for that reason, logic-based systems look for self-consistent answers.  Rational thought, however, is purposeful, imaginative, goal-oriented, variable, considers multiple points-of-view, and seeks to understand and bring meaning and understanding to every situation and circumstance that confronts us. 

Mathematicians and technologists often laugh this distinction because they conflate logic with rational reasoning.  So, if it is not rational, it is emotional.  For me, this is a straw man argument used to validate technologies that have had 70+ years to actualize artificial intelligence, but have not, and will not, until technology systems are both rational and logical.  The next time you go out for a walk, try leaving your right foot behind.  Something missing?  That’s how I think about today’s technologies. 

Given current trends in technology, I think the KM community needs to update its thinking about the terminology it uses.  Here are my suggestions:

Drop the use of the word TACIT which means nothing to most executive who authorize expenditures for KM technologies and services.  I recommend using the term, COGNITIVE.   Let’s make KM = Human.   Management people generally understand that cognitive relates to mental.     Tacit = WHAT???

Cognition – the neurological process of acquiring, interpreting, judging, organizing, storing, and reasoning with the knowledge gained through life experience.  (Life experience includes enculturation, education, actual life experience, and deep analytical thought).  Dictionaries fall short in describing cognition. I expanded the meaning to help make it more comprehensible.  My thinking is that most every KM term needs to relate to our humaness.  

Cognitive Task Analysis – An inductive (specific to the general) analysis of the thought processes that underlie the development, implementation, and application of ideas, products, and services.  Cognitive task functions are invisible and most often “second nature” to people once they are learned.  As a general rule Subject Matter Experts, management, and operational personnel typically leave out 50%-70% of the cognitive knowledge related to their expertise when sharing or transferring their knowledge to others.  (the title came from a paper, so I added a description to it that relates to KM. 

Ontology – A cognitive thought, with a point-of-view, that occurs in the mind or is made explicit through physical or digital means.   (my description since I thinking most descriptions of “ontology" are meaningless and useless). 

Organizational Knowledge – The individual and aggregate value of an organization’s “how, why, and what-if” workforce knowledge.  Organizational knowledge is mostly cognitive.  It is the intelligence that underlies the organizational structures, functions, procedures, tasks, and processes that employees, partners, suppliers and customers need to accomplish personal and organizational goals and objectives.  This organizational knowledge gives data/information its context, meaning, and purpose.  Cognitive knowledge = 85%, Data/Information = 15% of the knowledge equation.  

Knowledge Management (KM) – Coordinated activity of identifying where the cognitive and explicit knowledge of an organization exists, and how that knowledge flows through the organization to optimize goals and objectives.  KM is concerned with corporate cultures, collaboration, knowledge sharing, and the alignment of talent, knowledge, and skills with functions and tasks.  KM is an umbrella term that includes change management, training and development, learning and development, eLearning, eMentoring, Lean/continuous improvement, and ISO Quality Management Systems.   

Just thinking out load.

Dennis L. Thomas

IQStrategix, Inc.


On September 12, 2020 at 9:47:20 AM, David Eddy (deddy@...) wrote:

Robert -

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 02:01 PM, Robert L. Bogue wrote:
The Microsoft graph attempts to label edges/connections – but I’ve found those distinctions not particularly useful.
re: strength of signal.

I recently read Martin White's Enterprise Search: Enhancing Business Performance & was astonished to eventually understand the book's perspective of "enterprise search" was what was in SharePoint.   Stuff not in SharePoint was I presume over the proverbial edge where dragons live.

This is like saying... "Because my eyes only register (the signal) of visible light, xrays, infrared light, etc. do not exist."

Or... because I learned a brand new (to me) meaning of "application" yesterday... because NLP (natural language processing) does amazing things, un-natural language (UNLP?) does not exist.

Given  that UNLP is a thorny & unavoidable portion of cross generational knowledge transfer, I find this 100% focus on NLP odd.  Don't know how to or want to address UNLP, that's understandable.  Deny it exists... that's head-in-the-sand behavior.

Example of UNLP: in 2006 I found "cc" to have 298 meanings.  Now I find it to have 463 meanings.

- David Eddy
www.legacysoftware.co.uk


Re: Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge? #case-studies #definition

David Eddy
 

Robert -

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 02:01 PM, Robert L. Bogue wrote:
The Microsoft graph attempts to label edges/connections – but I’ve found those distinctions not particularly useful.
re: strength of signal.

I recently read Martin White's Enterprise Search: Enhancing Business Performance & was astonished to eventually understand the book's perspective of "enterprise search" was what was in SharePoint.   Stuff not in SharePoint was I presume over the proverbial edge where dragons live.

This is like saying... "Because my eyes only register (the signal) of visible light, xrays, infrared light, etc. do not exist."

Or... because I learned a brand new (to me) meaning of "application" yesterday... because NLP (natural language processing) does amazing things, un-natural language (UNLP?) does not exist.

Given  that UNLP is a thorny & unavoidable portion of cross generational knowledge transfer, I find this 100% focus on NLP odd.  Don't know how to or want to address UNLP, that's understandable.  Deny it exists... that's head-in-the-sand behavior.

Example of UNLP: in 2006 I found "cc" to have 298 meanings.  Now I find it to have 463 meanings.

- David Eddy
www.legacysoftware.co.uk


Re: Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge? #case-studies #definition

Robert L. Bogue
 

Valdis –

 

The point of weak signals is that individually they mean nothing – but in aggregate they mean something.   True.  Liking a post means nothing.  Liking 100 of one person’s post DOES mean something.  Ascertaining it’s meaning as you say is challenging, however, there is meaning.

 

If I’m in the same 10-person meeting with another person 100 times over the course of a quarter, I’ll guarantee that you know the person.  I’ll also guarantee that you’re likely to know some personal information about them and have an opinion about them.

 

As you point out, we have the same problem with strong signal connections – we don’t know what a LinkedIn connection means or a Facebook friend means.

 

The Microsoft graph attempts to label edges/connections – but I’ve found those distinctions not particularly useful.

 

What’s REALLY interesting to me is feeding back the SNA to search to influence the ranking.

 

Rob

 

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

Robert L. Bogue

O: (317) 844-5310  M: (317) 506-4977 Blog: http://www.thorprojects.com/blog

Want to be confident about your change management efforts?  https://ConfidentChangeManagement.com

Are you burned out?  https://ExtinguishBurnout.com can help you get out of it (for free)

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Valdis Krebs via groups.io
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 1:38 PM
To: main@sikm.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge?

 

>>  I do think that the use of weak signals instead of strong signals is creating more opportunities for SNA to be useful.



Rob, 



I will disagree.  Weak ties/signals have lost their original meaning on the Internet.  In fact there is no real agreement on what a weak signal/tie is.



Regarding weak signals/ties and SNA… if you set the bar low enough for what a tie/signal is, then everyone is connected to everyone else, and you have a useless hairball.Weak signals often are associated with weak info — you overhear in the cafeteria that your college team won their football game last weekend.  Nice to know, but not necessary to do your job.  How to solve a tough problem at work does not appear in weak signals, it is accomplished in conversations/sense-making with people you trust and who understand the context of the situation.



“Facebook friends” — yeah, that phrase also has many meanings.  Many people appear to have hundreds or thousands of friends on Facebook and contacts on LinkedIn… but those are often faux friends/contacts, even though both sides have to “confirm” the tie/connection.  People “track” many more others online than they actually have a conversation with (one indicator of a true friendship/contact).  Based on FB’s own research, guess how many friends people *actually* have on FB??? 🤔 I will share the research, but would love to see some answers from this group first. 😉

 

Valdis

 

Orgnet,LLC

 

 


Re: Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge? #case-studies #definition

Valdis Krebs
 

>>  I do think that the use of weak signals instead of strong signals is creating more opportunities for SNA to be useful.

Rob, 

I will disagree.  Weak ties/signals have lost their original meaning on the Internet.  In fact there is no real agreement on what a weak signal/tie is.

Regarding weak signals/ties and SNA… if you set the bar low enough for what a tie/signal is, then everyone is connected to everyone else, and you have a useless hairball.Weak signals often are associated with weak info — you overhear in the cafeteria that your college team won their football game last weekend.  Nice to know, but not necessary to do your job.  How to solve a tough problem at work does not appear in weak signals, it is accomplished in conversations/sense-making with people you trust and who understand the context of the situation.

“Facebook friends” — yeah, that phrase also has many meanings.  Many people appear to have hundreds or thousands of friends on Facebook and contacts on LinkedIn… but those are often faux friends/contacts, even though both sides have to “confirm” the tie/connection.  People “track” many more others online than they actually have a conversation with (one indicator of a true friendship/contact).  Based on FB’s own research, guess how many friends people *actually* have on FB??? 🤔 I will share the research, but would love to see some answers from this group first. 😉

Valdis

Orgnet,LLC



Re: Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge? #case-studies #definition

Robert L. Bogue
 

Hi Patrick –

 

I think the challenge with SNA at an aggregate level is that it’s too easy to distort weak signals.  I was just in Green Bank, West Virginia where there is no cellular coverage because of the largest pointable radio telescope.  Looking for weak signals is important work – but they can be distorted easily.

 

As for the course title, that’s sort of the point of the title.  Most people have never been taught how to do change management.  Even after the course I can’t guarantee you that you’ll be successful every time and more than the weather person can get the forecast right every day.  Instead, I can say that the likelihood that you can predict the weather improves with your study of meteorology.  The course is the study of the key factors that lead to successful change.  Will you be 70% successful after the course or 80% or 30% … I can’t say.  I can say that you can be confident that you have the skills to attempt the change.

 

Rob

 

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

Robert L. Bogue

O: (317) 844-5310  M: (317) 506-4977 Blog: http://www.thorprojects.com/blog

Want to be confident about your change management efforts?  https://ConfidentChangeManagement.com

Are you burned out?  https://ExtinguishBurnout.com can help you get out of it (for free)

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Patrick Lambe via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 11:52 PM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Cc: llocklee@...
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge?

 

Hi Rob

 

I agree that SNA needs to be approached with great care. My take on it is that (as long as the data is relatively clean and free of distortion) it’s much better at telling us about networks and their relative health on an aggregate scale than on an individual scale. In much the same way, an actuary can tell us a lot about a demographic, but is not much better than a fortune teller when it comes to the individual.

 

I like the title of your change management course. To be honest if I was writing one, I’d call it "Trepidatious Change Management” - but I never could figure out change management.

 

P

 

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:                                                    +65 98528511

web:                                                       www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:                                             www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:           www.aithinsoftware.com

 

On 9 Sep 2020, at 9:18 PM, Robert L. Bogue <rbogue@...> wrote:

 

Agreed.  Networks are good in that they’re capable of enabling or disabling conditions that lead to the production or suppression of knowledge in all forms.  Stan et all have been working hard to continue to shape this space such that it’s an enabling forum.

 

I’ve always struggled with SNA – not because you can’t do it but because it fails to account for long-arc.  Using Microsoft Graph (not the API, the thing surfaced through Delve) as an example.  It’s a wonderful implementation of microsignals for the development of probable relationships between individuals.  Signals become edges.  Edges have different types and different strengths.  The problem is that the sheer amount of data causes Microsoft to constrain these edges to 60 days.  That network wouldn’t be able to even remotely represent our conversation.  I’ve not interacted with an SIKM thread in some time.  (Mainly because I’ve been crushed getting the Confident Change Management course out the door and helping my wife produce COVID-19 related training.)  It wouldn’t be able to represent the relationship to Klein or his ideas – or Polanyi, et all.

 

I have an unformed idea that the ideal social network analysis includes both declared relationships as well as inferred relationships.  The part I struggle with here is that there’s no effective way for us to communicate the strength of a connection.  Consider LinkedIn.  Have you ever seen a second degree connection via LinkedIn and reached out to your contact only to find that the relationship on the other side is weak (or useless.)?  That’s problematic to helping people get to the knowledge they need.

 

To prevent rambling, I’ll stop here.  While I love the idea – I’ve struggled to see this technology be consistently productive.  It’s better than nothing but still very unreliable.

 

Putting a bow on things … I agree that tacit and explicit are different but related forms of knowledge (I’d probably argue tightly related.)  However, ala Kleins’ work, I think that if we want to get to better tacit we should consider how to accelerate learning – and while that is a difficult process it seems worthy of our efforts.

 

Rob

 

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

Robert L. Bogue

O: (317) 844-5310  M: (317) 506-4977 Blog: http://www.thorprojects.com/blog

Are you burned out?  https://ExtinguishBurnout.com can help you get out of it.

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Patrick Lambe via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 8:36 AM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Cc: llocklee@...
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge?

 

Great to see Gary Klein’s work being brought in Rob.

 

It seems to me that explication is an entirely different kind of knowledge activity than understanding or knowing, or knowing how to. They are of course connected. Explication requires reasoning, observation, contextualisation, knowledge integration and translation. In fact it could be said to be a form of knowledge building. 

 

If I’m working on a piece of writing, I am of course working out of "the ground" of what I know (in my head and body), but there’s a long and venerable tradition of thinking from Ryle through Polanyi and McIntyre that says that this tacit ground of knowing is inarticulable, and once you articulate you’ve created an entirely different form of knowledge that connects only in a loose way to the “knowledge ground” that produced it, you have not simply “converted” the tacit knowledge. Polanyi does acknowledge that articulation can provide a feedback loop to deepen our tacit knowledge (so explication of techniques can improve piano playing) but he was adamant that they are fundamentally different kinds of thing. Tacit and explicit knowledge forms in their various degrees of combination follow each other around, but they are not blood relatives. Neither is reducible to the other.

 

If I am working on that piece of writing, I’m not simply trying to represent what’s in me. I’m also trying to connect it to what I know about (out there in the world), which I may need to explore or think about more deeply, and I’m trying to connect to it to what I know about my audience, which I may need to observe and reflect on more carefully, so there’s a sense in which it feels like a journey of discovery, as much as simply expressing something I know. The whole thing feels much more like the interaction of various cognitive activities, and it feels like an iterative process full of feedback loops, interacting back and forth with the world, not at all like a simple “produce something out of my head” kind of activity. I’m building something, not converting something. And my building blocks are out there in the world as much as in my head and body.

 

And I’m with you Rob, that explication/articulation is only one mode of moving knowledge around (or replicating it) - “creating the conditions to accelerate the discovery of tacit knowledge” is a nice way of putting it. To bring this back to Laurie’s contribution, this is why an understanding of networks and collaboration is useful - because they can provide enabling or disabling conditions.

 

P

 

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:                                                    +65 98528511

web:                                                       www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:                                             www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:           www.aithinsoftware.com

<image001.jpg>

 

On 9 Sep 2020, at 7:51 PM, Robert L. Bogue <rbogue@...> wrote:

 

Re: 10,000 hr rule … the original research never said that.  That’s Malcolm Gladwell’s simplification in Outliers  (https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2009/07/29/book-review-outliers/)  Anders Ericsson clarified in Peak (https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2016/07/11/book-review-peak-secrets-from-the-new-science-of-expertise/) that the factor was purposeful practice.

 

For me, this merges both “the perfect form” and practice.  If you practice enough, and you’re willing to accept performance setbacks to try new forms, you’ll eventually settle on the “perfect” one.  However, even discovering the “perfect” stance doesn’t mean you’ll be able to explain it.  (ala tacit)  Observers can only get to the observable factors, many unobservable factors remain.

 

I don’t know that I think about teaching tacit (and therefore requiring the articulation that Murrey explains) rather, I view tacit as creating the conditions to accelerate the discovery of the tacit knowledge.  See Gary Klein’s work in Seeing What Other’s Don’t (https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2014/12/23/book-review-seeing-what-others-dont-the-remarkable-ways-we-gain-insights/)  and Sources of Power (https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2011/10/23/book-review-sources-of-power-how-people-make-decisions/)

 

When I relax the conditions from teaching to coaching on tacit, I realize that I don’t have to be able to articulate every nuance as long as I create situations that accelerates the learning process.

 

Rob

 

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

Robert L. Bogue

O: (317) 844-5310  M: (317) 506-4977 Blog: http://www.thorprojects.com/blog

Are you burned out?  https://ExtinguishBurnout.com can help you get out of it.

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Douglas Weidner via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 7:38 AM
To: main@sikm.groups.io
Cc: plambe@...; llocklee@...
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge?

 

Excellent discussion on an age-old topic: tacit vs. explicit.

Some have long claimed tacit is knowledge and explicit is just information. The ISO 30401:2018 argues otherwise. I do as well.

 

Here's a few further arguments on topics already raised.

Physical K - whether a hitter is good or not is probably less dependent on exactly correct form than the essence of a 10,000 hr. rule.

 

As for "but I do really believe that you can't know something until you can articulate it," I agree and would go one step further. For me, the detailed articulation is the intellectual challenge that provides great insights. Almost as if the articulation forces you to open and inspect every nook and cranny of your brain's synapse connections.

 

Lastly, if you strive to formalize a tacit to explicit process, for whatever unique purpose such as retirement, consider some truths: if the articulation is one-on-one (Mentoring?) it may be less efficient than a one-on-manyprocess; and, if you can easily codify as you articulate, you expand the effective use even further.

 

Sometimes, merely paying attention to obvious truisms can provide great benefit.

 

Douglas Weidner

Exec Chairman, 

 

 

On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 3:42 AM Murray Jennex via groups.io <murphjen=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:

I hear you Patrick and mostly agree, to me understanding something means I can articulate it to someone else, this is perhaps something I've learned by being a professor, I can't teach something I can't articulate (and this means you can't transfer what you can't articulate).  Of course I talk about tacit knowledge and in particular use sports metaphors, however, you will not disrupt my serve or strokes by asking me to explain them as I've been a tennis coach and the same applies there, you can't coach what you can't articulate.  All that said, I don't worry about instinctive knowledge, I understand that to be something buried in my brain that comes out when I need it, however, when it does come out I strive to articulate it.  I agree with you that it isn't a clean 1:1 swap, nothing ever is and so don't take my statements as being 100%, but I do really believe that you can't know something until you can articulate it.  I don't worry if that means there is no tacit knowledge, that is just a gut feel of mine, but hey, it does spur some really good discussions!  I love to use Tony Gwynn as an example of someone who was perhaps the best hitter in baseball but when he coached our college team we were only average hitters.  Does that mean Tony didn't really understand the knowledge of hitting?  I don't think so, he just had special physical tools that made it so that he could do what he said while others couldn't.  Perhaps we combine instinct and other physical attributes with what we call knowledge?  I'd argue we have the knowledge and are confusing that with performance or putting the knowledge in action, sometimes we know what we want to do but just can't do it!....murray



-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Lambe <plambe@...>
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Cc: llocklee@... <llocklee@...>
Sent: Tue, Sep 8, 2020 11:32 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge?

Hi Murray I would just swap out one word in your sentence 

 

My own feeling is that all knowledge is explicit once you [understand] can articulate it, i.e. tacit knowledge is simply knowledge we haven't learned to express yet.

 

Speaking for myself, I often think I understand something without being able to articulate it (maybe that’s an illusion!!), and sometimes I can articulate the same understanding in quite different ways depending on the context. 

 

In relation to tacit knowledge, of course there’s the whole area of somatic knowledge (things my body knows how to do) where words can be descriptive but virtually useless - i.e. the articulation of the knowledge “hold the violin bow at an angle of 30 degrees to the strings” doesn’t really express the knowledge in the same way that a recipe might. So being able to express how I ride the bike doesn’t accurately represent the tacit knowledge involved.

 

I have a friend who regularly (and deliberately) disrupted his (very skilful) tennis buddy’s serves by asking him to explain how he did it. Shifting his buddy’s focus from his bodily knowledge to a poor verbal expression of it, distracted his body from actually being able to deliver the serve effectively.

 

So while I agree with your general point, we do need to recognise that there isn’t a clean 1:1 convertibility from explicit-tacit or vice versa. In fact the dualism between tacit and explicit is far too simplistic - which I think is where your first comment was going.

 

P

 

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com

<image001.jpg>

 

On 9 Sep 2020, at 2:05 PM, Murray Jennex via groups.io <murphjen@...> wrote:

 

Actually, many would argue that there is no such thing as purely tacit knowledge or purely explicit knowledge, that both have degrees of tacitness and explicitness and that the degree of each varies with the knowledge user/holder.  Capturing tacit just means we've made it more explicit, it doesn't reduce its value and actually may increase it.  My own feeling is that all knowledge is explicit once you understand it, i.e. tacit knowledge is simply knowledge we haven't learned to express yet....murray



-----Original Message-----
From: Laurence Lock Lee <llocklee@...>
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Sent: Tue, Sep 8, 2020 4:15 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge?

Many would argue that once tacit knowledge is captured it is no longer tacit, and therefore degraded. If your intention is to benefit from online exchanges through the sharing of tacit knowledge it is therefore far more important to identify the holders of that tacit knowledge and to connect with them one on one for knowledge exchange and skip the translation to explicit knowledge and back to tacit processes. Organisational/Social network analysis is a good way to find experts. Our business conducts ONA/SNA online through Yammer Teams and Workplace by facebook (not Slack though ...that is another story) ... we have lots of case studies on our site www.swoopanalytics.com.

 

 

 


Re: Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge? #case-studies #definition

Robert L. Bogue
 

Laurence –

 

I’ll disagree that timeframe is not an issue.  Let me illustrate from this conversation.  First, as I had previously mentioned my interactivity with the group hit a lull as I had to focus elsewhere.  Even in the two year timeframe my interactivity with this group would be dwarfed by the other emails I’ve responded to.  This group has a large number of people therefore the relative weight of the signal of interactivity is low.  In short, one wouldn’t think that I’d have much of a relationship with the group.  However, I deeply respect numerous members of this group for their wisdom.  I’ll use Patrick since he’s in the thread.  He could pickup the phone and call me and ask for a favor and I’d answer and if I could probably do the favor.  Why?  Because I respect him.  (BTW- There are numerous others here, I’d do the same for but I’m using Patrick because he’s on the thread.)  If you look at the SNA for Patrick and I, I sincerely doubt that you could understand the relationship.  Part of that would require a deeper inspection of the kind of interaction – requiring a greater level of intelligence about the weight of the signals.  However, the important part for our purposes is that most of the detailed conversations are years old – nearing a decade at this point.  Some things are just not visible.  It doesn’t mean SNA isn’t valuable – it is in it’s capacity to illuminate relationships that may or may not be obvious.  I’m just careful to not expect that it’s the silver bullet to solve the problem – any more than search solved the findability problem.

 

In terms of fine tuning your response, I hear you talking about signals and then what edges mean.  I separate these.  Signals, particularly weak signals like those you’ve described, mean relationship.  Edges are the aggregation of those signals into relationships – and I agree this is where it gets interesting.  What does reporting to the same manager mean?  Working at the same company?  How about the fact that we’ve been in two dozen committee meetings?  At worst we can communicate familiarity.  From a psychological point of view both familiarity and history offer an affinity that can presumably be leveraged.

 

Again, SNA = good, not solution.  I do think that the use of weak signals instead of strong signals is creating more opportunities for SNA to be useful.

 

Rob

 

P.S. More interesting is what does “Facebook friends” mean?  Particularly in the context of Robin Dunbars work regarding stable social relationships.

 

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

Robert L. Bogue

O: (317) 844-5310  M: (317) 506-4977 Blog: http://www.thorprojects.com/blog

Want to be confident about your change management efforts?  https://ConfidentChangeManagement.com

Are you burned out?  https://ExtinguishBurnout.com can help you get out of it (for free)

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Laurence Lock Lee via groups.io
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 3:14 AM
To: Patrick Lambe <plambe@...>
Cc: main@sikm.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge?

 

Rob is right about the limits that Microsoft puts on reporting on its graph data, but we are using the APIs and the time period can be extended to years if need be ... our default is 2 years....so technically the time frame should not be an issue. 

 

The volume of data on how individuals are interacting has only been enhanced since COVID-19 and I suspect will only be more comprehensive as people are ‘forced’ to communicate online. Having more data is your friend, as it allows more granular analysis. Having spent more than a decade doing exclusively SNA surveys and now 6 years doing online, realtime SNA tracking of more than 100 organisations, both have a place and are in fact complementary. There are things you can ask in a survey that you cannot easily infer from online tracking e.g. “who energises or de-energises you?”  Etc.. The downside is that surveys are point in time analyses that tend to feed into long term change programs, that more often than not go nowhere before the data is outdated.

 

I think the continuous feedback that online SNA provides is much more powerful as it speaks to the individual and the management at the same time, all the time. SNA surveys rarely provided individual feedback that could promote change. It’s like wearing a Fitbit where only aggregated information is provided back to you.

 

As to what do the interaction ‘edges’ actually mean? That is a good question and one we are continuously looking at e.g. how much is a ‘like’ in Yammer vs a reply in a Teams Chat? What I am confident of though, and we have been able to validate this through case studies and doing both surveys and online studies of the same groups, is that the ‘key players’ that emerge in a survey based SNA do also surface in the online analysis. 

 

Finally back to the initiating question about managing tacit knowledge sharing ... there is no silver bullet, but as digital intensity increases the options for studying this topic at scale means that there are few other viable options as I see it.

 

Rgds

Laurence Lock Lee

Swoop Analytics 



On 10 Sep 2020, at 1:53 pm, Patrick Lambe <plambe@...> wrote:

Hi Rob

 

I agree that SNA needs to be approached with great care. My take on it is that (as long as the data is relatively clean and free of distortion) it’s much better at telling us about networks and their relative health on an aggregate scale than on an individual scale. In much the same way, an actuary can tell us a lot about a demographic, but is not much better than a fortune teller when it comes to the individual.

 

I like the title of your change management course. To be honest if I was writing one, I’d call it "Trepidatious Change Management” - but I never could figure out change management.

 

P

 

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:                                                    +65 98528511

web:                                                       www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:                                             www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:           www.aithinsoftware.com

<SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter (2).jpg>

 

On 9 Sep 2020, at 9:18 PM, Robert L. Bogue <rbogue@...> wrote:

 

Agreed.  Networks are good in that they’re capable of enabling or disabling conditions that lead to the production or suppression of knowledge in all forms.  Stan et all have been working hard to continue to shape this space such that it’s an enabling forum.

 

I’ve always struggled with SNA – not because you can’t do it but because it fails to account for long-arc.  Using Microsoft Graph (not the API, the thing surfaced through Delve) as an example.  It’s a wonderful implementation of microsignals for the development of probable relationships between individuals.  Signals become edges.  Edges have different types and different strengths.  The problem is that the sheer amount of data causes Microsoft to constrain these edges to 60 days.  That network wouldn’t be able to even remotely represent our conversation.  I’ve not interacted with an SIKM thread in some time.  (Mainly because I’ve been crushed getting the Confident Change Management course out the door and helping my wife produce COVID-19 related training.)  It wouldn’t be able to represent the relationship to Klein or his ideas – or Polanyi, et all.

 

I have an unformed idea that the ideal social network analysis includes both declared relationships as well as inferred relationships.  The part I struggle with here is that there’s no effective way for us to communicate the strength of a connection.  Consider LinkedIn.  Have you ever seen a second degree connection via LinkedIn and reached out to your contact only to find that the relationship on the other side is weak (or useless.)?  That’s problematic to helping people get to the knowledge they need.

 

To prevent rambling, I’ll stop here.  While I love the idea – I’ve struggled to see this technology be consistently productive.  It’s better than nothing but still very unreliable.

 

Putting a bow on things … I agree that tacit and explicit are different but related forms of knowledge (I’d probably argue tightly related.)  However, ala Kleins’ work, I think that if we want to get to better tacit we should consider how to accelerate learning – and while that is a difficult process it seems worthy of our efforts.

 

Rob

 

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

Robert L. Bogue

O: (317) 844-5310  M: (317) 506-4977 Blog: http://www.thorprojects.com/blog

Are you burned out?  https://ExtinguishBurnout.com can help you get out of it.

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Patrick Lambe via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 8:36 AM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Cc: llocklee@...
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge?

 

Great to see Gary Klein’s work being brought in Rob.

 

It seems to me that explication is an entirely different kind of knowledge activity than understanding or knowing, or knowing how to. They are of course connected. Explication requires reasoning, observation, contextualisation, knowledge integration and translation. In fact it could be said to be a form of knowledge building. 

 

If I’m working on a piece of writing, I am of course working out of "the ground" of what I know (in my head and body), but there’s a long and venerable tradition of thinking from Ryle through Polanyi and McIntyre that says that this tacit ground of knowing is inarticulable, and once you articulate you’ve created an entirely different form of knowledge that connects only in a loose way to the “knowledge ground” that produced it, you have not simply “converted” the tacit knowledge. Polanyi does acknowledge that articulation can provide a feedback loop to deepen our tacit knowledge (so explication of techniques can improve piano playing) but he was adamant that they are fundamentally different kinds of thing. Tacit and explicit knowledge forms in their various degrees of combination follow each other around, but they are not blood relatives. Neither is reducible to the other.

 

If I am working on that piece of writing, I’m not simply trying to represent what’s in me. I’m also trying to connect it to what I know about (out there in the world), which I may need to explore or think about more deeply, and I’m trying to connect to it to what I know about my audience, which I may need to observe and reflect on more carefully, so there’s a sense in which it feels like a journey of discovery, as much as simply expressing something I know. The whole thing feels much more like the interaction of various cognitive activities, and it feels like an iterative process full of feedback loops, interacting back and forth with the world, not at all like a simple “produce something out of my head” kind of activity. I’m building something, not converting something. And my building blocks are out there in the world as much as in my head and body.

 

And I’m with you Rob, that explication/articulation is only one mode of moving knowledge around (or replicating it) - “creating the conditions to accelerate the discovery of tacit knowledge” is a nice way of putting it. To bring this back to Laurie’s contribution, this is why an understanding of networks and collaboration is useful - because they can provide enabling or disabling conditions.

 

P

 

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:                                                    +65 98528511

web:                                                       www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:                                             www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:           www.aithinsoftware.com

<image001.jpg>

 

On 9 Sep 2020, at 7:51 PM, Robert L. Bogue <rbogue@...> wrote:

 

Re: 10,000 hr rule … the original research never said that.  That’s Malcolm Gladwell’s simplification in Outliers  (https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2009/07/29/book-review-outliers/)  Anders Ericsson clarified in Peak (https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2016/07/11/book-review-peak-secrets-from-the-new-science-of-expertise/) that the factor was purposeful practice.

 

For me, this merges both “the perfect form” and practice.  If you practice enough, and you’re willing to accept performance setbacks to try new forms, you’ll eventually settle on the “perfect” one.  However, even discovering the “perfect” stance doesn’t mean you’ll be able to explain it.  (ala tacit)  Observers can only get to the observable factors, many unobservable factors remain.

 

I don’t know that I think about teaching tacit (and therefore requiring the articulation that Murrey explains) rather, I view tacit as creating the conditions to accelerate the discovery of the tacit knowledge.  See Gary Klein’s work in Seeing What Other’s Don’t (https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2014/12/23/book-review-seeing-what-others-dont-the-remarkable-ways-we-gain-insights/)  and Sources of Power (https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2011/10/23/book-review-sources-of-power-how-people-make-decisions/)

 

When I relax the conditions from teaching to coaching on tacit, I realize that I don’t have to be able to articulate every nuance as long as I create situations that accelerates the learning process.

 

Rob

 

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

Robert L. Bogue

O: (317) 844-5310  M: (317) 506-4977 Blog: http://www.thorprojects.com/blog

Are you burned out?  https://ExtinguishBurnout.com can help you get out of it.

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Douglas Weidner via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 7:38 AM
To: main@sikm.groups.io
Cc: plambe@...; llocklee@...
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge?

 

Excellent discussion on an age-old topic: tacit vs. explicit.

Some have long claimed tacit is knowledge and explicit is just information. The ISO 30401:2018 argues otherwise. I do as well.

 

Here's a few further arguments on topics already raised.

Physical K - whether a hitter is good or not is probably less dependent on exactly correct form than the essence of a 10,000 hr. rule.

 

As for "but I do really believe that you can't know something until you can articulate it," I agree and would go one step further. For me, the detailed articulation is the intellectual challenge that provides great insights. Almost as if the articulation forces you to open and inspect every nook and cranny of your brain's synapse connections.

 

Lastly, if you strive to formalize a tacit to explicit process, for whatever unique purpose such as retirement, consider some truths: if the articulation is one-on-one (Mentoring?) it may be less efficient than a one-on-manyprocess; and, if you can easily codify as you articulate, you expand the effective use even further.

 

Sometimes, merely paying attention to obvious truisms can provide great benefit.

 

Douglas Weidner

Exec Chairman, 

 

 

On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 3:42 AM Murray Jennex via groups.io <murphjen=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:

I hear you Patrick and mostly agree, to me understanding something means I can articulate it to someone else, this is perhaps something I've learned by being a professor, I can't teach something I can't articulate (and this means you can't transfer what you can't articulate).  Of course I talk about tacit knowledge and in particular use sports metaphors, however, you will not disrupt my serve or strokes by asking me to explain them as I've been a tennis coach and the same applies there, you can't coach what you can't articulate.  All that said, I don't worry about instinctive knowledge, I understand that to be something buried in my brain that comes out when I need it, however, when it does come out I strive to articulate it.  I agree with you that it isn't a clean 1:1 swap, nothing ever is and so don't take my statements as being 100%, but I do really believe that you can't know something until you can articulate it.  I don't worry if that means there is no tacit knowledge, that is just a gut feel of mine, but hey, it does spur some really good discussions!  I love to use Tony Gwynn as an example of someone who was perhaps the best hitter in baseball but when he coached our college team we were only average hitters.  Does that mean Tony didn't really understand the knowledge of hitting?  I don't think so, he just had special physical tools that made it so that he could do what he said while others couldn't.  Perhaps we combine instinct and other physical attributes with what we call knowledge?  I'd argue we have the knowledge and are confusing that with performance or putting the knowledge in action, sometimes we know what we want to do but just can't do it!....murray



-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Lambe <plambe@...>
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Cc: llocklee@... <llocklee@...>
Sent: Tue, Sep 8, 2020 11:32 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge?

Hi Murray I would just swap out one word in your sentence 

 

My own feeling is that all knowledge is explicit once you [understand] can articulate it, i.e. tacit knowledge is simply knowledge we haven't learned to express yet.

 

Speaking for myself, I often think I understand something without being able to articulate it (maybe that’s an illusion!!), and sometimes I can articulate the same understanding in quite different ways depending on the context. 

 

In relation to tacit knowledge, of course there’s the whole area of somatic knowledge (things my body knows how to do) where words can be descriptive but virtually useless - i.e. the articulation of the knowledge “hold the violin bow at an angle of 30 degrees to the strings” doesn’t really express the knowledge in the same way that a recipe might. So being able to express how I ride the bike doesn’t accurately represent the tacit knowledge involved.

 

I have a friend who regularly (and deliberately) disrupted his (very skilful) tennis buddy’s serves by asking him to explain how he did it. Shifting his buddy’s focus from his bodily knowledge to a poor verbal expression of it, distracted his body from actually being able to deliver the serve effectively.

 

So while I agree with your general point, we do need to recognise that there isn’t a clean 1:1 convertibility from explicit-tacit or vice versa. In fact the dualism between tacit and explicit is far too simplistic - which I think is where your first comment was going.

 

P

 

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com

<image001.jpg>

 

On 9 Sep 2020, at 2:05 PM, Murray Jennex via groups.io <murphjen@...> wrote:

 

Actually, many would argue that there is no such thing as purely tacit knowledge or purely explicit knowledge, that both have degrees of tacitness and explicitness and that the degree of each varies with the knowledge user/holder.  Capturing tacit just means we've made it more explicit, it doesn't reduce its value and actually may increase it.  My own feeling is that all knowledge is explicit once you understand it, i.e. tacit knowledge is simply knowledge we haven't learned to express yet....murray



-----Original Message-----
From: Laurence Lock Lee <llocklee@...>
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Sent: Tue, Sep 8, 2020 4:15 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge?

Many would argue that once tacit knowledge is captured it is no longer tacit, and therefore degraded. If your intention is to benefit from online exchanges through the sharing of tacit knowledge it is therefore far more important to identify the holders of that tacit knowledge and to connect with them one on one for knowledge exchange and skip the translation to explicit knowledge and back to tacit processes. Organisational/Social network analysis is a good way to find experts. Our business conducts ONA/SNA online through Yammer Teams and Workplace by facebook (not Slack though ...that is another story) ... we have lots of case studies on our site www.swoopanalytics.com.

 

 

 


Re: Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge? #case-studies #definition

Laurence Lock Lee
 

Rob is right about the limits that Microsoft puts on reporting on its graph data, but we are using the APIs and the time period can be extended to years if need be ... our default is 2 years....so technically the time frame should not be an issue. 

The volume of data on how individuals are interacting has only been enhanced since COVID-19 and I suspect will only be more comprehensive as people are ‘forced’ to communicate online. Having more data is your friend, as it allows more granular analysis. Having spent more than a decade doing exclusively SNA surveys and now 6 years doing online, realtime SNA tracking of more than 100 organisations, both have a place and are in fact complementary. There are things you can ask in a survey that you cannot easily infer from online tracking e.g. “who energises or de-energises you?”  Etc.. The downside is that surveys are point in time analyses that tend to feed into long term change programs, that more often than not go nowhere before the data is outdated.

I think the continuous feedback that online SNA provides is much more powerful as it speaks to the individual and the management at the same time, all the time. SNA surveys rarely provided individual feedback that could promote change. It’s like wearing a Fitbit where only aggregated information is provided back to you.

As to what do the interaction ‘edges’ actually mean? That is a good question and one we are continuously looking at e.g. how much is a ‘like’ in Yammer vs a reply in a Teams Chat? What I am confident of though, and we have been able to validate this through case studies and doing both surveys and online studies of the same groups, is that the ‘key players’ that emerge in a survey based SNA do also surface in the online analysis. 

Finally back to the initiating question about managing tacit knowledge sharing ... there is no silver bullet, but as digital intensity increases the options for studying this topic at scale means that there are few other viable options as I see it.

Rgds
Laurence Lock Lee
Swoop Analytics 


On 10 Sep 2020, at 1:53 pm, Patrick Lambe <plambe@...> wrote:

Hi Rob

I agree that SNA needs to be approached with great care. My take on it is that (as long as the data is relatively clean and free of distortion) it’s much better at telling us about networks and their relative health on an aggregate scale than on an individual scale. In much the same way, an actuary can tell us a lot about a demographic, but is not much better than a fortune teller when it comes to the individual.

I like the title of your change management course. To be honest if I was writing one, I’d call it "Trepidatious Change Management” - but I never could figure out change management.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com

<SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter (2).jpg>

On 9 Sep 2020, at 9:18 PM, Robert L. Bogue <rbogue@...> wrote:

Agreed.  Networks are good in that they’re capable of enabling or disabling conditions that lead to the production or suppression of knowledge in all forms.  Stan et all have been working hard to continue to shape this space such that it’s an enabling forum.
 
I’ve always struggled with SNA – not because you can’t do it but because it fails to account for long-arc.  Using Microsoft Graph (not the API, the thing surfaced through Delve) as an example.  It’s a wonderful implementation of microsignals for the development of probable relationships between individuals.  Signals become edges.  Edges have different types and different strengths.  The problem is that the sheer amount of data causes Microsoft to constrain these edges to 60 days.  That network wouldn’t be able to even remotely represent our conversation.  I’ve not interacted with an SIKM thread in some time.  (Mainly because I’ve been crushed getting the Confident Change Management course out the door and helping my wife produce COVID-19 related training.)  It wouldn’t be able to represent the relationship to Klein or his ideas – or Polanyi, et all.
 
I have an unformed idea that the ideal social network analysis includes both declared relationships as well as inferred relationships.  The part I struggle with here is that there’s no effective way for us to communicate the strength of a connection.  Consider LinkedIn.  Have you ever seen a second degree connection via LinkedIn and reached out to your contact only to find that the relationship on the other side is weak (or useless.)?  That’s problematic to helping people get to the knowledge they need.
 
To prevent rambling, I’ll stop here.  While I love the idea – I’ve struggled to see this technology be consistently productive.  It’s better than nothing but still very unreliable.
 
Putting a bow on things … I agree that tacit and explicit are different but related forms of knowledge (I’d probably argue tightly related.)  However, ala Kleins’ work, I think that if we want to get to better tacit we should consider how to accelerate learning – and while that is a difficult process it seems worthy of our efforts.
 
Rob
 
-------------------
Robert L. Bogue
O: (317) 844-5310  M: (317) 506-4977 Blog: http://www.thorprojects.com/blog
Are you burned out?  https://ExtinguishBurnout.com can help you get out of it.
 
From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Patrick Lambe via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 8:36 AM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Cc: llocklee@...
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge?
 
Great to see Gary Klein’s work being brought in Rob.
 
It seems to me that explication is an entirely different kind of knowledge activity than understanding or knowing, or knowing how to. They are of course connected. Explication requires reasoning, observation, contextualisation, knowledge integration and translation. In fact it could be said to be a form of knowledge building. 
 
If I’m working on a piece of writing, I am of course working out of "the ground" of what I know (in my head and body), but there’s a long and venerable tradition of thinking from Ryle through Polanyi and McIntyre that says that this tacit ground of knowing is inarticulable, and once you articulate you’ve created an entirely different form of knowledge that connects only in a loose way to the “knowledge ground” that produced it, you have not simply “converted” the tacit knowledge. Polanyi does acknowledge that articulation can provide a feedback loop to deepen our tacit knowledge (so explication of techniques can improve piano playing) but he was adamant that they are fundamentally different kinds of thing. Tacit and explicit knowledge forms in their various degrees of combination follow each other around, but they are not blood relatives. Neither is reducible to the other.
 
If I am working on that piece of writing, I’m not simply trying to represent what’s in me. I’m also trying to connect it to what I know about (out there in the world), which I may need to explore or think about more deeply, and I’m trying to connect to it to what I know about my audience, which I may need to observe and reflect on more carefully, so there’s a sense in which it feels like a journey of discovery, as much as simply expressing something I know. The whole thing feels much more like the interaction of various cognitive activities, and it feels like an iterative process full of feedback loops, interacting back and forth with the world, not at all like a simple “produce something out of my head” kind of activity. I’m building something, not converting something. And my building blocks are out there in the world as much as in my head and body.
 
And I’m with you Rob, that explication/articulation is only one mode of moving knowledge around (or replicating it) - “creating the conditions to accelerate the discovery of tacit knowledge” is a nice way of putting it. To bring this back to Laurie’s contribution, this is why an understanding of networks and collaboration is useful - because they can provide enabling or disabling conditions.
 
P
 
Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:                                                    +65 98528511

web:                                                       www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:                                             www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:           www.aithinsoftware.com

<image001.jpg>
 
On 9 Sep 2020, at 7:51 PM, Robert L. Bogue <rbogue@...> wrote:
 
Re: 10,000 hr rule … the original research never said that.  That’s Malcolm Gladwell’s simplification in Outliers  (https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2009/07/29/book-review-outliers/)  Anders Ericsson clarified in Peak (https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2016/07/11/book-review-peak-secrets-from-the-new-science-of-expertise/) that the factor was purposeful practice.
 
For me, this merges both “the perfect form” and practice.  If you practice enough, and you’re willing to accept performance setbacks to try new forms, you’ll eventually settle on the “perfect” one.  However, even discovering the “perfect” stance doesn’t mean you’ll be able to explain it.  (ala tacit)  Observers can only get to the observable factors, many unobservable factors remain.
 
I don’t know that I think about teaching tacit (and therefore requiring the articulation that Murrey explains) rather, I view tacit as creating the conditions to accelerate the discovery of the tacit knowledge.  See Gary Klein’s work in Seeing What Other’s Don’t (https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2014/12/23/book-review-seeing-what-others-dont-the-remarkable-ways-we-gain-insights/)  and Sources of Power (https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2011/10/23/book-review-sources-of-power-how-people-make-decisions/)
 
When I relax the conditions from teaching to coaching on tacit, I realize that I don’t have to be able to articulate every nuance as long as I create situations that accelerates the learning process.
 
Rob
 
-------------------
Robert L. Bogue
O: (317) 844-5310  M: (317) 506-4977 Blog: http://www.thorprojects.com/blog
Are you burned out?  https://ExtinguishBurnout.com can help you get out of it.
 
From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Douglas Weidner via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 7:38 AM
To: main@sikm.groups.io
Cc: plambe@...; llocklee@...
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge?
 
Excellent discussion on an age-old topic: tacit vs. explicit.
Some have long claimed tacit is knowledge and explicit is just information. The ISO 30401:2018 argues otherwise. I do as well.
 
Here's a few further arguments on topics already raised.
Physical K - whether a hitter is good or not is probably less dependent on exactly correct form than the essence of a 10,000 hr. rule.
 
As for "but I do really believe that you can't know something until you can articulate it," I agree and would go one step further. For me, the detailed articulation is the intellectual challenge that provides great insights. Almost as if the articulation forces you to open and inspect every nook and cranny of your brain's synapse connections.
 
Lastly, if you strive to formalize a tacit to explicit process, for whatever unique purpose such as retirement, consider some truths: if the articulation is one-on-one (Mentoring?) it may be less efficient than a one-on-manyprocess; and, if you can easily codify as you articulate, you expand the effective use even further.
 
Sometimes, merely paying attention to obvious truisms can provide great benefit.
 
Douglas Weidner
Exec Chairman, 
 
 
On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 3:42 AM Murray Jennex via groups.io <murphjen=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:

I hear you Patrick and mostly agree, to me understanding something means I can articulate it to someone else, this is perhaps something I've learned by being a professor, I can't teach something I can't articulate (and this means you can't transfer what you can't articulate).  Of course I talk about tacit knowledge and in particular use sports metaphors, however, you will not disrupt my serve or strokes by asking me to explain them as I've been a tennis coach and the same applies there, you can't coach what you can't articulate.  All that said, I don't worry about instinctive knowledge, I understand that to be something buried in my brain that comes out when I need it, however, when it does come out I strive to articulate it.  I agree with you that it isn't a clean 1:1 swap, nothing ever is and so don't take my statements as being 100%, but I do really believe that you can't know something until you can articulate it.  I don't worry if that means there is no tacit knowledge, that is just a gut feel of mine, but hey, it does spur some really good discussions!  I love to use Tony Gwynn as an example of someone who was perhaps the best hitter in baseball but when he coached our college team we were only average hitters.  Does that mean Tony didn't really understand the knowledge of hitting?  I don't think so, he just had special physical tools that made it so that he could do what he said while others couldn't.  Perhaps we combine instinct and other physical attributes with what we call knowledge?  I'd argue we have the knowledge and are confusing that with performance or putting the knowledge in action, sometimes we know what we want to do but just can't do it!....murray


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Lambe <plambe@...>
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Cc: llocklee@... <llocklee@...>
Sent: Tue, Sep 8, 2020 11:32 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge?

Hi Murray I would just swap out one word in your sentence 
 
My own feeling is that all knowledge is explicit once you [understand] can articulate it, i.e. tacit knowledge is simply knowledge we haven't learned to express yet.
 
Speaking for myself, I often think I understand something without being able to articulate it (maybe that’s an illusion!!), and sometimes I can articulate the same understanding in quite different ways depending on the context. 
 
In relation to tacit knowledge, of course there’s the whole area of somatic knowledge (things my body knows how to do) where words can be descriptive but virtually useless - i.e. the articulation of the knowledge “hold the violin bow at an angle of 30 degrees to the strings” doesn’t really express the knowledge in the same way that a recipe might. So being able to express how I ride the bike doesn’t accurately represent the tacit knowledge involved.
 
I have a friend who regularly (and deliberately) disrupted his (very skilful) tennis buddy’s serves by asking him to explain how he did it. Shifting his buddy’s focus from his bodily knowledge to a poor verbal expression of it, distracted his body from actually being able to deliver the serve effectively.
 
So while I agree with your general point, we do need to recognise that there isn’t a clean 1:1 convertibility from explicit-tacit or vice versa. In fact the dualism between tacit and explicit is far too simplistic - which I think is where your first comment was going.
 
P
 
Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com

<image001.jpg>
 
On 9 Sep 2020, at 2:05 PM, Murray Jennex via groups.io <murphjen@...> wrote:
 

Actually, many would argue that there is no such thing as purely tacit knowledge or purely explicit knowledge, that both have degrees of tacitness and explicitness and that the degree of each varies with the knowledge user/holder.  Capturing tacit just means we've made it more explicit, it doesn't reduce its value and actually may increase it.  My own feeling is that all knowledge is explicit once you understand it, i.e. tacit knowledge is simply knowledge we haven't learned to express yet....murray


-----Original Message-----
From: Laurence Lock Lee <llocklee@...>
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Sent: Tue, Sep 8, 2020 4:15 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge?

Many would argue that once tacit knowledge is captured it is no longer tacit, and therefore degraded. If your intention is to benefit from online exchanges through the sharing of tacit knowledge it is therefore far more important to identify the holders of that tacit knowledge and to connect with them one on one for knowledge exchange and skip the translation to explicit knowledge and back to tacit processes. Organisational/Social network analysis is a good way to find experts. Our business conducts ONA/SNA online through Yammer Teams and Workplace by facebook (not Slack though ...that is another story) ... we have lots of case studies on our site www.swoopanalytics.com.
 
 



Re: Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge? #case-studies #definition

Brigit Helms
 

This is great. We'll reference it during our meeting on Monday and then the options generation activity will incorporate others.

Have a great break!

Brigit 

Brigit Helms
+12022859974

On Sep 9, 2020, at 8:53 PM, Patrick Lambe <plambe@...> wrote:

Hi Rob

I agree that SNA needs to be approached with great care. My take on it is that (as long as the data is relatively clean and free of distortion) it’s much better at telling us about networks and their relative health on an aggregate scale than on an individual scale. In much the same way, an actuary can tell us a lot about a demographic, but is not much better than a fortune teller when it comes to the individual.

I like the title of your change management course. To be honest if I was writing one, I’d call it "Trepidatious Change Management” - but I never could figure out change management.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com

<SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter (2).jpg>

On 9 Sep 2020, at 9:18 PM, Robert L. Bogue <rbogue@...> wrote:

Agreed.  Networks are good in that they’re capable of enabling or disabling conditions that lead to the production or suppression of knowledge in all forms.  Stan et all have been working hard to continue to shape this space such that it’s an enabling forum.
 
I’ve always struggled with SNA – not because you can’t do it but because it fails to account for long-arc.  Using Microsoft Graph (not the API, the thing surfaced through Delve) as an example.  It’s a wonderful implementation of microsignals for the development of probable relationships between individuals.  Signals become edges.  Edges have different types and different strengths.  The problem is that the sheer amount of data causes Microsoft to constrain these edges to 60 days.  That network wouldn’t be able to even remotely represent our conversation.  I’ve not interacted with an SIKM thread in some time.  (Mainly because I’ve been crushed getting the Confident Change Management course out the door and helping my wife produce COVID-19 related training.)  It wouldn’t be able to represent the relationship to Klein or his ideas – or Polanyi, et all.
 
I have an unformed idea that the ideal social network analysis includes both declared relationships as well as inferred relationships.  The part I struggle with here is that there’s no effective way for us to communicate the strength of a connection.  Consider LinkedIn.  Have you ever seen a second degree connection via LinkedIn and reached out to your contact only to find that the relationship on the other side is weak (or useless.)?  That’s problematic to helping people get to the knowledge they need.
 
To prevent rambling, I’ll stop here.  While I love the idea – I’ve struggled to see this technology be consistently productive.  It’s better than nothing but still very unreliable.
 
Putting a bow on things … I agree that tacit and explicit are different but related forms of knowledge (I’d probably argue tightly related.)  However, ala Kleins’ work, I think that if we want to get to better tacit we should consider how to accelerate learning – and while that is a difficult process it seems worthy of our efforts.
 
Rob
 
-------------------
Robert L. Bogue
O: (317) 844-5310  M: (317) 506-4977 Blog: http://www.thorprojects.com/blog
Are you burned out?  https://ExtinguishBurnout.com can help you get out of it.
 
From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Patrick Lambe via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 8:36 AM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Cc: llocklee@...
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge?
 
Great to see Gary Klein’s work being brought in Rob.
 
It seems to me that explication is an entirely different kind of knowledge activity than understanding or knowing, or knowing how to. They are of course connected. Explication requires reasoning, observation, contextualisation, knowledge integration and translation. In fact it could be said to be a form of knowledge building. 
 
If I’m working on a piece of writing, I am of course working out of "the ground" of what I know (in my head and body), but there’s a long and venerable tradition of thinking from Ryle through Polanyi and McIntyre that says that this tacit ground of knowing is inarticulable, and once you articulate you’ve created an entirely different form of knowledge that connects only in a loose way to the “knowledge ground” that produced it, you have not simply “converted” the tacit knowledge. Polanyi does acknowledge that articulation can provide a feedback loop to deepen our tacit knowledge (so explication of techniques can improve piano playing) but he was adamant that they are fundamentally different kinds of thing. Tacit and explicit knowledge forms in their various degrees of combination follow each other around, but they are not blood relatives. Neither is reducible to the other.
 
If I am working on that piece of writing, I’m not simply trying to represent what’s in me. I’m also trying to connect it to what I know about (out there in the world), which I may need to explore or think about more deeply, and I’m trying to connect to it to what I know about my audience, which I may need to observe and reflect on more carefully, so there’s a sense in which it feels like a journey of discovery, as much as simply expressing something I know. The whole thing feels much more like the interaction of various cognitive activities, and it feels like an iterative process full of feedback loops, interacting back and forth with the world, not at all like a simple “produce something out of my head” kind of activity. I’m building something, not converting something. And my building blocks are out there in the world as much as in my head and body.
 
And I’m with you Rob, that explication/articulation is only one mode of moving knowledge around (or replicating it) - “creating the conditions to accelerate the discovery of tacit knowledge” is a nice way of putting it. To bring this back to Laurie’s contribution, this is why an understanding of networks and collaboration is useful - because they can provide enabling or disabling conditions.
 
P
 
Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:                                                    +65 98528511

web:                                                       www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:                                             www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:           www.aithinsoftware.com

<image001.jpg>
 
On 9 Sep 2020, at 7:51 PM, Robert L. Bogue <rbogue@...> wrote:
 
Re: 10,000 hr rule … the original research never said that.  That’s Malcolm Gladwell’s simplification in Outliers  (https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2009/07/29/book-review-outliers/)  Anders Ericsson clarified in Peak (https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2016/07/11/book-review-peak-secrets-from-the-new-science-of-expertise/) that the factor was purposeful practice.
 
For me, this merges both “the perfect form” and practice.  If you practice enough, and you’re willing to accept performance setbacks to try new forms, you’ll eventually settle on the “perfect” one.  However, even discovering the “perfect” stance doesn’t mean you’ll be able to explain it.  (ala tacit)  Observers can only get to the observable factors, many unobservable factors remain.
 
I don’t know that I think about teaching tacit (and therefore requiring the articulation that Murrey explains) rather, I view tacit as creating the conditions to accelerate the discovery of the tacit knowledge.  See Gary Klein’s work in Seeing What Other’s Don’t (https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2014/12/23/book-review-seeing-what-others-dont-the-remarkable-ways-we-gain-insights/)  and Sources of Power (https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2011/10/23/book-review-sources-of-power-how-people-make-decisions/)
 
When I relax the conditions from teaching to coaching on tacit, I realize that I don’t have to be able to articulate every nuance as long as I create situations that accelerates the learning process.
 
Rob
 
-------------------
Robert L. Bogue
O: (317) 844-5310  M: (317) 506-4977 Blog: http://www.thorprojects.com/blog
Are you burned out?  https://ExtinguishBurnout.com can help you get out of it.
 
From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Douglas Weidner via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 7:38 AM
To: main@sikm.groups.io
Cc: plambe@...; llocklee@...
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge?
 
Excellent discussion on an age-old topic: tacit vs. explicit.
Some have long claimed tacit is knowledge and explicit is just information. The ISO 30401:2018 argues otherwise. I do as well.
 
Here's a few further arguments on topics already raised.
Physical K - whether a hitter is good or not is probably less dependent on exactly correct form than the essence of a 10,000 hr. rule.
 
As for "but I do really believe that you can't know something until you can articulate it," I agree and would go one step further. For me, the detailed articulation is the intellectual challenge that provides great insights. Almost as if the articulation forces you to open and inspect every nook and cranny of your brain's synapse connections.
 
Lastly, if you strive to formalize a tacit to explicit process, for whatever unique purpose such as retirement, consider some truths: if the articulation is one-on-one (Mentoring?) it may be less efficient than a one-on-manyprocess; and, if you can easily codify as you articulate, you expand the effective use even further.
 
Sometimes, merely paying attention to obvious truisms can provide great benefit.
 
Douglas Weidner
Exec Chairman, 
 
 
On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 3:42 AM Murray Jennex via groups.io <murphjen=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:

I hear you Patrick and mostly agree, to me understanding something means I can articulate it to someone else, this is perhaps something I've learned by being a professor, I can't teach something I can't articulate (and this means you can't transfer what you can't articulate).  Of course I talk about tacit knowledge and in particular use sports metaphors, however, you will not disrupt my serve or strokes by asking me to explain them as I've been a tennis coach and the same applies there, you can't coach what you can't articulate.  All that said, I don't worry about instinctive knowledge, I understand that to be something buried in my brain that comes out when I need it, however, when it does come out I strive to articulate it.  I agree with you that it isn't a clean 1:1 swap, nothing ever is and so don't take my statements as being 100%, but I do really believe that you can't know something until you can articulate it.  I don't worry if that means there is no tacit knowledge, that is just a gut feel of mine, but hey, it does spur some really good discussions!  I love to use Tony Gwynn as an example of someone who was perhaps the best hitter in baseball but when he coached our college team we were only average hitters.  Does that mean Tony didn't really understand the knowledge of hitting?  I don't think so, he just had special physical tools that made it so that he could do what he said while others couldn't.  Perhaps we combine instinct and other physical attributes with what we call knowledge?  I'd argue we have the knowledge and are confusing that with performance or putting the knowledge in action, sometimes we know what we want to do but just can't do it!....murray


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Lambe <plambe@...>
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Cc: llocklee@... <llocklee@...>
Sent: Tue, Sep 8, 2020 11:32 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge?

Hi Murray I would just swap out one word in your sentence 
 
My own feeling is that all knowledge is explicit once you [understand] can articulate it, i.e. tacit knowledge is simply knowledge we haven't learned to express yet.
 
Speaking for myself, I often think I understand something without being able to articulate it (maybe that’s an illusion!!), and sometimes I can articulate the same understanding in quite different ways depending on the context. 
 
In relation to tacit knowledge, of course there’s the whole area of somatic knowledge (things my body knows how to do) where words can be descriptive but virtually useless - i.e. the articulation of the knowledge “hold the violin bow at an angle of 30 degrees to the strings” doesn’t really express the knowledge in the same way that a recipe might. So being able to express how I ride the bike doesn’t accurately represent the tacit knowledge involved.
 
I have a friend who regularly (and deliberately) disrupted his (very skilful) tennis buddy’s serves by asking him to explain how he did it. Shifting his buddy’s focus from his bodily knowledge to a poor verbal expression of it, distracted his body from actually being able to deliver the serve effectively.
 
So while I agree with your general point, we do need to recognise that there isn’t a clean 1:1 convertibility from explicit-tacit or vice versa. In fact the dualism between tacit and explicit is far too simplistic - which I think is where your first comment was going.
 
P
 
Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com

<image001.jpg>
 
On 9 Sep 2020, at 2:05 PM, Murray Jennex via groups.io <murphjen@...> wrote:
 

Actually, many would argue that there is no such thing as purely tacit knowledge or purely explicit knowledge, that both have degrees of tacitness and explicitness and that the degree of each varies with the knowledge user/holder.  Capturing tacit just means we've made it more explicit, it doesn't reduce its value and actually may increase it.  My own feeling is that all knowledge is explicit once you understand it, i.e. tacit knowledge is simply knowledge we haven't learned to express yet....murray


-----Original Message-----
From: Laurence Lock Lee <llocklee@...>
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Sent: Tue, Sep 8, 2020 4:15 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge?

Many would argue that once tacit knowledge is captured it is no longer tacit, and therefore degraded. If your intention is to benefit from online exchanges through the sharing of tacit knowledge it is therefore far more important to identify the holders of that tacit knowledge and to connect with them one on one for knowledge exchange and skip the translation to explicit knowledge and back to tacit processes. Organisational/Social network analysis is a good way to find experts. Our business conducts ONA/SNA online through Yammer Teams and Workplace by facebook (not Slack though ...that is another story) ... we have lots of case studies on our site www.swoopanalytics.com.
 
 



Re: Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge? #case-studies #definition

Patrick Lambe
 

Hi Rob

I agree that SNA needs to be approached with great care. My take on it is that (as long as the data is relatively clean and free of distortion) it’s much better at telling us about networks and their relative health on an aggregate scale than on an individual scale. In much the same way, an actuary can tell us a lot about a demographic, but is not much better than a fortune teller when it comes to the individual.

I like the title of your change management course. To be honest if I was writing one, I’d call it "Trepidatious Change Management” - but I never could figure out change management.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com


On 9 Sep 2020, at 9:18 PM, Robert L. Bogue <rbogue@...> wrote:

Agreed.  Networks are good in that they’re capable of enabling or disabling conditions that lead to the production or suppression of knowledge in all forms.  Stan et all have been working hard to continue to shape this space such that it’s an enabling forum.
 
I’ve always struggled with SNA – not because you can’t do it but because it fails to account for long-arc.  Using Microsoft Graph (not the API, the thing surfaced through Delve) as an example.  It’s a wonderful implementation of microsignals for the development of probable relationships between individuals.  Signals become edges.  Edges have different types and different strengths.  The problem is that the sheer amount of data causes Microsoft to constrain these edges to 60 days.  That network wouldn’t be able to even remotely represent our conversation.  I’ve not interacted with an SIKM thread in some time.  (Mainly because I’ve been crushed getting the Confident Change Management course out the door and helping my wife produce COVID-19 related training.)  It wouldn’t be able to represent the relationship to Klein or his ideas – or Polanyi, et all.
 
I have an unformed idea that the ideal social network analysis includes both declared relationships as well as inferred relationships.  The part I struggle with here is that there’s no effective way for us to communicate the strength of a connection.  Consider LinkedIn.  Have you ever seen a second degree connection via LinkedIn and reached out to your contact only to find that the relationship on the other side is weak (or useless.)?  That’s problematic to helping people get to the knowledge they need.
 
To prevent rambling, I’ll stop here.  While I love the idea – I’ve struggled to see this technology be consistently productive.  It’s better than nothing but still very unreliable.
 
Putting a bow on things … I agree that tacit and explicit are different but related forms of knowledge (I’d probably argue tightly related.)  However, ala Kleins’ work, I think that if we want to get to better tacit we should consider how to accelerate learning – and while that is a difficult process it seems worthy of our efforts.
 
Rob
 
-------------------
Robert L. Bogue
O: (317) 844-5310  M: (317) 506-4977 Blog: http://www.thorprojects.com/blog
Are you burned out?  https://ExtinguishBurnout.com can help you get out of it.
 
From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Patrick Lambe via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 8:36 AM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Cc: llocklee@...
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge?
 
Great to see Gary Klein’s work being brought in Rob.
 
It seems to me that explication is an entirely different kind of knowledge activity than understanding or knowing, or knowing how to. They are of course connected. Explication requires reasoning, observation, contextualisation, knowledge integration and translation. In fact it could be said to be a form of knowledge building. 
 
If I’m working on a piece of writing, I am of course working out of "the ground" of what I know (in my head and body), but there’s a long and venerable tradition of thinking from Ryle through Polanyi and McIntyre that says that this tacit ground of knowing is inarticulable, and once you articulate you’ve created an entirely different form of knowledge that connects only in a loose way to the “knowledge ground” that produced it, you have not simply “converted” the tacit knowledge. Polanyi does acknowledge that articulation can provide a feedback loop to deepen our tacit knowledge (so explication of techniques can improve piano playing) but he was adamant that they are fundamentally different kinds of thing. Tacit and explicit knowledge forms in their various degrees of combination follow each other around, but they are not blood relatives. Neither is reducible to the other.
 
If I am working on that piece of writing, I’m not simply trying to represent what’s in me. I’m also trying to connect it to what I know about (out there in the world), which I may need to explore or think about more deeply, and I’m trying to connect to it to what I know about my audience, which I may need to observe and reflect on more carefully, so there’s a sense in which it feels like a journey of discovery, as much as simply expressing something I know. The whole thing feels much more like the interaction of various cognitive activities, and it feels like an iterative process full of feedback loops, interacting back and forth with the world, not at all like a simple “produce something out of my head” kind of activity. I’m building something, not converting something. And my building blocks are out there in the world as much as in my head and body.
 
And I’m with you Rob, that explication/articulation is only one mode of moving knowledge around (or replicating it) - “creating the conditions to accelerate the discovery of tacit knowledge” is a nice way of putting it. To bring this back to Laurie’s contribution, this is why an understanding of networks and collaboration is useful - because they can provide enabling or disabling conditions.
 
P
 
Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:                                                    +65 98528511

web:                                                       www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:                                             www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:           www.aithinsoftware.com

<image001.jpg>
 
On 9 Sep 2020, at 7:51 PM, Robert L. Bogue <rbogue@...> wrote:
 
Re: 10,000 hr rule … the original research never said that.  That’s Malcolm Gladwell’s simplification in Outliers  (https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2009/07/29/book-review-outliers/)  Anders Ericsson clarified in Peak (https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2016/07/11/book-review-peak-secrets-from-the-new-science-of-expertise/) that the factor was purposeful practice.
 
For me, this merges both “the perfect form” and practice.  If you practice enough, and you’re willing to accept performance setbacks to try new forms, you’ll eventually settle on the “perfect” one.  However, even discovering the “perfect” stance doesn’t mean you’ll be able to explain it.  (ala tacit)  Observers can only get to the observable factors, many unobservable factors remain.
 
I don’t know that I think about teaching tacit (and therefore requiring the articulation that Murrey explains) rather, I view tacit as creating the conditions to accelerate the discovery of the tacit knowledge.  See Gary Klein’s work in Seeing What Other’s Don’t (https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2014/12/23/book-review-seeing-what-others-dont-the-remarkable-ways-we-gain-insights/)  and Sources of Power (https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2011/10/23/book-review-sources-of-power-how-people-make-decisions/)
 
When I relax the conditions from teaching to coaching on tacit, I realize that I don’t have to be able to articulate every nuance as long as I create situations that accelerates the learning process.
 
Rob
 
-------------------
Robert L. Bogue
O: (317) 844-5310  M: (317) 506-4977 Blog: http://www.thorprojects.com/blog
Are you burned out?  https://ExtinguishBurnout.com can help you get out of it.
 
From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Douglas Weidner via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 7:38 AM
To: main@sikm.groups.io
Cc: plambe@...; llocklee@...
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge?
 
Excellent discussion on an age-old topic: tacit vs. explicit.
Some have long claimed tacit is knowledge and explicit is just information. The ISO 30401:2018 argues otherwise. I do as well.
 
Here's a few further arguments on topics already raised.
Physical K - whether a hitter is good or not is probably less dependent on exactly correct form than the essence of a 10,000 hr. rule.
 
As for "but I do really believe that you can't know something until you can articulate it," I agree and would go one step further. For me, the detailed articulation is the intellectual challenge that provides great insights. Almost as if the articulation forces you to open and inspect every nook and cranny of your brain's synapse connections.
 
Lastly, if you strive to formalize a tacit to explicit process, for whatever unique purpose such as retirement, consider some truths: if the articulation is one-on-one (Mentoring?) it may be less efficient than a one-on-manyprocess; and, if you can easily codify as you articulate, you expand the effective use even further.
 
Sometimes, merely paying attention to obvious truisms can provide great benefit.
 
Douglas Weidner
Exec Chairman, 
 
 
On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 3:42 AM Murray Jennex via groups.io <murphjen=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:

I hear you Patrick and mostly agree, to me understanding something means I can articulate it to someone else, this is perhaps something I've learned by being a professor, I can't teach something I can't articulate (and this means you can't transfer what you can't articulate).  Of course I talk about tacit knowledge and in particular use sports metaphors, however, you will not disrupt my serve or strokes by asking me to explain them as I've been a tennis coach and the same applies there, you can't coach what you can't articulate.  All that said, I don't worry about instinctive knowledge, I understand that to be something buried in my brain that comes out when I need it, however, when it does come out I strive to articulate it.  I agree with you that it isn't a clean 1:1 swap, nothing ever is and so don't take my statements as being 100%, but I do really believe that you can't know something until you can articulate it.  I don't worry if that means there is no tacit knowledge, that is just a gut feel of mine, but hey, it does spur some really good discussions!  I love to use Tony Gwynn as an example of someone who was perhaps the best hitter in baseball but when he coached our college team we were only average hitters.  Does that mean Tony didn't really understand the knowledge of hitting?  I don't think so, he just had special physical tools that made it so that he could do what he said while others couldn't.  Perhaps we combine instinct and other physical attributes with what we call knowledge?  I'd argue we have the knowledge and are confusing that with performance or putting the knowledge in action, sometimes we know what we want to do but just can't do it!....murray


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Lambe <plambe@...>
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Cc: llocklee@... <llocklee@...>
Sent: Tue, Sep 8, 2020 11:32 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge?

Hi Murray I would just swap out one word in your sentence 
 
My own feeling is that all knowledge is explicit once you [understand] can articulate it, i.e. tacit knowledge is simply knowledge we haven't learned to express yet.
 
Speaking for myself, I often think I understand something without being able to articulate it (maybe that’s an illusion!!), and sometimes I can articulate the same understanding in quite different ways depending on the context. 
 
In relation to tacit knowledge, of course there’s the whole area of somatic knowledge (things my body knows how to do) where words can be descriptive but virtually useless - i.e. the articulation of the knowledge “hold the violin bow at an angle of 30 degrees to the strings” doesn’t really express the knowledge in the same way that a recipe might. So being able to express how I ride the bike doesn’t accurately represent the tacit knowledge involved.
 
I have a friend who regularly (and deliberately) disrupted his (very skilful) tennis buddy’s serves by asking him to explain how he did it. Shifting his buddy’s focus from his bodily knowledge to a poor verbal expression of it, distracted his body from actually being able to deliver the serve effectively.
 
So while I agree with your general point, we do need to recognise that there isn’t a clean 1:1 convertibility from explicit-tacit or vice versa. In fact the dualism between tacit and explicit is far too simplistic - which I think is where your first comment was going.
 
P
 
Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com

<image001.jpg>
 
On 9 Sep 2020, at 2:05 PM, Murray Jennex via groups.io <murphjen@...> wrote:
 

Actually, many would argue that there is no such thing as purely tacit knowledge or purely explicit knowledge, that both have degrees of tacitness and explicitness and that the degree of each varies with the knowledge user/holder.  Capturing tacit just means we've made it more explicit, it doesn't reduce its value and actually may increase it.  My own feeling is that all knowledge is explicit once you understand it, i.e. tacit knowledge is simply knowledge we haven't learned to express yet....murray


-----Original Message-----
From: Laurence Lock Lee <llocklee@...>
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Sent: Tue, Sep 8, 2020 4:15 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge?

Many would argue that once tacit knowledge is captured it is no longer tacit, and therefore degraded. If your intention is to benefit from online exchanges through the sharing of tacit knowledge it is therefore far more important to identify the holders of that tacit knowledge and to connect with them one on one for knowledge exchange and skip the translation to explicit knowledge and back to tacit processes. Organisational/Social network analysis is a good way to find experts. Our business conducts ONA/SNA online through Yammer Teams and Workplace by facebook (not Slack though ...that is another story) ... we have lots of case studies on our site www.swoopanalytics.com.
 
 



Re: Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge? #case-studies #definition

Patrick Lambe
 

Hi Stephen

There are numerous typologies of knowledge out there in the literature that would include the social dimension. Have you read Harry Collins’ book Tacit and Explicit Knowledge (2010)? It’s very good - combines accessibility and depth with elegance and succinctness. Collins is a sociologist by the way, and his perspective here is refreshing.

I have a couple of chapters on unhelpful dualisms in relation to typologies of knowledge in my knowledge audit book (slaving away on it as we speak). Tacit/explicit is one of them, another is personal/collective.

Typologies are a means of breaking up a complex domain into categories so we can get a handle on them.

“Knowledge” is a particularly complex domain because it operates across so many different modes (personal [corporeal, mental], small group, large group, social, organisational) in many different ways. And yet everybody is experienced in working this domain. We are all experts.

Hence (1) every person and their pet tend to build their own typologies to match their own understandings of their own contexts (2) the typologies that tend to propagate tend to be the simpler ones (e.g. tacit/explicit; personal/collective) but 3) the simpler they are, the less well they reflect how we actually work with knowledge - over-simple typologies tend to break down when confronted with a variety of real situations.

Now if we recognise that a typology is just a useful fiction for manipulating and exchanging ideas about the world, and if our typologies actually help us to explain stuff in predictable ways for specific purposes, then they can be quite useful, as long as we don’t harden them into doctrine, and exclude other typologies that can serve different purposes. 

So the tacit/explicit dualism is helpful to the extent that it can be a conversation starter about important differences between (a) what people know and (b) a very common mode of moving knowledge around between people, but it’s not very good at explaining things at any depth, and it can actively mislead us, by leading us down erroneous pathways (e.g. an operating assumption that tacit knowledge can be converted whole and pure into explicit knowledge, like lead into gold). 

For example, this conversation is enabled by the tacit/explicit dualism, which is a good thing, but will ultimately founder on it. We have to go beyond it to get anywhere meaningful. 

As you know, for typologies of organisational knowledge I am a fan of Dave Snowden’s ASHEN model, adapted to include the social aspect. It’s sufficiently simple to be comprehensible and useful in exchanging knowledge about organisational knowledge, but it’s sufficiently complex to be respectful of the intrinsic complexity of knowledge. But there are lots of typologies out there to choose from. I do recommend Collins’ book.

One last comment: “articulated/explicated” knowledge does not have to involve language. We can externalise and communicate knowledge in many other ways.. such as in the design of tools, or enacting a process with an audience, or creating maps/drawings, or building systems. You are right, though, everything about explicit implies the social. Even when we talk to ourselves, we are socialising with ourselves, and must presuppose our social nature to do so ;)  

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com


On 9 Sep 2020, at 10:19 PM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Patrick,

Nicely put. I'm not entirely convinced that the separation is as clean as Polanyi would like though, because it only considers individual knowledge and not that of the group.

[I'm still working on how to express this elegantly -- bear with me.]

Language is fundamentally a mechanism for social communication. In fact it can't exist without a social group. It has evolved along with the multiplicity of nested and overlapping groups we belong to, many acting as cohesive and coherent systems that evolve and dissolve constantly and dynamically.

Just as our neurons signal to each other to yield emergent, complex behaviour based on past and present inputs, language is the internal signalling mechanism that achieves the cohesion necessary for systemic group behaviours.

From the group's perspective, it has capabilities that are not easily expressible; nor are the exact limits of its knowledge. Thus, I would posit that articulated knowledge / language still retains the form and function of tacit knowledge so long as it remains inside the context of that group.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 9/09/2020 10:35 pm, Patrick Lambe wrote:
Great to see Gary Klein’s work being brought in Rob.

It seems to me that explication is an entirely different kind of knowledge activity than understanding or knowing, or knowing how to. They are of course connected. Explication requires reasoning, observation, contextualisation, knowledge integration and translation. In fact it could be said to be a form of knowledge building. 

If I’m working on a piece of writing, I am of course working out of "the ground" of what I know (in my head and body), but there’s a long and venerable tradition of thinking from Ryle through Polanyi and McIntyre that says that this tacit ground of knowing is inarticulable, and once you articulate you’ve created an entirely different form of knowledge that connects only in a loose way to the “knowledge ground” that produced it, you have not simply “converted” the tacit knowledge. Polanyi does acknowledge that articulation can provide a feedback loop to deepen our tacit knowledge (so explication of techniques can improve piano playing) but he was adamant that they are fundamentally different kinds of thing. Tacit and explicit knowledge forms in their various degrees of combination follow each other around, but they are not blood relatives. Neither is reducible to the other.

If I am working on that piece of writing, I’m not simply trying to represent what’s in me. I’m also trying to connect it to what I know about (out there in the world), which I may need to explore or think about more deeply, and I’m trying to connect to it to what I know about my audience, which I may need to observe and reflect on more carefully, so there’s a sense in which it feels like a journey of discovery, as much as simply expressing something I know. The whole thing feels much more like the interaction of various cognitive activities, and it feels like an iterative process full of feedback loops, interacting back and forth with the world, not at all like a simple “produce something out of my head” kind of activity. I’m building something, not converting something. And my building blocks are out there in the world as much as in my head and body.

And I’m with you Rob, that explication/articulation is only one mode of moving knowledge around (or replicating it) - “creating the conditions to accelerate the discovery of tacit knowledge” is a nice way of putting it. To bring this back to Laurie’s contribution, this is why an understanding of networks and collaboration is useful - because they can provide enabling or disabling conditions.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com

<SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter (2).jpg>

On 9 Sep 2020, at 7:51 PM, Robert L. Bogue <rbogue@...> wrote:

Re: 10,000 hr rule … the original research never said that.  That’s Malcolm Gladwell’s simplification in Outliers  (https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2009/07/29/book-review-outliers/)  Anders Ericsson clarified in Peak (https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2016/07/11/book-review-peak-secrets-from-the-new-science-of-expertise/) that the factor was purposeful practice.
 
For me, this merges both “the perfect form” and practice.  If you practice enough, and you’re willing to accept performance setbacks to try new forms, you’ll eventually settle on the “perfect” one.  However, even discovering the “perfect” stance doesn’t mean you’ll be able to explain it.  (ala tacit)  Observers can only get to the observable factors, many unobservable factors remain.
 
I don’t know that I think about teaching tacit (and therefore requiring the articulation that Murrey explains) rather, I view tacit as creating the conditions to accelerate the discovery of the tacit knowledge.  See Gary Klein’s work in Seeing What Other’s Don’t (https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2014/12/23/book-review-seeing-what-others-dont-the-remarkable-ways-we-gain-insights/)  and Sources of Power (https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2011/10/23/book-review-sources-of-power-how-people-make-decisions/)
 
When I relax the conditions from teaching to coaching on tacit, I realize that I don’t have to be able to articulate every nuance as long as I create situations that accelerates the learning process.
 
Rob
 
-------------------
Robert L. Bogue
O: (317) 844-5310  M: (317) 506-4977 Blog: http://www.thorprojects.com/blog
Are you burned out?  https://ExtinguishBurnout.com can help you get out of it.
 
From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Douglas Weidner via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 7:38 AM
To: main@sikm.groups.io
Cc: plambe@...; llocklee@...
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge?
 
Excellent discussion on an age-old topic: tacit vs. explicit.
Some have long claimed tacit is knowledge and explicit is just information. The ISO 30401:2018 argues otherwise. I do as well.
 
Here's a few further arguments on topics already raised.
Physical K - whether a hitter is good or not is probably less dependent on exactly correct form than the essence of a 10,000 hr. rule.
 
As for "but I do really believe that you can't know something until you can articulate it," I agree and would go one step further. For me, the detailed articulation is the intellectual challenge that provides great insights. Almost as if the articulation forces you to open and inspect every nook and cranny of your brain's synapse connections.
 
Lastly, if you strive to formalize a tacit to explicit process, for whatever unique purpose such as retirement, consider some truths: if the articulation is one-on-one (Mentoring?) it may be less efficient than a one-on-manyprocess; and, if you can easily codify as you articulate, you expand the effective use even further.
 
Sometimes, merely paying attention to obvious truisms can provide great benefit.
 
Douglas Weidner
Exec Chairman, 
 
 
On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 3:42 AM Murray Jennex via groups.io <murphjen=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:

I hear you Patrick and mostly agree, to me understanding something means I can articulate it to someone else, this is perhaps something I've learned by being a professor, I can't teach something I can't articulate (and this means you can't transfer what you can't articulate).  Of course I talk about tacit knowledge and in particular use sports metaphors, however, you will not disrupt my serve or strokes by asking me to explain them as I've been a tennis coach and the same applies there, you can't coach what you can't articulate.  All that said, I don't worry about instinctive knowledge, I understand that to be something buried in my brain that comes out when I need it, however, when it does come out I strive to articulate it.  I agree with you that it isn't a clean 1:1 swap, nothing ever is and so don't take my statements as being 100%, but I do really believe that you can't know something until you can articulate it.  I don't worry if that means there is no tacit knowledge, that is just a gut feel of mine, but hey, it does spur some really good discussions!  I love to use Tony Gwynn as an example of someone who was perhaps the best hitter in baseball but when he coached our college team we were only average hitters.  Does that mean Tony didn't really understand the knowledge of hitting?  I don't think so, he just had special physical tools that made it so that he could do what he said while others couldn't.  Perhaps we combine instinct and other physical attributes with what we call knowledge?  I'd argue we have the knowledge and are confusing that with performance or putting the knowledge in action, sometimes we know what we want to do but just can't do it!....murray

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Lambe <plambe@...>
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Cc: llocklee@... <llocklee@...>
Sent: Tue, Sep 8, 2020 11:32 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge?

Hi Murray I would just swap out one word in your sentence 
 
My own feeling is that all knowledge is explicit once you [understand] can articulate it, i.e. tacit knowledge is simply knowledge we haven't learned to express yet.
 
Speaking for myself, I often think I understand something without being able to articulate it (maybe that’s an illusion!!), and sometimes I can articulate the same understanding in quite different ways depending on the context. 
 
In relation to tacit knowledge, of course there’s the whole area of somatic knowledge (things my body knows how to do) where words can be descriptive but virtually useless - i.e. the articulation of the knowledge “hold the violin bow at an angle of 30 degrees to the strings” doesn’t really express the knowledge in the same way that a recipe might. So being able to express how I ride the bike doesn’t accurately represent the tacit knowledge involved.
 
I have a friend who regularly (and deliberately) disrupted his (very skilful) tennis buddy’s serves by asking him to explain how he did it. Shifting his buddy’s focus from his bodily knowledge to a poor verbal expression of it, distracted his body from actually being able to deliver the serve effectively.
 
So while I agree with your general point, we do need to recognise that there isn’t a clean 1:1 convertibility from explicit-tacit or vice versa. In fact the dualism between tacit and explicit is far too simplistic - which I think is where your first comment was going.
 
P
 
Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com

<image001.jpg>
 
On 9 Sep 2020, at 2:05 PM, Murray Jennex via groups.io <murphjen@...> wrote:
 

Actually, many would argue that there is no such thing as purely tacit knowledge or purely explicit knowledge, that both have degrees of tacitness and explicitness and that the degree of each varies with the knowledge user/holder.  Capturing tacit just means we've made it more explicit, it doesn't reduce its value and actually may increase it.  My own feeling is that all knowledge is explicit once you understand it, i.e. tacit knowledge is simply knowledge we haven't learned to express yet....murray

-----Original Message-----
From: Laurence Lock Lee <llocklee@...>
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Sent: Tue, Sep 8, 2020 4:15 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge?

Many would argue that once tacit knowledge is captured it is no longer tacit, and therefore degraded. If your intention is to benefit from online exchanges through the sharing of tacit knowledge it is therefore far more important to identify the holders of that tacit knowledge and to connect with them one on one for knowledge exchange and skip the translation to explicit knowledge and back to tacit processes. Organisational/Social network analysis is a good way to find experts. Our business conducts ONA/SNA online through Yammer Teams and Workplace by facebook (not Slack though ...that is another story) ... we have lots of case studies on our site www.swoopanalytics.com.
 



Re: Making Intangible knowledge visible to traditional leaders #data-science #video

Patrick Lambe
 

Thanks Valdis, I agree the maps show a great deal of consistency so it seems fair to assume the underlying data collection is consistent. Thank you so much for the link to the paper, much appreciated!

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com


On 9 Sep 2020, at 10:43 PM, Valdis Krebs via groups.io <orgnet9@...> wrote:

Hi Patrick,

When I started doing these maps, in the early 2000s, I did speak to Andreas Weigand who was CTO at Amazon at the time.  He did explain that Amazon did list books in descending order of co-sales in the their "also bought lists".  He was Amazon's early data guy and helped set up all of their data analysis systems.  He has since left the company.  So, who knows if his original work has been changed.  Just from the data patterns I see, I don't sense any major changes.  If you look on Twitter or Facebook or the blogosphere... this pattern of strong red vs. blue clusters persists from a whole variety of researchers looking at a variety of social data sets.  I wrote a peer-reviewed paper on this process: https://journals.openedition.org/bms/1289

Enjoy!

Valdis 



Re: Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge? #case-studies #definition

Tami Dubi
 

Hi Mirna,
The situation you describe is unfortunately pretty common, I have encountered it in several Hi-tech companies.
Since I don't know the knowledge management tools in your company here are some general suggestions. 
1. All the main knowledge in your company should be stored in the main knowledge base (repository) which is accessible to the employees. for example SharePoint or Confluence or another organizational wiki or the likes of it. By the main knowledge should include for example product designs. development documents, product specifications, marketing materials for customers, employees' rights organizational SOPs, internal processes, policies, etc. I.e all the materials that should be known and do not include personal data or data that includes ethical issues. 
2. There should be a policy/rules/procedures on how to manage the knowledge in this main knowledge base, in order to create a reliable "one source". This means avoiding duplications, contradictions in knowledge items, and to ensure that the knowledge is up to date.
3. Preferably, the knowledge Items should be standardized so that the employees will know what to expect when they open a knowledge item.
4. Knowledge creation should be embedded in the regular organizational processes and the employee's responsibility as much as possible, this way it will be easier to keep the knowledge base up to date.
5. To embed a good and effective searching tool.
5, If you have a knowledge base that you can refer to, you can change the rules regarding knowledge transfer in  Slack and other tools like emails, etc.  The purpose of this change/ policy will be to ensure that everyone is working and using the same reliable knowledge:
5.1. when a question is asked on the forums/ groups: the rule is to seek the right knowledge item in the knowledge base. If the repository includes the answer then the person who answers should send a link to the item and not attach it as a file. The link purpose is to reduce all the duplicates and versions of the same items that "ran around" the compony and contaminate the knowledge so in the end the "one source" is lost and the knowledge can't be trusted.
I know that link versus attachments may sound silly of nonsignificant but it could save so much trouble for the long run.
5.2 If there isn't a knowledge item that has the answer, then there should be a guiding rule that the "expert' who gave the answer will add this knowledge to the main knowledge base (of course this should be in a very easy to fill the template with not so many mandatory details in order not to burden the employees). One way to convince experts to document their answers is to show them how many times they have answered the same questions and to show them how much time they could save if the answer will be documented.
By the way, Slack has many bots and developing options that maybe could be automated to facilitate some of the changes.  

Of course, The solutions I described above are not easy. They require management involvement and commitment, and also cultural and behavioral organizational change. 

I hope you find this useful.

Tami


Re: Reference resources, case studies about managing tacit knowledge? #case-studies #definition

Mirna Lessinger
 

Great questions, Tami. Thank you for help me provide more details about that.

1A. The groups are not selective, in fact the Slack channels involved are public; users have different roles and reasons to ask questions on those channels, typically related to a product but not straight forward questions as "how-tos". One analogy I've used sometimes is legos; our products would be the different lego blocks, and the question of "I'd like to build a house that looks like X, how do I do that with these A,B,C,D... blocks? I'm aware we're not really going to be capturing all the expertise on how to build a house/application, but I like to think we should be able to capture some synthesized knowledge in the form of "when to do what."

1B. My observation so far is that knowledge sharing is not an issue, as much as finding the right framework to capture it and synthesize it. 

2. No, not looking for an automatic way. I'm looking for insights on processes or frameworks that have been successful in similar situations.


Re: Making Intangible knowledge visible to traditional leaders #data-science #video

Valdis Krebs
 

Although we started talking about intangible knowledge, may I expand the conversation to "emergent knowledge"? Attached is a network map from earlier this year of medical researchers and scientists who came together to fight Covid-19.  This data is from the public data base -- PubMed -- which lists all published, peer-reviewed papers in various medical fields.  Two people/nodes are connected if they were co-authors on a paper together.  Some relationships are stronger than others, but we do not show the thickness of the link for easy of reading. The node colors have no meaning here, but could be used to designate: country, medical speciality, organization, etc.  What is amazing is that this network formed in the first half of 2020.  Sure some of these people probably knew each other and had worked together prior to Covid, but this is the shape of the main component focused on the topic of Covid-19.  Unlike the politicians, who did not unite around this virus, scientists came together and freely shared their findings to beat the disease.

 

1941 - 1960 of 9974