SIKM Leaders,

Is learning the missing emphasis of knowledge management?

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

Q: Which comes first, learning or knowledge?

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

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

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

Find the presentation  and paper  at www.elkawareness.com.

Your thoughts?

Thanks,

Steven Wieneke
enterprise learning & knowledge awareness coach

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

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

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

Good point, Steve. Thanks for sharing.

-Tom

Tom Short Consulting
Knowledge Transfer
Knowledge Strategy
Metrics
Change
415-912-0927

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

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

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

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

Good point, Steve. Thanks for sharing.

-Tom

Tom Short Consulting
Knowledge Transfer
Knowledge Strategy
Metrics
Change
415-912-0927

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

SIKM Leaders,

Is learning the missing emphasis of knowledge management?

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

Q: Which comes first, learning or knowledge?

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

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

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

Find the presentation
<http://elkawareness.com/images/WhichComesFirstLearningOrKnowledge_Print\;
ing.pdf> and paper
<http://elkawareness.com/images/WhichComesFirstLearningOrKnowledge_Paper\;
.pdf> at www.elkawareness.com <http://www.elkawareness.com> .

Your thoughts?

Thanks,

Steven Wieneke
enterprise learning & knowledge awareness coach

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

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

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

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

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

Tom,

I appreciate your comments and examples.

Thanks for mentioning David Garvin. I found a relevant quotation
attributed to Garvin. Organizations that learn are skilled at creating,
acquiring, interpreting, transferring, and retaining knowledge and at
purposefully modifying its behavior to reflect new knowledge and
insights."

The "skilled at creating, acquiring, interpreting, transferring, and
retaining knowledge" sounds like conventional knowledge management.

The "purposefully modifying its behavior to reflect new knowledge and
insights" is the missing "Learning" emphasis we have been talking about.

Thanks again,

Steve

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

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

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

Good point, Steve. Thanks for sharing.

-Tom

Tom Short Consulting
Knowledge Transfer
Knowledge Strategy
Metrics
Change
415-912-0927

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

SIKM Leaders,

Is learning the missing emphasis of knowledge management?

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

Q: Which comes first, learning or knowledge?

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

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

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

Find the presentation
<http://elkawareness.com/images/WhichComesFirstLearningOrKnowledge_Print\;
ing.pdf> and paper
<http://elkawareness.com/images/WhichComesFirstLearningOrKnowledge_Paper\;
.pdf> at www.elkawareness.com <http://www.elkawareness.com> .

Your thoughts?

Thanks,

Steven Wieneke
enterprise learning & knowledge awareness coach

Steven Wieneke
President
Enterprise Learning & Knowledge Awareness Coach
Wieneke & Wieneke, Inc.
www.elkawareness.com
cell: 248.535.0427

Hi all,

Might be relevant: I posted to http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/guest/2010/06/wikis_as_a_complexadaptive.php earlier this week making the point that wikis work in a KM system when they represent the information base side of the learning cycle.

Here's an extract:

Each contribution on a wiki is a presentation of evidence. The wiki's contributors accept their belief of evidence by allowing that contribution to survive as justified by the arguments around it. Expressing and watching each wiki contribution survive (or die) makes the information content progress as a complex-adaptive ecosystem. Successive swathes of contributions provide the grounds for further content, interweaving cross-cutting themes as ever-richer contexts. Each topic might be considered a life-form contending for a niche in the shared-belief ecosystem. The best wikis emerge as a collective search for higher forms of profound concepts. Wikipedia is now a content repository authoritative on so many subjects it's become a key enabler for 300 hundred million people per month to learn.

Organizations must adapt to thrive: it must identify and mobilize its valuable internal resources in ways against which competitors hopefully won't defend. This demands that the organization continually engage in collective, self-reflective behaviour, i.e. look at its business context, and evolve strategies to make best of its assets, partnership agreements and distinctive competences. And while leadership sets direction and tone, it depends on its knowledge workers to make decisions using those strategies and to be the agents that drive forward the evolution of the firm's value proposition. A firm's knowledge workers must learn, reflect on and buy into strategies so the company can eliminate waste, progress capabilities and thus enhance its offering to customers.

I believe that a wiki makes for a great knowledge management system when seeded with content that entices knowledge workers to learn, integrated with other information feeds, and framed and proven as a place for collective action. It's an effective medium for modelling the truth, and as they say, The Truth Is Out There (in the real world). If no one learns from a wiki it becomes an outdated information repository, and might as well be printed on dead trees! Knowledge management occurs precisely because (and when) the wiki helps people to learn.
 

--
Martin Cleaver M.Sc. MBA
Martin@...
http://twitter.com/mrjcleaver
+1 416-786-6752 (GMT-5)

Tom
My dissertation was around the interrelationship between learning and
knowledge management and the impact on innovation. I found that there were
relationships between KM and learning and came up with 6 areas that needed
to be present if an organization wanted to innovate. i also found that
there was a tremendous lexicon problem where KM and learning professionals
would use the same words to express different things.






Rick Wallace | VP Learning & Development Solutions | North America |
Schneider Electric


801 Corporate Centre Drive, O’Fallon, MO. 63368 USA | (Direct (.) +1 636
300 2300 ext 11641 | (Mobile È) +1-636-293-2684| *: Email:
rick.wallace@apcc.com





Notice of Confidentiality - This transmission contains information that may
be confidential and that may also be privileged. Unless you are the
intended recipient of the message (or authorized to receive it for the
intended recipient), you may not copy, forward, or otherwise use it, or
disclose its contents to anyone else. If you have received this
transmission in error, please notify us immediately and delete it from your
system.






"carlgaertner11"
<carl.gaertner.bk
aw@statefarm.com> To
Sent by: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com
sikmleaders@yahoo cc
groups.com
Subject
[sikmleaders] Re: Is learning the
06/18/2010 09:10 missing emphasis of knowledge
AM management?


Please respond to
sikmleaders@yahoo
groups.com











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

Steve - interesting point - I think you're onto something, especially

given the way the wind is blowing regarding companies and their use of the
term "knowledge management" (see my latest post).

Your comments remind of two KM-related concepts/truths. One is the notion

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

The second thing I'm reminded of is David Garvin's wonderful learning

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

Good point, Steve. Thanks for sharing.

-Tom

Tom Short Consulting
Knowledge Transfer
Knowledge Strategy
Metrics
Change
415-912-0927

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

SIKM Leaders,

Is learning the missing emphasis of knowledge management?

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

two

questions…

Q: Which comes first, learning or knowledge?

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

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

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

Find the presentation
<

http://elkawareness.com/images/WhichComesFirstLearningOrKnowledge_Print\

ing.pdf> and paper
<

http://elkawareness.com/images/WhichComesFirstLearningOrKnowledge_Paper\

.pdf> at www.elkawareness.com <http://www.elkawareness.com> .

Your thoughts?

Thanks,

Steven Wieneke
enterprise learning & knowledge awareness coach

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

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

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

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

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

I've published a model that relates KM, OM (organizational memory), and OL (organizational learning) in 2002.  I've always felt that the purpose/outcome of KM is organizational learning of some kind, and if the learning is good, this drives further KM and if bad, changes the direction/strategy of KM...murray jennex