When is knowledge managed? #definition #strategy #periodicals


TRflanagan@...
 

A simple -- although perhaps simplistic -- answer might have been that the information and context combine in the mind of the knowledge user.  Knowledge management happens continuously and the knowledge management platform has to run 7/24 to assure that it assists in this function.
 
Might his have worked?
 
t
 

Tom Flanagan, Board President
Institute for 21st Century Agoras, Atlanta GA
501(c)(3) for promoting technologies for participatory democracy
><((((º>·..¸¸·´¯`·.><(((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·..¸¸><((((º> .·´¯`·..><(((º>.·´¯`·..><(((º>
"Discussions as usual can lead to no more than business as usual"

Website www.globalagoras.org
Book http://www.infoagepub.com/products/The-Talking-Point
Video One http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7NSjhZno80
Video Two http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32Vf6SKlO8Y
Structured Dialogic Design (SDD)® is a Service Mark of the AGORAS

 

In a message dated 4/18/2011 11:10:39 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, swieneke@... writes:
 

While attending a KM conference in Boston several years ago, an attendee setting immediately behind me, asked a panel of experts, "When is knowledge managed?" The panel considered the question but did not provide an answer. What a concise and profound question! We should be able to answer it. Over dinner that evening, a colleague and our spouses started a short list, ten or fifteen ways to know when knowledge is managed. The next day during my presentation I provided a few ways to know when knowledge is managed.

The answers to this question are the essence of a sustainable knowledge processes. I thought then and still find the question thought provoking. The answers to this question are the habits of a knowledge aware organization.

Follow me on Twitter (@stevenwieneke) to find 100 ways to know when knowledge is managed.


Steven Wieneke <swieneke@...>
 

While attending a KM conference in Boston several years ago, an attendee setting immediately behind me, asked a panel of experts, "When is knowledge managed?" The panel considered the question but did not provide an answer. What a concise and profound question! We should be able to answer it. Over dinner that evening, a colleague and our spouses started a short list, ten or fifteen ways to know when knowledge is managed. The next day during my presentation I provided a few ways to know when knowledge is managed.

The answers to this question are the essence of a sustainable knowledge processes. I thought then and still find the question thought provoking. The answers to this question are the habits of a knowledge aware organization.

Follow me on Twitter (@stevenwieneke) to find 100 ways to know when knowledge is managed.


Neil Olonoff
 

Steven,

"When is knowledge managed?"  This is a trick question, because knowledge is NEVER managed. Knowledge management is a misnomer, and our persistence in using the phrase (although inevitable) is a constant invitation to misunderstanding by our clients. Knowledge management does not manage knowledge; it manages the environmental factors that allow knowledge to be utilized. Thus we are always a step removed from the unmanageable, and KM is like the "finger pointing at the moon."

An alternative answer is, of course, ALWAYS. This means that the processes of knowledge use are constant.  It is possible to draw up models of knowledge transfer and use, such as Nonaka's SECI model, that show specific points in a hypothetical process where knowledge is quote managed unquote. But these points are theoretical. They don't map very well to observed reality.

You can always observe knowledge use in the wild, and see it happen, just as you can observe natural or unnatural phenomena. You can even develop predictive theory about "if, then" knowledge processes, as Nonaka has done. But still the question "when is knowledge managed" remains an unanswerable conundrum, somewhat akin to asking, "when does it rain?"  It rains when the clouds gather and certain atmospheric conditions are conducive to precipitation, but that is a bit like saying, "it rains when it rains."

Anyway, I don't mean to be churlish or argumentative, but I really think the question leads us down a very deep rabbit-hole.

Best regards,

Neil

Neil Olonoff 




On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Steven Wieneke <swieneke@...> wrote:
 

While attending a KM conference in Boston several years ago, an attendee setting immediately behind me, asked a panel of experts, "When is knowledge managed?" The panel considered the question but did not provide an answer. What a concise and profound question! We should be able to answer it. Over dinner that evening, a colleague and our spouses started a short list, ten or fifteen ways to know when knowledge is managed. The next day during my presentation I provided a few ways to know when knowledge is managed.

The answers to this question are the essence of a sustainable knowledge processes. I thought then and still find the question thought provoking. The answers to this question are the habits of a knowledge aware organization.

Follow me on Twitter (@stevenwieneke) to find 100 ways to know when knowledge is managed.



Carol H. Tucker
 

We all "manage" knowledge -- just some do it deliberately and with intent, neh?

--

Carol H Tucker

Loan Servicing

Potomac Business Services LLC

10605 Concord Street, STE 503

Kensington, MD  20895

Phone:  240.747.2474

Fax.240-747-2498

ctucker@...

 

The information contained in this email is confidential and is intended solely for the recipient identified. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or taking of any action in reliance on the contents is prohibited. If you receive this message in error, contact the sender immediately and delete it from your computer.
 
As a notice to Potomac Business Services, LLC clients we advise you not to transmit confidential information via email. If you wish to transmit confidential information you should do so using the US Postal Service
, upload the information to http://pbsllc.leapfile.net or the PBS, LLC fax number provided above.


tomshort_tsc <tman9999@...>
 

When is knowledge managed? One could argue that knowledge management has underlied every attempt humankind has ever made to organize themselves into structured groupings for the purpose of achieving some objective.

The emperor Q'in of China (ca 220BC), also known as China's First Emperor, organized his military into a powerful force that claimed many firsts, such as inventing the trigger mechanism for use on cross-bows, and the first use of paper for sending messages across a battlefield. These innovations are great examples of managing knowledge. Organizing people into any structured endeavor could be construed as knowledge management or an attempt to manage knowledge.

Perhaps what is different now is that knowledge itself has displaced land, labor and capital as the principal factors of production - and can be therefore be more easily (?) managed as an entity unto itself. Not sure I agree with that thought, but am just musing that perhaps this is why it has become a focus.


Simard, Albert <albert.simard@...>
 

Steven –

 

I agree, it’s a good question.  

 

However, lists of 10 or even 100 attributes of “managed knowledge” simply describe what it looks like.  It doesn’t define what it is.  That’s a much harder question.  What we need to do is see how all those attributes combine into a short, coherent statement that defines “managed knowledge.”  Only when we can define something can we claim to understand it.

 

Here’s an opening proposition:  Managed knowledge is knowledge that has been captured, organized, preserved, shared, and used to achieve organizational objectives.

 

A few thoughts. 

  • Creating or acquiring are not managing; knowledge must first exist within an organization to be manageable.
  • Yes, this is a list that describes key attributes of managed knowledge, but at least it’s a short list!
  • Tacit knowledge cannot be managed, although sharing can be promoted and facilitated.
  • One could argue that knowledge can be managed without it being used (output).  However, if it isn’t used (outcome), what’s the purpose of managing it?

 

What think ye?

 

Albert J. Simard, Ph.D.

Knowledge Manager / Gestionnaire du savoir

 

Defence R&D Canada - / R&D pour la defense Canada

305 Rideau St., 9th floor - AH11 / 305 rue Rideau, 9 ieme etage -AH11

Ottawa, Ontatio K1A 0K2

Canada

Tel: 613-943-3501   Fax: 613-996-7063

e-mail: albert.simard@...

 


Simard, Albert <albert.simard@...>
 

Neil –

 

I quite disagree that knowledge cannot be managed.  It can be and is.  The question is “To what extent can it be managed?  What activities can management pursue to leverage and add value to different types of organizational knowledge?  This is the subject of a paper that I expect to publish this spring.

 

Of course knowledge has been created and used since the dawn of civilization.  We all do it today.  Management is the middle step between those two activities.  Management is what differentiates an organization that is in the knowledge business from a knowledge organization.  And as for natural occurrences of using knowledge – that isn’t management either.  In fact, as with statistics, I would argue that management is the difference between happens naturally and what happens as a result of intervention.

 

Al Simard


Neil Olonoff
 

Al -

If you equate explicit knowledge with information, and are speaking of "knowledge artifacts," facts in databases, and so on, of course that kind of stuff can be managed and manipulated.

But if you think of knowledge as the broader domain of human knowing, then the human factor is always the intermediary. Hence, you manage not knowledge, but the human conditions under which knowledge is produced and utilized.

I believe the former concept is problematic, because it pays only lip service to the essential core of knowledge work -- the relational domain. That is the sense in which I call knowledge unmanageable.

Best regards,

Neil

Neil Olonoff 




On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Simard, Albert <albert.simard@...> wrote:
 

Neil –

 

I quite disagree that knowledge cannot be managed.  It can be and is.  The question is “To what extent can it be managed?  What activities can management pursue to leverage and add value to different types of organizational knowledge?  This is the subject of a paper that I expect to publish this spring.

 

Of course knowledge has been created and used since the dawn of civilization.  We all do it today.  Management is the middle step between those two activities.  Management is what differentiates an organization that is in the knowledge business from a knowledge organization.  And as for natural occurrences of using knowledge – that isn’t management either.  In fact, as with statistics, I would argue that management is the difference between happens naturally and what happens as a result of intervention.

 

Al Simard



Simard, Albert <albert.simard@...>
 

Neil –

 

I don’t equate explicit knowledge (understanding that enables prediction) with information (meaning in context), but I do agree that knowledge objects can be managed in ways that are similar to those for information.  I also contend that explicit knowledge must be transformed into authoritative knowledge through decisions that enable organizational action.

 

I also agree that people are the centerpiece when it comes to human knowing.  But, it seems to me that eliciting and capturing tacit knowledge, promoting communities of practice and harvesting community knowledge, and engaging individuals to use their innate knowledge to achieve organizational objectives are recognizable, legitimate management activities.  The key is that the degree of “manageability” spans a spectrum from dynamic, unstructured organizational and knowledge environments to inflexible, highly structured environments.

 

So, from a  fuzzy logic perspective, where is the boundary between managing the entity called knowledge and managing the conditions under which its value to an organization is increased?  Rather than attempting to delineate that boundary, I simply lump the two together under the concept of KM.

 

J


From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of Neil Olonoff
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 3:03 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] When is knowledge managed?

 

 

Al -

If you equate explicit knowledge with information, and are speaking of "knowledge artifacts," facts in databases, and so on, of course that kind of stuff can be managed and manipulated.

But if you think of knowledge as the broader domain of human knowing, then the human factor is always the intermediary. Hence, you manage not knowledge, but the human conditions under which knowledge is produced and utilized.

I believe the former concept is problematic, because it pays only lip service to the essential core of knowledge work -- the relational domain. That is the sense in which I call knowledge unmanageable.

Best regards,

Neil

Neil Olonoff 



On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Simard, Albert <albert.simard@...> wrote:

 

Neil –

 

I quite disagree that knowledge cannot be managed.  It can be and is.  The question is “To what extent can it be managed?  What activities can management pursue to leverage and add value to different types of organizational knowledge?  This is the subject of a paper that I expect to publish this spring.

 

Of course knowledge has been created and used since the dawn of civilization.  We all do it today.  Management is the middle step between those two activities.  Management is what differentiates an organization that is in the knowledge business from a knowledge organization.  And as for natural occurrences of using knowledge – that isn’t management either.  In fact, as with statistics, I would argue that management is the difference between happens naturally and what happens as a result of intervention.

 

Al Simard

 


Steven Wieneke <swieneke@...>
 

Hi Albert,

Thank you for recognizing my objective of providing evidence (simple
examples or attributes) of when knowledge is recognized, managed and
valued by an organization. I often find multiple, simple examples useful.

I like your definition of managed knowledge.

Regards,

Steven

Steven -



I agree, it's a good question.



However, lists of 10 or even 100 attributes of "managed knowledge"
simply describe what it looks like. It doesn't define what it is. That's
a much harder question. What we need to do is see how all those
attributes combine into a short, coherent statement that defines
"managed knowledge." Only when we can define something can we claim to
understand it.



Here's an opening proposition: Managed knowledge is knowledge that has
been captured, organized, preserved, shared, and used to achieve
organizational objectives.



A few thoughts.

* Creating or acquiring are not managing; knowledge must first
exist within an organization to be manageable.
* Yes, this is a list that describes key attributes of managed
knowledge, but at least it's a short list!
* Tacit knowledge cannot be managed, although sharing can be
promoted and facilitated.
* One could argue that knowledge can be managed without it being used
(output). However, if it isn't used (outcome), what's the purpose of
managing it?



What think ye?



Albert J. Simard, Ph.D.

Knowledge Manager / Gestionnaire du savoir



Defence R&D Canada - / R&D pour la defense Canada

305 Rideau St., 9th floor - AH11 / 305 rue Rideau, 9 ieme etage -AH11

Ottawa, Ontatio K1A 0K2

Canada

Tel: 613-943-3501 Fax: 613-996-7063

e-mail: albert.simard@drdc-rddc.gc.ca
<mailto:albert.simard@drdc-rddc.gc.ca>


Murray Jennex
 

Albert,
 
I agree with your proposition:
 
Here’s an opening proposition:  Managed knowledge is knowledge that has been captured, organized, preserved, shared, and used to achieve organizational objectives.

 And will go a little further to propose that knowledge management isn't about managing knowledge, but rather the management process of identifying the actionable knowledge (or what I call intelligence) that an organization (any group) needs to achieve its goals and then the processes put in place to filter out that which isn't necessary (to prevent knowledge/information overload) so that the knowledge, information, and data needed to support the identified intelligence can be captured, organized, preserved, shared, and used.

So not disagreeing, just expanding a little to include the filtering process.

I actually think the question shouldn't be when is knowledge managed, but rather, when have we successfully managed knowledge...murray jennex


Neil Olonoff
 

Albert,

I certainly don't disagree with your description. I suppose my main issue is that I wish to draw a distinction between a "management" perspective and an "organizing" or "knowledge work" perspective.

While KM in organizations ultimately serves the goals of management and corporate strategy, it is most effective when the impetus is in alignment with the people whose knowledge is being managed. Hence it's best understood as a "knowledge unmanagement," in the words of Taptiklis.

Of course I use the term Knowledge Management just like everyone else since an adequate synonym hasn't arisen, and so I have to concede the point, in the end, that we can all be said to manage knowledge.

Of course, we haven't touched on "when" that happens!   ;-)

Regards,

Neil

Neil Olonoff 


On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 6:10 PM, <murphjen@...> wrote:
 

Albert,
 
I agree with your proposition:
 
Here’s an opening proposition:  Managed knowledge is knowledge that has been captured, organized, preserved, shared, and used to achieve organizational objectives.

 And will go a little further to propose that knowledge management isn't about managing knowledge, but rather the management process of identifying the actionable knowledge (or what I call intelligence) that an organization (any group) needs to achieve its goals and then the processes put in place to filter out that which isn't necessary (to prevent knowledge/information overload) so that the knowledge, information, and data needed to support the identified intelligence can be captured, organized, preserved, shared, and used.

So not disagreeing, just expanding a little to include the filtering process.

I actually think the question shouldn't be when is knowledge managed, but rather, when have we successfully managed knowledge...murray jennex



Simard, Albert <albert.simard@...>
 

Murray

 

I quite agree with everything you say about actionable intelligence.  From a systems perspective, however, that represents only one-third of the flow of knowledge  - inputs into an organization.  There is also the knowledge used to perform work (transform inputs into outputs), and the knowledge embedded in products and services (outputs).  We should manage all three.


From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of murphjen@...
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 6:11 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: When is knowledge managed?

 

 

Albert,

 

I agree with your proposition:

 

Here’s an opening proposition:  Managed knowledge is knowledge that has been captured, organized, preserved, shared, and used to achieve organizational objectives.

 And will go a little further to propose that knowledge management isn't about managing knowledge, but rather the management process of identifying the actionable knowledge (or what I call intelligence) that an organization (any group) needs to achieve its goals and then the processes put in place to filter out that which isn't necessary (to prevent knowledge/information overload) so that the knowledge, information, and data needed to support the identified intelligence can be captured, organized, preserved, shared, and used.

So not disagreeing, just expanding a little to include the filtering process.

I actually think the question shouldn't be when is knowledge managed, but rather, when have we successfully managed knowledge...murray jennex


Paul McDowall
 

Hi all,
First let's put the 'managed' word in context. We all agree that disciplines like Project Management, Risk Management, Financial Management, etc are accepted and acceptable terms with a clear understanding that the form of 'management' is very different for each discipline, but it is nevertheless management. So now let's turn that context to KM. Why do we continue to debate whether knowledge can actually be managed? It strikes me that folks argue it can't be managed from one of two perspectives: philisophical or operational. In both cases I think the argument is based on a very narrow interpretation of a related 'management' function and IMHO that's problematic.

Now to the original question of 'when...'. We will all agree that knowledge has almost always been discussed, described, studied and applied. Knowledge is a fundamental part of human nature and characteristics. As such knowledge has always been 'at play' in our actions and relationships. The disciplines of education, teaching, coaching, communication, etc have also always been at play.

So to some degree then knowledge (and therefore its related flow actions such as knowledge management, knowledge sharing, knowledge mobilization, etc) has always been a part of the human condition. That's also true in organizations and groups of people since earliest recorded history.

I think the question is actually too general. It seems to me that the question may have been better expressed as 'when is knowledge ACTIVELY or CONCRETELY managed. All organizations manage knowledge actively and concretely through training functions, communication functions, etc, but we are recognizing that while these forms are essential they are also often insufficient. They also manage knowledge passively and indirectly and this is being recognized as inefficient, creating risks, etc. This is of course where KM comes in. It tries to address those areas where both active and passive management can become more effective.

cheers to all
Paul


Neil Olonoff
 

Paul

I appreciate your perspective in putting the "managed" word in context. Let me throw out a couple of thoughts. First, there is a persistent thread in KM discourse that discusses "knowledge in community," or knowledge as a verb, knowing, rather than a thing. Larry Prusak, Dave Snowden, Richard McDermott, even Peter Drucker have written to this point. Because of some deep seated (but probably erroneous) notions in Western culture, most Westerners have difficulty with the idea that knowledge is not a "thing" that is "out there." This goes as far back as Aristotle but is mostly associated with Descartes, and the famous Cartesian Split.

More recent studies in philosophy of knowledge, epistemology, as well as other disciplines such as social psychology and cognitive sciences seem to be pointing towards an expanded notion of knowledge as "social." We  learn to be human in the context of our relationships, beginning with our closest family members.

At a certain point in our development we start to accept the illusion that "our" knowledge is "out there," as well as everything else in the world. But it is not. Our knowledge is part of our communal existence, and does not exist apart from our mutual understanding. As I say, this is a difficult concept to accept.

But it's even more difficult to understand how to "manage" that knowledge, once one accepts that picture of knowledge. The traditional tools of management, having grown up dependent on, and alongside, economic theory, are simply inadequate to address knowing and learning in community. That is why the KM label is so off-base, and why we will continue to miss the mark as long as we insist on calling knowledge a set of things rather than an emergent social process.

Anyway that's the reason why I originally posted the "knowledge cannot be managed" idea. I'm sure the above is way too short and sketch to be fully comprehensible, so if anyone wants to discuss feel free to contact me off line.

Best regards,

Neil





Neil Olonoff 




On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Paul McD <paul_mcdowall@...> wrote:
 

Hi all,
First let's put the 'managed' word in context. We all agree that disciplines like Project Management, Risk Management, Financial Management, etc are accepted and acceptable terms with a clear understanding that the form of 'management' is very different for each discipline, but it is nevertheless management. So now let's turn that context to KM. Why do we continue to debate whether knowledge can actually be managed? It strikes me that folks argue it can't be managed from one of two perspectives: philisophical or operational. In both cases I think the argument is based on a very narrow interpretation of a related 'management' function and IMHO that's problematic.

Now to the original question of 'when...'. We will all agree that knowledge has almost always been discussed, described, studied and applied. Knowledge is a fundamental part of human nature and characteristics. As such knowledge has always been 'at play' in our actions and relationships. The disciplines of education, teaching, coaching, communication, etc have also always been at play.

So to some degree then knowledge (and therefore its related flow actions such as knowledge management, knowledge sharing, knowledge mobilization, etc) has always been a part of the human condition. That's also true in organizations and groups of people since earliest recorded history.

I think the question is actually too general. It seems to me that the question may have been better expressed as 'when is knowledge ACTIVELY or CONCRETELY managed. All organizations manage knowledge actively and concretely through training functions, communication functions, etc, but we are recognizing that while these forms are essential they are also often insufficient. They also manage knowledge passively and indirectly and this is being recognized as inefficient, creating risks, etc. This is of course where KM comes in. It tries to address those areas where both active and passive management can become more effective.

cheers to all
Paul




Tom Beckman <tombeckman@...>
 

Dear folks,

 

I think that you first need to distinguish between knowledge existing in differing forms before discussing whether, when, and how knowledge can be managed:

Ø       Explicit/Formal

Ø       Implicit/Social

Ø       Tacit/

 

Then, it may be clearer when knowledge is a "thang" -- i.e., when it is explicit.  For example, managing and mining knowledge collections of structured and unstructured data is quite distinct from trying to do something similar in an implicit/social setting.

 

Best regards, Tom


From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of Neil Olonoff
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 12:46 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: When is knowledge managed?

 

 

Paul

I appreciate your perspective in putting the "managed" word in context. Let me throw out a couple of thoughts. First, there is a persistent thread in KM discourse that discusses "knowledge in community," or knowledge as a verb, knowing, rather than a thing. Larry Prusak, Dave Snowden, Richard McDermott, even Peter Drucker have written to this point. Because of some deep seated (but probably erroneous) notions in Western culture, most Westerners have difficulty with the idea that knowledge is not a "thing" that is "out there." This goes as far back as Aristotle but is mostly associated with Descartes, and the famous Cartesian Split.

More recent studies in philosophy of knowledge, epistemology, as well as other disciplines such as social psychology and cognitive sciences seem to be pointing towards an expanded notion of knowledge as "social." We  learn to be human in the context of our relationships, beginning with our closest family members.

At a certain point in our development we start to accept the illusion that "our" knowledge is "out there," as well as everything else in the world. But it is not. Our knowledge is part of our communal existence, and does not exist apart from our mutual understanding. As I say, this is a difficult concept to accept.

But it's even more difficult to understand how to "manage" that knowledge, once one accepts that picture of knowledge. The traditional tools of management, having grown up dependent on, and alongside, economic theory, are simply inadequate to address knowing and learning in community. That is why the KM label is so off-base, and why we will continue to miss the mark as long as we insist on calling knowledge a set of things rather than an emergent social process.

Anyway that's the reason why I originally posted the "knowledge cannot be managed" idea. I'm sure the above is way too short and sketch to be fully comprehensible, so if anyone wants to discuss feel free to contact me off line.

Best regards,

Neil





Neil Olonoff 



On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Paul McD <paul_mcdowall@...> wrote:

 

Hi all,
First let's put the 'managed' word in context. We all agree that disciplines like Project Management, Risk Management, Financial Management, etc are accepted and acceptable terms with a clear understanding that the form of 'management' is very different for each discipline, but it is nevertheless management. So now let's turn that context to KM. Why do we continue to debate whether knowledge can actually be managed? It strikes me that folks argue it can't be managed from one of two perspectives: philisophical or operational. In both cases I think the argument is based on a very narrow interpretation of a related 'management' function and IMHO that's problematic.

Now to the original question of 'when...'. We will all agree that knowledge has almost always been discussed, described, studied and applied. Knowledge is a fundamental part of human nature and characteristics. As such knowledge has always been 'at play' in our actions and relationships. The disciplines of education, teaching, coaching, communication, etc have also always been at play.

So to some degree then knowledge (and therefore its related flow actions such as knowledge management, knowledge sharing, knowledge mobilization, etc) has always been a part of the human condition. That's also true in organizations and groups of people since earliest recorded history.

I think the question is actually too general. It seems to me that the question may have been better expressed as 'when is knowledge ACTIVELY or CONCRETELY managed. All organizations manage knowledge actively and concretely through training functions, communication functions, etc, but we are recognizing that while these forms are essential they are also often insufficient. They also manage knowledge passively and indirectly and this is being recognized as inefficient, creating risks, etc. This is of course where KM comes in. It tries to address those areas where both active and passive management can become more effective.

cheers to all
Paul

 

size=1 width="100%" noshade color="#a0a0a0" align=center>

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1321 / Virus Database: 1500/3582 - Release Date: 04/18/11


Steven Wieneke <swieneke@...>
 

When is knowledge managed?

Hint: The answers (1000+) to this question are the individual habits and
culture of a sustainable knowledge aware organization.

The individual who ask -- "When is knowledge managed?" -- wanted to know
what her organization would be like, how people would behave, when
knowledge is managed. What are the outcomes, the evidence, that knowledge
is being managed?

My list of 100 simple examples is evidence of knowledge being
recognized, managed and valued by an organization.

What evidence have you observed? Anticipate?

Steven Wieneke
enterprise learning & knowledge awareness coach
www.elkawareness.com
@stevenwieneke




While attending a KM conference in Boston several years ago, an attendee
setting immediately behind me, asked a panel of experts, "When is
knowledge managed?" The panel considered the question but did not
provide an answer. What a concise and profound question! We should be
able to answer it. Over dinner that evening, a colleague and our spouses
started a short list, ten or fifteen ways to know when knowledge is
managed. The next day during my presentation I provided a few ways to
know when knowledge is managed.

The answers to this question are the essence of a sustainable knowledge
processes. I thought then and still find the question thought provoking.
The answers to this question are the habits of a knowledge aware
organization.

Follow me on Twitter (@stevenwieneke <http://twitter.com/@stevenwieneke>
) to find 100 ways to know when knowledge is managed.


tomshort_tsc <tman9999@...>
 

Steve Wrote:
The individual who ask -- "When is knowledge managed?" -- wanted to know what her organization would be like, how people would behave, when knowledge is managed. What are the outcomes, the evidence, that knowledge is being managed? <<<
Since she's asking for input on "what" it looks like, rather than "how" it's done, how about taking a page out of David Letterman's book and creating a Top 10 list?

You know knowledge is being effectively managed when:
- you can find easily a piece of content created by another employee that you need to complete a task, regardless of how long ago it was created; or how many employees are in the company
- you can instantly connect with another employee who has the expertise you need to complete a task, solve a problem, come up with an innovative new solution. You can do this without having to look very hard - and when you reach this person they are open and willing to help, whether they know you are not.
- you can create your own set of feeds or info streams that present to you a flow of signals from the outside world, or from any other part of your company, that are easy to scan, and help you maintain situational awareness about whatever topic, issue or project you choose.
- you can find out about and learn from your fellow employees whenever they learn something that is or could be useful to you and your work - in near real time.

That's a start - what others might we add? (I think this is a more fruitfull approach because a) it addresses the question that was posed; and b) it (hopefully) mitigates the need to go down the semantic/epistemelogical rabbit hole of defining knowledge.


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

When is knowledge managed?

Hint: The answers (1000+) to this question are the individual habits and
culture of a sustainable knowledge aware organization.

The individual who ask -- "When is knowledge managed?" -- wanted to know
what her organization would be like, how people would behave, when
knowledge is managed. What are the outcomes, the evidence, that knowledge
is being managed?

My list of 100 "simple" examples is evidence of knowledge being
recognized, managed and valued by an organization.

What evidence have you observed? Anticipate?

Steven Wieneke
enterprise learning & knowledge awareness coach
www.elkawareness.com
@stevenwieneke




While attending a KM conference in Boston several years ago, an attendee
setting immediately behind me, asked a panel of experts, "When is
knowledge managed?" The panel considered the question but did not
provide an answer. What a concise and profound question! We should be
able to answer it. Over dinner that evening, a colleague and our spouses
started a short list, ten or fifteen ways to know when knowledge is
managed. The next day during my presentation I provided a few ways to
know when knowledge is managed.

The answers to this question are the essence of a sustainable knowledge
processes. I thought then and still find the question thought provoking.
The answers to this question are the habits of a knowledge aware
organization.

Follow me on Twitter (@stevenwieneke <http://twitter.com/@stevenwieneke>
) to find 100 ways to know when knowledge is managed.


Paul McDowall
 

Thanks Neil.

I certainly agree that there's knowledge in community although I wouldn't limit it to just that. Life is both simple and complex, ordered and chaotic, individual and social, beautiful and ugly, etc, all at the same time. I would argue that knowledge, as a core part of the human condition, has very similar contradicting properties. So it seems to me that we need to understand the divergent and convergent aspects of knowledge and the various perspectives (like the blind men describing the elephant) that shed light on it in order to better understand the spectrum of colours in its rainbow. Lest you think I'm smoking something let me say that I am a very pragmatic person when it comes to doing KM. In this context the challenge for us is to make the complex, simple, and while that's not always easy, its essential if our organizations are going to frame the OP's question in a relevant way and answer the question in a useful way.
My 2 cents
cheers
Paul

--- In sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com, Neil Olonoff <olonoff@...> wrote:

Paul

I appreciate your perspective in putting the "managed" word in context. Let
me throw out a couple of thoughts. First, there is a persistent thread in KM
discourse that discusses "knowledge in community," or knowledge as a verb,
knowing, rather than a thing. Larry Prusak, Dave Snowden, Richard McDermott,
even Peter Drucker have written to this point. Because of some deep seated
(but probably erroneous) notions in Western culture, most Westerners have
difficulty with the idea that knowledge is not a "thing" that is "out
there." This goes as far back as Aristotle but is mostly associated with
Descartes, and the famous Cartesian Split.

More recent studies in philosophy of knowledge, epistemology, as well as
other disciplines such as social psychology and cognitive sciences seem to
be pointing towards an expanded notion of knowledge as "social." We learn
to be human in the context of our relationships, beginning with our closest
family members.

At a certain point in our development we start to accept the illusion that
"our" knowledge is "out there," as well as everything else in the world. But
it is not. Our knowledge is part of our communal existence, and does not
exist apart from our mutual understanding. As I say, this is a difficult
concept to accept.

But it's even more difficult to understand how to "manage" that knowledge,
once one accepts that picture of knowledge. The traditional tools of
management, having grown up dependent on, and alongside, economic theory,
are simply inadequate to address knowing and learning in community. That is
why the KM label is so off-base, and why we will continue to miss the mark
as long as we insist on calling knowledge a set of things rather than an
emergent social process.

Anyway that's the reason why I originally posted the "knowledge cannot be
managed" idea. I'm sure the above is way too short and sketch to be fully
comprehensible, so if anyone wants to discuss feel free to contact me off
line.

Best regards,

Neil





Neil Olonoff




On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Paul McD <paul_mcdowall@...> wrote:



Hi all,
First let's put the 'managed' word in context. We all agree that
disciplines like Project Management, Risk Management, Financial Management,
etc are accepted and acceptable terms with a clear understanding that the
form of 'management' is very different for each discipline, but it is
nevertheless management. So now let's turn that context to KM. Why do we
continue to debate whether knowledge can actually be managed? It strikes me
that folks argue it can't be managed from one of two perspectives:
philisophical or operational. In both cases I think the argument is based on
a very narrow interpretation of a related 'management' function and IMHO
that's problematic.

Now to the original question of 'when...'. We will all agree that knowledge
has almost always been discussed, described, studied and applied. Knowledge
is a fundamental part of human nature and characteristics. As such knowledge
has always been 'at play' in our actions and relationships. The disciplines
of education, teaching, coaching, communication, etc have also always been
at play.

So to some degree then knowledge (and therefore its related flow actions
such as knowledge management, knowledge sharing, knowledge mobilization,
etc) has always been a part of the human condition. That's also true in
organizations and groups of people since earliest recorded history.

I think the question is actually too general. It seems to me that the
question may have been better expressed as 'when is knowledge ACTIVELY or
CONCRETELY managed. All organizations manage knowledge actively and
concretely through training functions, communication functions, etc, but we
are recognizing that while these forms are essential they are also often
insufficient. They also manage knowledge passively and indirectly and this
is being recognized as inefficient, creating risks, etc. This is of course
where KM comes in. It tries to address those areas where both active and
passive management can become more effective.

cheers to all
Paul




Neil Olonoff
 

Tom - Great idea!

I came up with this Top Ten list ...

  1. You can create your own set of feeds or info streams that present to you a flow of signals from the outside world, or from any other part of your company, that are easy to scan, and help you maintain situational awareness about whatever topic, issue or project you choose.
  2. You can instantly connect with another employee who has the expertise you need to complete a task, solve a problem, or come up with an innovative new solution. You can do this without having to look very hard - and when you reach this person they are open and willing to help, whether they know you or not.
  3. Both formal and informal Communities of practice exist which serve to link employees who share a common set of professional practices. These CoPs are supported by professional facilitators and SME Champions who understand the current issues in the profession.
  4. You can easily find content created by another employee that you need to complete a task, regardless of how long ago it was created, where it was created or how many employees are in the company.
  5. People in the organization are skilled at knowledge work. They know how to impart and elicit information from others efficiently.
  6. You can identify and learn from other employees if they learn something that is useful to your work.
  7. People outside the organization have an easy time of connecting to the right person or department, and they have a high degree of customer satisfaction in dealing with the organization.
  8. Everyone in the organization possesses “corporate DNA” that tells them the mission,  how their job relates to the mission, as well as how they relate to people who interact with them.
  9. Every business process is well documented. Knowledge is embedded into process documentation so that newbies can get off the ground fast.
  10. When people leave the organization they don’t take all their knowledge with them. They leave behind important contacts, basic information about their jobs and if there’s time, they train incoming personnel. When people come into the organization they are given a thorough orientation that extends to the knowledge systems that they will use to do their jobs.

Looking for feedback as I plan to include in a presentation -- Thanks again, Tom!

Neil Olonoff 




On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 4:54 PM, tomshort_tsc <tman9999@...> wrote:
 

Steve Wrote:
> The individual who ask -- "When is knowledge managed?" -- wanted to know what her organization would be like, how people would behave, when knowledge is managed. What are the outcomes, the evidence, that knowledge is being managed? <<<

Since she's asking for input on "what" it looks like, rather than "how" it's done, how about taking a page out of David Letterman's book and creating a Top 10 list?

You know knowledge is being effectively managed when:
- you can find easily a piece of content created by another employee that you need to complete a task, regardless of how long ago it was created; or how many employees are in the company
- you can instantly connect with another employee who has the expertise you need to complete a task, solve a problem, come up with an innovative new solution. You can do this without having to look very hard - and when you reach this person they are open and willing to help, whether they know you are not.
- you can create your own set of feeds or info streams that present to you a flow of signals from the outside world, or from any other part of your company, that are easy to scan, and help you maintain situational awareness about whatever topic, issue or project you choose.
- you can find out about and learn from your fellow employees whenever they learn something that is or could be useful to you and your work - in near real time.

That's a start - what others might we add? (I think this is a more fruitfull approach because a) it addresses the question that was posed; and b) it (hopefully) mitigates the need to go down the semantic/epistemelogical rabbit hole of defining knowledge.


--- In sikmleaders@..., "Steven Wieneke" wrote:
>
> When is knowledge managed?
>
> Hint: The answers (1000+) to this question are the individual habits and
> culture of a sustainable knowledge aware organization.
>
> The individual who ask -- "When is knowledge managed?" -- wanted to know
> what her organization would be like, how people would behave, when
> knowledge is managed. What are the outcomes, the evidence, that knowledge
> is being managed?
>
> My list of 100 "simple" examples is evidence of knowledge being
> recognized, managed and valued by an organization.
>
> What evidence have you observed? Anticipate?
>
> Steven Wieneke
> enterprise learning & knowledge awareness coach
> www.elkawareness.com
> @stevenwieneke
>
>
>
> >
> > While attending a KM conference in Boston several years ago, an attendee
> setting immediately behind me, asked a panel of experts, "When is
> knowledge managed?" The panel considered the question but did not
> provide an answer. What a concise and profound question! We should be
> able to answer it. Over dinner that evening, a colleague and our spouses
> started a short list, ten or fifteen ways to know when knowledge is
> managed. The next day during my presentation I provided a few ways to
> know when knowledge is managed.
> >
> > The answers to this question are the essence of a sustainable knowledge
> processes. I thought then and still find the question thought provoking.
> The answers to this question are the habits of a knowledge aware
> organization.
> >
> > Follow me on Twitter (@stevenwieneke <http://twitter.com/@stevenwieneke>
> ) to find 100 ways to know when knowledge is managed.
> >
> >
>