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
In a message dated 4/18/2011 11:10:39 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
swieneke@... writes:
|
|
|
|
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,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
"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:
|
|
|
|
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
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.
|
|
|
|
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.
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 -
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
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:
|
|
|
|
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 - 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 -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. been captured, organized, preserved, shared, and used to achieve organizational objectives. (output). However, if it isn't used (outcome), what's the purpose of managing it?
|
|
|
|
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,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
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:
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
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:
|
|
|
|
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
Paul
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Paul McD <paul_mcdowall@...> wrote:
Hi all,
size=1 width="100%" noshade color="#a0a0a0"
align=center>
No virus found in this message.
|
|
|
|
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 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. processes. I thought then and still find the question thought provoking. The answers to this question are the habits of a knowledge aware organization. ) 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:
|
|
|
|
Thanks Neil.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
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:
|
|
|
|
Neil Olonoff
Tom - Great idea!
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I came up with this Top Ten list ...
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:
|
|
|