|
How do you define what is knowledge in your organisation:
Do you give a basic definition of what knowledge is, and then allow the key department decide to them what is categorised as knowledge?
How do you explain to users the difference or integration/overlap between information and knowledge?
And do you start with defining critical areas of knowledge, breakdown a taxonomy of information types and then go from there, or make it very simple? can knowledge be based on perception rather than a clear criteria of definition?
We are struggling to define knowledge in our KM Strategy, because everyone seems to have a different understanding/definition of what knowledge is as a concept, and then what knowledge is for them in the organisation. I wonder how strict it is, or if it can be robust and more of a construct?
Any ideas on your own experience would be helpful, or if you have any resources that specifically tackle the question on how to define and identify knowledge in an organisation. Even between two of us knowledge managers, we have different opinions on what knowledge is, and can bring up and cite lots of articles on it from googling, so I can imagine every employee also has their own concept of what knowledge is :)
Thank you Hamish
|
|
|
For the sake of clarity, let's just define knowledge as a type of pasta like, say, spaghetti.
The question you and your fellow knowledge managers (er, spaghetti managers) need to focus on is this:
How do your client organizations use spaghetti to get their work done?
Your job is first and foremost to identify how your client organizations currently use spaghetti. Until you understand that, you cannot possibly help them. And how you define spaghetti doesn't really matter. What's important is how they define spaghetti.
From there you might start investigating more about where they seem to be struggling with using it, or where you see opportunities for them to use it more effectively, which usually means improving productivity or increasing innovation.
But first and foremost, If you don't understand how your client organizations are using spaghetti now to get their work done, then it really doesn't matter how you define spaghetti or whether they understand the difference between spaghetti and linguine, so don't waste your time debating it.
--
-Tom
--
Tom Short Consulting
TSC
+1 415 300 7457
|
|
|
Hi Hamish,
You could do worse than to adopt the ISO 30401 definition of
knowledge, which is:
Knowledge: A human or organizational resource enabling
good decisions and effective action in context.
... Knowledge can be individual, collective or organizational
[and is] acquired through learning or experience.
The important thing to think about from your perspective is
whether the knowledge scope for your KM strategy is individual,
collective, and/or organizational.
Each scope will require a different management approach, and will
even appear contradictory if you attempt to manage knowledge for
all of these scopes at the same time. This is because the
application of the term knowledge is contextual.
Some individual knowledge is not collective knowledge; some
collective knowledge is not organisational knowledge, and so on
and vice versa.
The prototypical KM examples for each scope are:
- Individual knowledge – Undertaking knowledge capture and/or
transfer prior to departure of specific individuals from an
organisation (eg due to resignation or retirement)
- Collective knowledge – Creating knowledge bases or other
expert networks to effectively re-apply solutions for a
particular domain (eg photocopier troubleshooting and
maintenance)
- Organisational knowledge – Using a combination of policies,
processes, and practices to effectively sustain a problem
solving capability across an organisation while achieving
consistent and repeatable outcomes (eg management of hospital
care)
This may help you hone in on the approach and problem you are
trying to solve.
Cheers,
Stephen.
On 18/12/2022 3:56 am, Hamish Tacey
wrote:
How do you define what is knowledge in your organisation:
Do you give a basic definition of what knowledge is, and
then allow the key department decide to them what is
categorised as knowledge?
How do you explain to users the difference or
integration/overlap between information and knowledge?
And do you start with defining critical areas of knowledge,
breakdown a taxonomy of information types and then go from
there, or make it very simple? can knowledge be based on
perception rather than a clear criteria of definition?
We are struggling to define knowledge in our KM Strategy,
because everyone seems to have a different
understanding/definition of what knowledge is as a concept,
and then what knowledge is for them in the organisation. I
wonder how strict it is, or if it can be robust and more of a
construct?
Any ideas on your own experience would be helpful, or if
you have any resources that specifically tackle the question
on how to define and identify knowledge in an organisation.
Even between two of us knowledge managers, we have different
opinions on what knowledge is, and can bring up and cite lots
of articles on it from googling, so I can imagine every
employee also has their own concept of what knowledge is :)
Thank you
Hamish
--
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
|
|
|
I really wouldn’t worry about it. My general view is that definitions tend to define the way you see things and may set the wrong expectations. Added to which KM abounds with amateur philosophers who have’t done their reading on the subject. If you need something anodyne and meaningless to keep people happy then use the ISO stuff hand then forget about it
Much better find out what is troubling middle management and start to run micro projects to make a difference at that level. Then you are defined by what you do for people, rather than what you promise. Methods for that on out open source wiki by the way
Senior executive sponsorship is normally the death of any sustainable programme. It makes you part of the fad cycle rather than business as usual Prof Dave Snowden Cynefin Centre & Cognitive Edge 11 Pro Please excuse predictive text errors and typos
On 18 Dec 2022, at 08:34, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:
Hi Hamish,
You could do worse than to adopt the ISO 30401 definition of
knowledge, which is:
Knowledge: A human or organizational resource enabling
good decisions and effective action in context.
... Knowledge can be individual, collective or organizational
[and is] acquired through learning or experience.
The important thing to think about from your perspective is
whether the knowledge scope for your KM strategy is individual,
collective, and/or organizational.
Each scope will require a different management approach, and will
even appear contradictory if you attempt to manage knowledge for
all of these scopes at the same time. This is because the
application of the term knowledge is contextual.
Some individual knowledge is not collective knowledge; some
collective knowledge is not organisational knowledge, and so on
and vice versa.
The prototypical KM examples for each scope are:
- Individual knowledge – Undertaking knowledge capture and/or
transfer prior to departure of specific individuals from an
organisation (eg due to resignation or retirement)
- Collective knowledge – Creating knowledge bases or other
expert networks to effectively re-apply solutions for a
particular domain (eg photocopier troubleshooting and
maintenance)
- Organisational knowledge – Using a combination of policies,
processes, and practices to effectively sustain a problem
solving capability across an organisation while achieving
consistent and repeatable outcomes (eg management of hospital
care)
This may help you hone in on the approach and problem you are
trying to solve.
Cheers,
Stephen.
On 18/12/2022 3:56 am, Hamish Tacey
wrote:
How do you define what is knowledge in your organisation:
Do you give a basic definition of what knowledge is, and
then allow the key department decide to them what is
categorised as knowledge?
How do you explain to users the difference or
integration/overlap between information and knowledge?
And do you start with defining critical areas of knowledge,
breakdown a taxonomy of information types and then go from
there, or make it very simple? can knowledge be based on
perception rather than a clear criteria of definition?
We are struggling to define knowledge in our KM Strategy,
because everyone seems to have a different
understanding/definition of what knowledge is as a concept,
and then what knowledge is for them in the organisation. I
wonder how strict it is, or if it can be robust and more of a
construct?
Any ideas on your own experience would be helpful, or if
you have any resources that specifically tackle the question
on how to define and identify knowledge in an organisation.
Even between two of us knowledge managers, we have different
opinions on what knowledge is, and can bring up and cite lots
of articles on it from googling, so I can imagine every
employee also has their own concept of what knowledge is :)
Thank you
Hamish
--
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
|
|
|
I second that, Dave, I think the definition is like a business plan in volatile times, it’s a comfort blanket that gives us a semblance of common ground, but is not actually turning the cogs of the machine and nor should it in those circumstances. Comfort blankets are good to have, but we don’t actually think they are fixing things for us (I hope).
Remaining fixated on the definition is often an avoidance strategy for doing real work, I find. I find it is more useful to give people the ability to see and describe how they use knowledge in its various forms and in a naturalistic way within a work context - as you know, that’s why I am a fan of your ASHEN framework. It immediately generates a sense of what can be done, practically.
Having said that, a definition like the ISO 30401 definition can be useful to provide reminders to colleagues to correct overly simplistic assumptions - e.g. “it’s not just documents, folks” ; “not all knowledge in an organisation is owned by the organisation”.
P
I really wouldn’t worry about it. My general view is that definitions tend to define the way you see things and may set the wrong expectations. Added to which KM abounds with amateur philosophers who have’t done their reading on the subject. If you need something anodyne and meaningless to keep people happy then use the ISO stuff hand then forget about it
Much better find out what is troubling middle management and start to run micro projects to make a difference at that level. Then you are defined by what you do for people, rather than what you promise. Methods for that on out open source wiki by the way
Senior executive sponsorship is normally the death of any sustainable programme. It makes you part of the fad cycle rather than business as usual Prof Dave Snowden Cynefin Centre & Cognitive Edge 11 Pro Please excuse predictive text errors and typos On 18 Dec 2022, at 08:34, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:
Hi Hamish, You could do worse than to adopt the ISO 30401 definition of knowledge, which is: Knowledge: A human or organizational resource enabling good decisions and effective action in context. ... Knowledge can be individual, collective or organizational [and is] acquired through learning or experience.
The important thing to think about from your perspective is whether the knowledge scope for your KM strategy is individual, collective, and/or organizational. Each scope will require a different management approach, and will even appear contradictory if you attempt to manage knowledge for all of these scopes at the same time. This is because the application of the term knowledge is contextual. Some individual knowledge is not collective knowledge; some collective knowledge is not organisational knowledge, and so on and vice versa.
The prototypical KM examples for each scope are:
- Individual knowledge – Undertaking knowledge capture and/or transfer prior to departure of specific individuals from an organisation (eg due to resignation or retirement)
- Collective knowledge – Creating knowledge bases or other expert networks to effectively re-apply solutions for a particular domain (eg photocopier troubleshooting and maintenance)
- Organisational knowledge – Using a combination of policies, processes, and practices to effectively sustain a problem solving capability across an organisation while achieving consistent and repeatable outcomes (eg management of hospital care)
This may help you hone in on the approach and problem you are trying to solve.
Cheers,
Stephen.
On 18/12/2022 3:56 am, Hamish Tacey wrote:
How do you define what is knowledge in your organisation:
Do you give a basic definition of what knowledge is, and then allow the key department decide to them what is categorised as knowledge?
How do you explain to users the difference or integration/overlap between information and knowledge?
And do you start with defining critical areas of knowledge, breakdown a taxonomy of information types and then go from there, or make it very simple? can knowledge be based on perception rather than a clear criteria of definition?
We are struggling to define knowledge in our KM Strategy, because everyone seems to have a different understanding/definition of what knowledge is as a concept, and then what knowledge is for them in the organisation. I wonder how strict it is, or if it can be robust and more of a construct?
Any ideas on your own experience would be helpful, or if you have any resources that specifically tackle the question on how to define and identify knowledge in an organisation. Even between two of us knowledge managers, we have different opinions on what knowledge is, and can bring up and cite lots of articles on it from googling, so I can imagine every employee also has their own concept of what knowledge is :)
Thank you Hamish
--
Stephen Bounds Executive, Information Management Cordelta E: stephen.bounds@...M: 0401 829 096
|
|
|
Arthur Shelley
Hi Hamish, With the greatest of respect, trying to define knowledge is not the optimal place to start valuable knowledge initiatives. Although a fascinating question, it is of academic interest rather than of practical value. It belongs as the subject of PhD studies (and many earlier exploratory conversations on this forum), but is a distraction in leveraging knowledge to create value (especially in commercial organisations).
Questions are a great starting place though. I suggest an alternative interactive divergent approach... Gather a diverse group of people together and ask them what their biggest challenges are. Extend this conversation by asking what options could help to resolve some of these challenges. Engage in cocreating sets of actions from these ideas (using "Cocreated Project Worth Doing" approach")
As your participants collaborate through these steps, they socialise their perspectives to share existing knowledge, experiences and insights - to highlight what they collectively know, and what knowledge they need to acquire or create to generate options. Telling them this is what knowledge, or KM, is means very little (or different things to each of them as you point out). However, sharing the stories of success (and failures) and the mutual social value created from these collaborative projects, gives them the magic experiences they need to truly understand why knowledge is a critical asset to be treasured, shared and applied to create value. Such interactions in a trusted ecosystem, in the context of the groups priorities, stimulates engagement, sparks creativity, accelerates innovation and improves performance.
Knowledge is like love - it is difficult to define and a unique experience for each of us. They are absolute requirements in self-sustaining relationships. However, despite its complexity, the challenges to "see" it, it enables us to understand the context more completely. Sharing knowledge (as with live) elevates those involved from a simple statement of "What IS!", up to a much higher level of awareness and appreciation so we can answer the question of "What is POSSIBLE?"
I hope this helps you and your teams to explore possibilities together and create optimal value from your precious time together. A Arthur Shelley Founder, Intelligent Answers Producer Creative Melbourne www.OrganizationalZoo.com @Metaphorage +61 413 047 408 https://au.linkedin.com/pub/arthur-shelley/1/4bb/528
On 18 Dec 2022, at 05:08, Tom Short <tshortconsulting@...> wrote:
[Edited Message Follows]
For the sake of clarity, let's just define knowledge as a type of pasta like, say, spaghetti.
The question you and your fellow knowledge managers (er, spaghetti managers) need to focus on is this:
How do your client organizations use spaghetti to get their work done?
Your job is first and foremost to identify how your client organizations currently use spaghetti. Until you understand that, you cannot possibly help them. And how you define spaghetti doesn't really matter. What's important is how they define spaghetti.
From there you might start investigating more about where they seem to be struggling with using it, or where you see opportunities for them to use it more effectively, which usually means improving productivity or increasing innovation.
But first and foremost, If you don't understand how your client organizations are using spaghetti now to get their work done, then it really doesn't matter how you define spaghetti or whether they understand the difference between spaghetti and linguine, so don't waste your time debating it.
--
-Tom
--
Tom Short Consulting
TSC
+1 415 300 7457
|
|
|
One of these day people may start to realise that starting a programme with a facilitated Workshop will limit the range of situational assessment ….
I wouldn’t start here (sorry Arthur) but I might bring it in later in the process Prof Dave Snowden Cynefin Centre & Cognitive Edge 11 Pro Please excuse predictive text errors and typos
On 19 Dec 2022, at 06:18, Arthur Shelley <arthur@...> wrote:
Hi Hamish, With the greatest of respect, trying to define knowledge is not the optimal place to start valuable knowledge initiatives. Although a fascinating question, it is of academic interest rather than of practical value. It belongs as the subject of PhD studies (and many earlier exploratory conversations on this forum), but is a distraction in leveraging knowledge to create value (especially in commercial organisations).
Questions are a great starting place though. I suggest an alternative interactive divergent approach... Gather a diverse group of people together and ask them what their biggest challenges are. Extend this conversation by asking what options could help to resolve some of these challenges. Engage in cocreating sets of actions from these ideas (using "Cocreated Project Worth Doing" approach")
As your participants collaborate through these steps, they socialise their perspectives to share existing knowledge, experiences and insights - to highlight what they collectively know, and what knowledge they need to acquire or create to generate options. Telling them this is what knowledge, or KM, is means very little (or different things to each of them as you point out). However, sharing the stories of success (and failures) and the mutual social value created from these collaborative projects, gives them the magic experiences they need to truly understand why knowledge is a critical asset to be treasured, shared and applied to create value. Such interactions in a trusted ecosystem, in the context of the groups priorities, stimulates engagement, sparks creativity, accelerates innovation and improves performance.
Knowledge is like love - it is difficult to define and a unique experience for each of us. They are absolute requirements in self-sustaining relationships. However, despite its complexity, the challenges to "see" it, it enables us to understand the context more completely. Sharing knowledge (as with live) elevates those involved from a simple statement of "What IS!", up to a much higher level of awareness and appreciation so we can answer the question of "What is POSSIBLE?"
I hope this helps you and your teams to explore possibilities together and create optimal value from your precious time together. A Arthur Shelley Founder, Intelligent Answers Producer Creative Melbourne www.OrganizationalZoo.com @Metaphorage +61 413 047 408 https://au.linkedin.com/pub/arthur-shelley/1/4bb/528 On 18 Dec 2022, at 05:08, Tom Short <tshortconsulting@...> wrote:
[Edited Message Follows]
For the sake of clarity, let's just define knowledge as a type of pasta like, say, spaghetti.
The question you and your fellow knowledge managers (er, spaghetti managers) need to focus on is this:
How do your client organizations use spaghetti to get their work done?
Your job is first and foremost to identify how your client organizations currently use spaghetti. Until you understand that, you cannot possibly help them. And how you define spaghetti doesn't really matter. What's important is how they define spaghetti.
From there you might start investigating more about where they seem to be struggling with using it, or where you see opportunities for them to use it more effectively, which usually means improving productivity or increasing innovation.
But first and foremost, If you don't understand how your client organizations are using spaghetti now to get their work done, then it really doesn't matter how you define spaghetti or whether they understand the difference between spaghetti and linguine, so don't waste your time debating it.
--
-Tom
--
Tom Short Consulting
TSC
+1 415 300 7457
|
|
|
Hello Hamish,
Good question! To paraphrase the old economist joke, if you ask a half dozen KM experts to define knowledge, you’ll gather at least a dozen different definitions. This can quickly lead to a semantic joust
that generates more heat than light.
What Arthur and Dave are (in effect) suggesting is to invert the question and lead from the problems knowledge can solve — the demand side for knowledge (“What are your challenges?”) — rather than the supply
side (“Knowledge is X, we knowledge specialists do Y,” and so on.)
I too favor this demand-side approach and, also like Arthur, have had some successes executing it in an event-based format, e.g., a workshop or other direct intervention. But regardless of the mechanism engaged,
the same Sales 101 principle applies: Sell the benefits — the solutions will follow. FIRST engage as directly as you can with your clients’ responsibilities, problems, and challenges — THEN show how knowledge can provide assistance. Find examples that are
as concrete and value-relevant as possible.
In my experience, business people are, on the whole, pragmatic, empirical, and results-focused. Because “knowledge” does not (for the most part) appear on financial statements, executives — especially those
with financial backgrounds — may regard it as specialized, isolated, mysterious — or, even, frivolous or make-believe.
Given that all-too-common expectation, it doesn’t instill much confidence in us (or our professed discipline) to lead with an admission that, though we can’t define knowledge, we’ll (in effect) know it when
we see it. “We’re here to help you manage what we ourselves cannot adequately define” is not a strong value proposition.
If you favor a broad definition of knowledge (as I do), you could orient them with a reference to these intangible assets:
- data, information, knowledge, intelligence
- patents, trademarks, copyrights
- maps, models, metrics
- policies, practices, processes
- brands and reputation
- communities and networks
That will begin to get them focused — and nailing this down more precisely for your client organization is a primary order of business (as others here have said.) I usually recommend a census or inventory
of knowledge assets and activities as a first step in any significant value-building initiative. I’ve developed various tools and methods to accomplish this, as likely others have here as well.
Good luck, hope this helps you.
Tim
From:
<main@SIKM.groups.io> on behalf of Hamish Tacey <hamish.tacey@...>
Reply-To: "main@SIKM.groups.io" <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Date: Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 12:57 PM
To: "main@SIKM.groups.io" <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Subject: [SIKM] Defining knowledge in your organisation? is it simple or hard?
How do you define what is knowledge in your organisation:
Do you give a basic definition of what knowledge is, and then allow the key department decide to them what is categorised as knowledge?
How do you explain to users the difference or integration/overlap between information and knowledge?
And do you start with defining critical areas of knowledge, breakdown a taxonomy of information types and then go from there, or make it very simple? can knowledge be based on perception rather than a clear criteria
of definition?
We are struggling to define knowledge in our KM Strategy, because everyone seems to have a different understanding/definition of what knowledge is as a concept, and then what knowledge is for them in the organisation.
I wonder how strict it is, or if it can be robust and more of a construct?
Any ideas on your own experience would be helpful, or if you have any resources that specifically tackle the question on how to define and identify knowledge in an organisation. Even between two of us knowledge
managers, we have different opinions on what knowledge is, and can bring up and cite lots of articles on it from googling, so I can imagine every employee also has their own concept of what knowledge is :)
|
|
|
Dear all
Thank you so much for all the sage advice, it really made me rethink the concept of defining knowledge and how to move forward. I'll integrate these approaches/concepts and If I learn anything further down the road from the KM Strategy development I'll revisit this email exchange and let you know. Take care
Hamish
Hello Hamish,
Good question! To paraphrase the old economist joke, if you ask a half dozen KM experts to define knowledge, you’ll gather at least a dozen different definitions. This can quickly lead to a semantic joust
that generates more heat than light.
What Arthur and Dave are (in effect) suggesting is to invert the question and lead from the problems knowledge can solve — the demand side for knowledge (“What are your challenges?”) — rather than the supply
side (“Knowledge is X, we knowledge specialists do Y,” and so on.)
I too favor this demand-side approach and, also like Arthur, have had some successes executing it in an event-based format, e.g., a workshop or other direct intervention. But regardless of the mechanism engaged,
the same Sales 101 principle applies: Sell the benefits — the solutions will follow. FIRST engage as directly as you can with your clients’ responsibilities, problems, and challenges — THEN show how knowledge can provide assistance. Find examples that are
as concrete and value-relevant as possible.
In my experience, business people are, on the whole, pragmatic, empirical, and results-focused. Because “knowledge” does not (for the most part) appear on financial statements, executives — especially those
with financial backgrounds — may regard it as specialized, isolated, mysterious — or, even, frivolous or make-believe.
Given that all-too-common expectation, it doesn’t instill much confidence in us (or our professed discipline) to lead with an admission that, though we can’t define knowledge, we’ll (in effect) know it when
we see it. “We’re here to help you manage what we ourselves cannot adequately define” is not a strong value proposition.
If you favor a broad definition of knowledge (as I do), you could orient them with a reference to these intangible assets:
- data, information, knowledge, intelligence
- patents, trademarks, copyrights
- maps, models, metrics
- policies, practices, processes
- brands and reputation
- communities and networks
That will begin to get them focused — and nailing this down more precisely for your client organization is a primary order of business (as others here have said.) I usually recommend a census or inventory
of knowledge assets and activities as a first step in any significant value-building initiative. I’ve developed various tools and methods to accomplish this, as likely others have here as well.
Good luck, hope this helps you.
Tim
How do you define what is knowledge in your organisation:
Do you give a basic definition of what knowledge is, and then allow the key department decide to them what is categorised as knowledge?
How do you explain to users the difference or integration/overlap between information and knowledge?
And do you start with defining critical areas of knowledge, breakdown a taxonomy of information types and then go from there, or make it very simple? can knowledge be based on perception rather than a clear criteria
of definition?
We are struggling to define knowledge in our KM Strategy, because everyone seems to have a different understanding/definition of what knowledge is as a concept, and then what knowledge is for them in the organisation.
I wonder how strict it is, or if it can be robust and more of a construct?
Any ideas on your own experience would be helpful, or if you have any resources that specifically tackle the question on how to define and identify knowledge in an organisation. Even between two of us knowledge
managers, we have different opinions on what knowledge is, and can bring up and cite lots of articles on it from googling, so I can imagine every employee also has their own concept of what knowledge is :)
|
|
|
Arthur Shelley
We all operate differently Dave and this is what makes knowledge initiatives an exciting place to lead and collaborate around. I have found such open conversations, when facilitated inclusively, trigger powerful interactions on a range of possibilities. Such collaborative conversation have lead to many valuable projects over the years, helping to generate greater awareness across a range of challenges. Some shared in previous publications, some in private organisations and many in formal project-based education programs.
Of course it is not the only way to initiate programs, but I argue it is more effective than asking people to define knowledge as the starting engagement. Many do not fully understand the scope and power of knowledge, until they have greater experiences of seeing its flow in action. This can be more deeply understood through the approach described. Arthur Shelley Founder, Intelligent Answers Producer Creative Melbourne www.OrganizationalZoo.com @Metaphorage +61 413 047 408 https://au.linkedin.com/pub/arthur-shelley/1/4bb/528
On 20 Dec 2022, at 08:40, Tim Powell <tim.powell@...> wrote:
Hello Hamish,
Good question! To paraphrase the old economist joke, if you ask a half dozen KM experts to define knowledge, you’ll gather at least a dozen different definitions. This can quickly lead to a semantic joust
that generates more heat than light.
What Arthur and Dave are (in effect) suggesting is to invert the question and lead from the problems knowledge can solve — the demand side for knowledge (“What are your challenges?”) — rather than the supply
side (“Knowledge is X, we knowledge specialists do Y,” and so on.)
I too favor this demand-side approach and, also like Arthur, have had some successes executing it in an event-based format, e.g., a workshop or other direct intervention. But regardless of the mechanism engaged,
the same Sales 101 principle applies: Sell the benefits — the solutions will follow. FIRST engage as directly as you can with your clients’ responsibilities, problems, and challenges — THEN show how knowledge can provide assistance. Find examples that are
as concrete and value-relevant as possible.
In my experience, business people are, on the whole, pragmatic, empirical, and results-focused. Because “knowledge” does not (for the most part) appear on financial statements, executives — especially those
with financial backgrounds — may regard it as specialized, isolated, mysterious — or, even, frivolous or make-believe.
Given that all-too-common expectation, it doesn’t instill much confidence in us (or our professed discipline) to lead with an admission that, though we can’t define knowledge, we’ll (in effect) know it when
we see it. “We’re here to help you manage what we ourselves cannot adequately define” is not a strong value proposition.
If you favor a broad definition of knowledge (as I do), you could orient them with a reference to these intangible assets:
- data, information, knowledge, intelligence
- patents, trademarks, copyrights
- maps, models, metrics
- policies, practices, processes
- brands and reputation
- communities and networks
That will begin to get them focused — and nailing this down more precisely for your client organization is a primary order of business (as others here have said.) I usually recommend a census or inventory
of knowledge assets and activities as a first step in any significant value-building initiative. I’ve developed various tools and methods to accomplish this, as likely others have here as well.
Good luck, hope this helps you.
Tim
From:
<main@SIKM.groups.io> on behalf of Hamish Tacey <hamish.tacey@...>
Reply-To: "main@SIKM.groups.io" <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Date: Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 12:57 PM
To: "main@SIKM.groups.io" <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Subject: [SIKM] Defining knowledge in your organisation? is it simple or hard?
How do you define what is knowledge in your organisation:
Do you give a basic definition of what knowledge is, and then allow the key department decide to them what is categorised as knowledge?
How do you explain to users the difference or integration/overlap between information and knowledge?
And do you start with defining critical areas of knowledge, breakdown a taxonomy of information types and then go from there, or make it very simple? can knowledge be based on perception rather than a clear criteria
of definition?
We are struggling to define knowledge in our KM Strategy, because everyone seems to have a different understanding/definition of what knowledge is as a concept, and then what knowledge is for them in the organisation.
I wonder how strict it is, or if it can be robust and more of a construct?
Any ideas on your own experience would be helpful, or if you have any resources that specifically tackle the question on how to define and identify knowledge in an organisation. Even between two of us knowledge
managers, we have different opinions on what knowledge is, and can bring up and cite lots of articles on it from googling, so I can imagine every employee also has their own concept of what knowledge is :)
|
|
|
I think you could argue that anything is “more effective than asking people to define knowledge as the starting engagement” so I don’t think that is at issue
But yes we disagree I’m afraid - starting a programme with a workshop not a map means (i) you are limited to what the workshop attendees are interested in (ii) facilitators can’t avoid bias so authenticity of initiative is questionable (iii) reporting impact at the end of a workshop is problematic - they nearly always work in the moment.
Prof Dave Snowden
Director & Founder - The Cynefin Centre CSO - The Cynefin Company Social Media: snowded
|
On 20 Dec 2022, at 11:56, Arthur Shelley <arthur@...> wrote:
We all operate differently Dave and this is what makes knowledge initiatives an exciting place to lead and collaborate around.I have found such open conversations, when facilitated inclusively, trigger powerful interactions on a range of possibilities. Such collaborative conversation have lead to many valuable projects over the years, helping to generate greater awareness across a range of challenges. Some shared in previous publications, some in private organisations and many in formal project-based education programs.
Of course it is not the only way to initiate programs, but I argue it is more effective than asking people to define knowledge as the starting engagement. Many do not fully understand the scope and power of knowledge, until they have greater experiences of seeing its flow in action. This can be more deeply understood through the approach described. Arthur Shelley Founder, Intelligent Answers Producer Creative Melbourne @Metaphorage +61 413 047 408 Hello Hamish, Good question! To paraphrase the old economist joke, if you ask a half dozen KM experts to define knowledge, you’ll gather at least a dozen different definitions. This can quickly lead to a semantic joust that generates more heat than light. What Arthur and Dave are (in effect) suggesting is to invert the question and lead from the problems knowledge can solve — the demand side for knowledge (“What are your challenges?”) — rather than the supply side (“Knowledge is X, we knowledge specialists do Y,” and so on.) I too favor this demand-side approach and, also like Arthur, have had some successes executing it in an event-based format, e.g., a workshop or other direct intervention. But regardless of the mechanism engaged, the same Sales 101 principle applies: Sell the benefits — the solutions will follow. FIRST engage as directly as you can with your clients’ responsibilities, problems, and challenges — THEN show how knowledge can provide assistance. Find examples that are as concrete and value-relevant as possible. In my experience, business people are, on the whole, pragmatic, empirical, and results-focused. Because “knowledge” does not (for the most part) appear on financial statements, executives — especially those with financial backgrounds — may regard it as specialized, isolated, mysterious — or, even, frivolous or make-believe. Given that all-too-common expectation, it doesn’t instill much confidence in us (or our professed discipline) to lead with an admission that, though we can’t define knowledge, we’ll (in effect) know it when we see it. “We’re here to help you manage what we ourselves cannot adequately define” is not a strong value proposition. If you favor a broad definition of knowledge (as I do), you could orient them with a reference to these intangible assets: - data, information, knowledge, intelligence - patents, trademarks, copyrights - maps, models, metrics - policies, practices, processes - brands and reputation - communities and networks That will begin to get them focused — and nailing this down more precisely for your client organization is a primary order of business (as others here have said.) I usually recommend a census or inventory of knowledge assets and activities as a first step in any significant value-building initiative. I’ve developed various tools and methods to accomplish this, as likely others have here as well. Good luck, hope this helps you. Tim New York City, USA | TEL +1.212.243.1200 | How do you define what is knowledge in your organisation: Do you give a basic definition of what knowledge is, and then allow the key department decide to them what is categorised as knowledge? How do you explain to users the difference or integration/overlap between information and knowledge? And do you start with defining critical areas of knowledge, breakdown a taxonomy of information types and then go from there, or make it very simple? can knowledge be based on perception rather than a clear criteria of definition? We are struggling to define knowledge in our KM Strategy, because everyone seems to have a different understanding/definition of what knowledge is as a concept, and then what knowledge is for them in the organisation. I wonder how strict it is, or if it can be robust and more of a construct? Any ideas on your own experience would be helpful, or if you have any resources that specifically tackle the question on how to define and identify knowledge in an organisation. Even between two of us knowledge managers, we have different opinions on what knowledge is, and can bring up and cite lots of articles on it from googling, so I can imagine every employee also has their own concept of what knowledge is :)
|
|
|
Arthur Shelley
Disagreement is good as it provides a range of alternatives. Hamish is well advised to explore s range if approaches to see what works in his context.
This is what is encouraged in an early workshop too to get perspectives shared. One of the measurable outputs of an exploratory workshop is a list of possible initiatives that is created by the participants themselves and ghe bap emerges from that foundation.
The fact that they have cocreated the list themselves rather than being told what the plan is, generates a stronger sense of ownership, which increases engagement (therefore greater probability for commitment to the next steps).
Agree that maintaining momentum is always a challenge, so shorter more frequent workshops to maintain flow is important. Ideally with some actions to be completed in between. I find this is more likely if they are working on "their own" ideas - prioritised in the second workshop.
Yes, bias is alway present in human interactions and needs to be acknowledged and discussed to ensure participants' ideas are fully understood. Experienced facilitators can minimise this by asking questions rather than telling participants. This is why an external facilitator can work better (provided their neutral position and approach is made clear - to them before contracting and to participants through their actions).
I have always found the biggest benefit in this approach is the relationships formed through the collaboration. Building the trust between the initiative teams on things they care about, builds momentum and improves outcomes. Nothing is a silver bullet of course, but when successes start to be realised and stories shared, ownership and momentum build. Arthur Shelley Founder, Intelligent Answers Producer Creative Melbourne www.OrganizationalZoo.com @Metaphorage +61 413 047 408 https://au.linkedin.com/pub/arthur-shelley/1/4bb/528
On 21 Dec 2022, at 05:19, Dave Snowden via groups.io <snowded@...> wrote:
I think you could argue that anything is “more effective than asking people to define knowledge as the starting engagement” so I don’t think that is at issue
But yes we disagree I’m afraid - starting a programme with a workshop not a map means (i) you are limited to what the workshop attendees are interested in (ii) facilitators can’t avoid bias so authenticity of initiative is questionable (iii) reporting impact at the end of a workshop is problematic - they nearly always work in the moment.
Prof Dave Snowden
Director & Founder - The Cynefin Centre CSO - The Cynefin Company Social Media: snowded
|
On 20 Dec 2022, at 11:56, Arthur Shelley <arthur@...> wrote:
We all operate differently Dave and this is what makes knowledge initiatives an exciting place to lead and collaborate around.I have found such open conversations, when facilitated inclusively, trigger powerful interactions on a range of possibilities. Such collaborative conversation have lead to many valuable projects over the years, helping to generate greater awareness across a range of challenges. Some shared in previous publications, some in private organisations and many in formal project-based education programs.
Of course it is not the only way to initiate programs, but I argue it is more effective than asking people to define knowledge as the starting engagement. Many do not fully understand the scope and power of knowledge, until they have greater experiences of seeing its flow in action. This can be more deeply understood through the approach described. Arthur Shelley Founder, Intelligent Answers Producer Creative Melbourne @Metaphorage +61 413 047 408 Hello Hamish, Good question! To paraphrase the old economist joke, if you ask a half dozen KM experts to define knowledge, you’ll gather at least a dozen different definitions. This can quickly lead to a semantic joust that generates more heat than light. What Arthur and Dave are (in effect) suggesting is to invert the question and lead from the problems knowledge can solve — the demand side for knowledge (“What are your challenges?”) — rather than the supply side (“Knowledge is X, we knowledge specialists do Y,” and so on.) I too favor this demand-side approach and, also like Arthur, have had some successes executing it in an event-based format, e.g., a workshop or other direct intervention. But regardless of the mechanism engaged, the same Sales 101 principle applies: Sell the benefits — the solutions will follow. FIRST engage as directly as you can with your clients’ responsibilities, problems, and challenges — THEN show how knowledge can provide assistance. Find examples that are as concrete and value-relevant as possible. In my experience, business people are, on the whole, pragmatic, empirical, and results-focused. Because “knowledge” does not (for the most part) appear on financial statements, executives — especially those with financial backgrounds — may regard it as specialized, isolated, mysterious — or, even, frivolous or make-believe. Given that all-too-common expectation, it doesn’t instill much confidence in us (or our professed discipline) to lead with an admission that, though we can’t define knowledge, we’ll (in effect) know it when we see it. “We’re here to help you manage what we ourselves cannot adequately define” is not a strong value proposition. If you favor a broad definition of knowledge (as I do), you could orient them with a reference to these intangible assets: - data, information, knowledge, intelligence - patents, trademarks, copyrights - maps, models, metrics - policies, practices, processes - brands and reputation - communities and networks That will begin to get them focused — and nailing this down more precisely for your client organization is a primary order of business (as others here have said.) I usually recommend a census or inventory of knowledge assets and activities as a first step in any significant value-building initiative. I’ve developed various tools and methods to accomplish this, as likely others have here as well. Good luck, hope this helps you. Tim New York City, USA | TEL +1.212.243.1200 | How do you define what is knowledge in your organisation: Do you give a basic definition of what knowledge is, and then allow the key department decide to them what is categorised as knowledge? How do you explain to users the difference or integration/overlap between information and knowledge? And do you start with defining critical areas of knowledge, breakdown a taxonomy of information types and then go from there, or make it very simple? can knowledge be based on perception rather than a clear criteria of definition? We are struggling to define knowledge in our KM Strategy, because everyone seems to have a different understanding/definition of what knowledge is as a concept, and then what knowledge is for them in the organisation. I wonder how strict it is, or if it can be robust and more of a construct? Any ideas on your own experience would be helpful, or if you have any resources that specifically tackle the question on how to define and identify knowledge in an organisation. Even between two of us knowledge managers, we have different opinions on what knowledge is, and can bring up and cite lots of articles on it from googling, so I can imagine every employee also has their own concept of what knowledge is :)
|
|
|
Martin Dugage
I always had a hard time defining knowledge (“the capacity to take effective action”). For me it was more simple to define knowledge management (“a system to convert the individual knowledge of employees into company knowledge”). Managers tend to relate more easily to knowledge management because it is something you do. They don’t like to waste time defining concepts. Managers are the opposite of philosophers.
And I would tend to question Dave’s statement that “Senior executive sponsorship is normally the death of any sustainable programme.” What I have learned in my entire career is that exemplarity of leaders is by far the best approach for change management. Indeed, the objective of any corporate change program is to get rid of the need for senior executive sponsorship as quickly as possible to become self-sustainable. But it always starts from there. I have been leading 3 major KM programs in my career and their success has always been closely tied to the support I had from the CEO against the CFO, the CIO, the legal department, the training department, the marketing department etc.
Le mer. 21 déc. 2022 à 01:52, Arthur Shelley < arthur@...> a écrit : Disagreement is good as it provides a range of alternatives. Hamish is well advised to explore s range if approaches to see what works in his context.
This is what is encouraged in an early workshop too to get perspectives shared. One of the measurable outputs of an exploratory workshop is a list of possible initiatives that is created by the participants themselves and ghe bap emerges from that foundation.
The fact that they have cocreated the list themselves rather than being told what the plan is, generates a stronger sense of ownership, which increases engagement (therefore greater probability for commitment to the next steps).
Agree that maintaining momentum is always a challenge, so shorter more frequent workshops to maintain flow is important. Ideally with some actions to be completed in between. I find this is more likely if they are working on "their own" ideas - prioritised in the second workshop.
Yes, bias is alway present in human interactions and needs to be acknowledged and discussed to ensure participants' ideas are fully understood. Experienced facilitators can minimise this by asking questions rather than telling participants. This is why an external facilitator can work better (provided their neutral position and approach is made clear - to them before contracting and to participants through their actions).
I have always found the biggest benefit in this approach is the relationships formed through the collaboration. Building the trust between the initiative teams on things they care about, builds momentum and improves outcomes. Nothing is a silver bullet of course, but when successes start to be realised and stories shared, ownership and momentum build. Arthur Shelley Founder, Intelligent Answers Producer Creative Melbourne @Metaphorage +61 413 047 408 I think you could argue that anything is “more effective than asking people to define knowledge as the starting engagement” so I don’t think that is at issue
But yes we disagree I’m afraid - starting a programme with a workshop not a map means (i) you are limited to what the workshop attendees are interested in (ii) facilitators can’t avoid bias so authenticity of initiative is questionable (iii) reporting impact at the end of a workshop is problematic - they nearly always work in the moment.
Prof Dave Snowden
Director & Founder - The Cynefin Centre CSO - The Cynefin Company Social Media: snowded
|
On 20 Dec 2022, at 11:56, Arthur Shelley < arthur@...> wrote:
We all operate differently Dave and this is what makes knowledge initiatives an exciting place to lead and collaborate around.I have found such open conversations, when facilitated inclusively, trigger powerful interactions on a range of possibilities. Such collaborative conversation have lead to many valuable projects over the years, helping to generate greater awareness across a range of challenges. Some shared in previous publications, some in private organisations and many in formal project-based education programs.
Of course it is not the only way to initiate programs, but I argue it is more effective than asking people to define knowledge as the starting engagement. Many do not fully understand the scope and power of knowledge, until they have greater experiences of seeing its flow in action. This can be more deeply understood through the approach described. Arthur Shelley Founder, Intelligent Answers Producer Creative Melbourne @Metaphorage +61 413 047 408 Hello Hamish, Good question! To paraphrase the old economist joke, if you ask a half dozen KM experts to define knowledge, you’ll gather at least a dozen different definitions. This can quickly lead to a semantic joust that generates more heat than light. What Arthur and Dave are (in effect) suggesting is to invert the question and lead from the problems knowledge can solve — the demand side for knowledge (“What are your challenges?”) — rather than the supply side (“Knowledge is X, we knowledge specialists do Y,” and so on.) I too favor this demand-side approach and, also like Arthur, have had some successes executing it in an event-based format, e.g., a workshop or other direct intervention. But regardless of the mechanism engaged, the same Sales 101 principle applies: Sell the benefits — the solutions will follow. FIRST engage as directly as you can with your clients’ responsibilities, problems, and challenges — THEN show how knowledge can provide assistance. Find examples that are as concrete and value-relevant as possible. In my experience, business people are, on the whole, pragmatic, empirical, and results-focused. Because “knowledge” does not (for the most part) appear on financial statements, executives — especially those with financial backgrounds — may regard it as specialized, isolated, mysterious — or, even, frivolous or make-believe. Given that all-too-common expectation, it doesn’t instill much confidence in us (or our professed discipline) to lead with an admission that, though we can’t define knowledge, we’ll (in effect) know it when we see it. “We’re here to help you manage what we ourselves cannot adequately define” is not a strong value proposition. If you favor a broad definition of knowledge (as I do), you could orient them with a reference to these intangible assets: - data, information, knowledge, intelligence - patents, trademarks, copyrights - maps, models, metrics - policies, practices, processes - brands and reputation - communities and networks That will begin to get them focused — and nailing this down more precisely for your client organization is a primary order of business (as others here have said.) I usually recommend a census or inventory of knowledge assets and activities as a first step in any significant value-building initiative. I’ve developed various tools and methods to accomplish this, as likely others have here as well. Good luck, hope this helps you. Tim New York City, USA | TEL +1.212.243.1200 | How do you define what is knowledge in your organisation: Do you give a basic definition of what knowledge is, and then allow the key department decide to them what is categorised as knowledge? How do you explain to users the difference or integration/overlap between information and knowledge? And do you start with defining critical areas of knowledge, breakdown a taxonomy of information types and then go from there, or make it very simple? can knowledge be based on perception rather than a clear criteria of definition? We are struggling to define knowledge in our KM Strategy, because everyone seems to have a different understanding/definition of what knowledge is as a concept, and then what knowledge is for them in the organisation. I wonder how strict it is, or if it can be robust and more of a construct? Any ideas on your own experience would be helpful, or if you have any resources that specifically tackle the question on how to define and identify knowledge in an organisation. Even between two of us knowledge managers, we have different opinions on what knowledge is, and can bring up and cite lots of articles on it from googling, so I can imagine every employee also has their own concept of what knowledge is :)
-- Rgds
_Martin R. Dugage
|
|
|
Dear Hamish,
In my book "Design knowledge Management System", I have provided two models 1. Knowledge proximity Model ; page 57 2. Knowledge Entity Matrix Model ; page 34
Both of these models provide a multidimensional nature of knowledge ; and how one can use these points of references to define the Context of Knowledge Management and create the distinction of what is that you want to manage and what is that you do not want to manage ontologically.
The paradox of this field stems from your question; and hence our conversations start and end within this paradigm. However, these two models provide a common framework from which a group of people (who share different views on KM ) can be on the same page.
If anybody want to discuss this in detail, please feel free to contact me - santhoshshekar@...
Thank you,
How do you define what is knowledge in your organisation:
Do you give a basic definition of what knowledge is, and then allow the key department decide to them what is categorised as knowledge?
How do you explain to users the difference or integration/overlap between information and knowledge?
And do you start with defining critical areas of knowledge, breakdown a taxonomy of information types and then go from there, or make it very simple? can knowledge be based on perception rather than a clear criteria of definition?
We are struggling to define knowledge in our KM Strategy, because everyone seems to have a different understanding/definition of what knowledge is as a concept, and then what knowledge is for them in the organisation. I wonder how strict it is, or if it can be robust and more of a construct?
Any ideas on your own experience would be helpful, or if you have any resources that specifically tackle the question on how to define and identify knowledge in an organisation. Even between two of us knowledge managers, we have different opinions on what knowledge is, and can bring up and cite lots of articles on it from googling, so I can imagine every employee also has their own concept of what knowledge is :)
Thank you Hamish
|
|
|
Happy New Year Martin!
I have used a simple definition of knowledge for over 15 years prompted by a “How would you describe knowledge?” question from a presentation I gave. Information is explicit and codified and experience is tacit and personal. It is just
one view of knowledge and it serves its purpose at starting a conversation, particularly in a practical business and operational environment. Knowledge facilitates better decision making and the search for the application of solutions to business and operational
challenges facing an organization.
Best
Bill
Learn more about the solutions and value we provide at
www.workingknowledge-csp.com
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of
Martin Dugage via groups.io
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2022 14:09
To: main@sikm.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Defining knowledge in your organisation? is it simple or hard?
I always had a hard time defining knowledge (“the capacity to take effective action”). For me it was more simple to define knowledge management (“a system to convert the individual knowledge of employees into company knowledge”). Managers
tend to relate more easily to knowledge management because it is something you do. They don’t like to waste time defining concepts. Managers are the opposite of philosophers.
And I would tend to question Dave’s statement that “Senior executive sponsorship is normally the death of any sustainable programme.” What I have learned in my entire career is that exemplarity of leaders is
by far the best approach for change management. Indeed, the objective of any corporate change program is to get rid of the need for senior executive sponsorship as quickly as possible to become self-sustainable. But it always starts from there. I have been
leading 3 major KM programs in my career and their success has always been closely tied to the support I had from the CEO against the CFO, the CIO, the legal department, the training department, the marketing department etc.
Le mer. 21 déc. 2022 à 01:52, Arthur Shelley <arthur@...> a écrit :
Disagreement is good as it provides a range of alternatives. Hamish is well advised to explore s range if approaches to see what works in his context.
This is what is encouraged in an early workshop too to get perspectives shared. One of the measurable outputs of an exploratory workshop is a list of possible initiatives that is created by the participants themselves and ghe bap emerges
from that foundation.
The fact that they have cocreated the list themselves rather than being told what the plan is, generates a stronger sense of ownership, which increases engagement (therefore greater probability for commitment to the next steps).
Agree that maintaining momentum is always a challenge, so shorter more frequent workshops to maintain flow is important. Ideally with some actions to be completed in between. I find this is more likely if they are working on "their own"
ideas - prioritised in the second workshop.
Yes, bias is alway present in human interactions and needs to be acknowledged and discussed to ensure participants' ideas are fully understood. Experienced facilitators can minimise this by asking questions rather than telling participants.
This is why an external facilitator can work better (provided their neutral position and approach is made clear - to them before contracting and to participants through their actions).
I have always found the biggest benefit in this approach is the relationships formed through the collaboration. Building the trust between the initiative teams on things they care about, builds momentum and
improves outcomes. Nothing is a silver bullet of course, but when successes start to be realised and stories shared, ownership and momentum build.
Arthur Shelley
Founder, Intelligent Answers
Producer Creative Melbourne
I think you could argue that anything is “more effective than asking people to define knowledge as the starting engagement” so I don’t think that is at issue
But yes we disagree I’m afraid - starting a programme with a workshop not a map means (i) you are limited to what the workshop attendees are interested in (ii) facilitators can’t avoid bias so authenticity of initiative is questionable
(iii) reporting impact at the end of a workshop is problematic - they nearly always work in the moment.
Prof Dave Snowden
Director & Founder - The Cynefin Centre
CSO - The Cynefin Company
|
On 20 Dec 2022, at 11:56, Arthur Shelley <arthur@...> wrote:
We all operate differently Dave and this is what makes knowledge initiatives an exciting place to lead and collaborate around.
I have found such open conversations, when facilitated inclusively, trigger powerful interactions on a range of possibilities. Such collaborative conversation have lead to
many valuable projects over the years, helping to generate greater awareness across a range of challenges. Some shared in previous publications, some in private organisations and many in formal project-based education programs.
Of course it is not the only way to initiate programs, but I argue it is more effective than asking people to define knowledge as the starting
engagement. Many do not fully understand the scope and power of knowledge, until they have greater experiences of seeing its flow in action. This can be more deeply understood through the approach described.
Arthur Shelley
Founder, Intelligent Answers
Producer Creative Melbourne
Good question! To paraphrase the old economist joke, if you ask a half dozen KM experts to define knowledge, you’ll gather at least a dozen different definitions. This can quickly lead to a semantic joust
that generates more heat than light.
What Arthur and Dave are (in effect) suggesting is to invert the question and lead from the problems knowledge can solve — the demand side for knowledge (“What are your challenges?”) — rather than the supply
side (“Knowledge is X, we knowledge specialists do Y,” and so on.)
I too favor this demand-side approach and, also like Arthur, have had some successes executing it in an event-based format, e.g., a workshop or other direct intervention. But regardless of the mechanism engaged,
the same Sales 101 principle applies: Sell the benefits — the solutions will follow. FIRST engage as directly as you can with your clients’ responsibilities, problems, and challenges — THEN show how knowledge can provide assistance. Find examples that are
as concrete and value-relevant as possible.
In my experience, business people are, on the whole, pragmatic, empirical, and results-focused. Because “knowledge” does not (for the most part) appear on financial statements, executives — especially those
with financial backgrounds — may regard it as specialized, isolated, mysterious — or, even, frivolous or make-believe.
Given that all-too-common expectation, it doesn’t instill much confidence in us (or our professed discipline) to lead with an admission that, though we can’t define knowledge, we’ll (in effect) know it when
we see it. “We’re here to help you manage what we ourselves cannot adequately define” is not a strong value proposition.
If you favor a broad definition of knowledge (as I do), you could orient them with a reference to these intangible assets:
- data, information, knowledge, intelligence
- patents, trademarks, copyrights
- policies, practices, processes
- communities and networks
That will begin to get them focused — and nailing this down more precisely for your client organization is a primary order of business (as others here have said.) I usually recommend a census or inventory
of knowledge assets and activities as a first step in any significant value-building initiative. I’ve developed various tools and methods to accomplish this, as likely others have here as well.
Good luck, hope this helps you.
New York City, USA | TEL +1.212.243.1200 |
How do you define what is knowledge in your organisation:
Do you give a basic definition of what knowledge is, and then allow the key department decide to them what is categorised as knowledge?
How do you explain to users the difference or integration/overlap between information and knowledge?
And do you start with defining critical areas of knowledge, breakdown a taxonomy of information types and then go from there, or make it very simple? can knowledge be based on perception rather than a clear criteria of definition?
We are struggling to define knowledge in our KM Strategy, because everyone seems to have a different understanding/definition of what knowledge is as a concept, and then what knowledge is for them in the organisation. I wonder how strict
it is, or if it can be robust and more of a construct?
Any ideas on your own experience would be helpful, or if you have any resources that specifically tackle the question on how to define and identify knowledge in an organisation. Even between two of us knowledge managers, we have different
opinions on what knowledge is, and can bring up and cite lots of articles on it from googling, so I can imagine every employee also has their own concept of what knowledge is :)
--
|
|
|
Dear Hamish -
I haven't read all the smart answers given to this question of
yours. I'd just have a question myself. You write, "We are
struggling to define knowledge in our KM Strategy, because
everyone seems to have a different understanding/definition of
what knowledge is as a concept, and then what knowledge is for
them in the organisation."
--> I am wondering - if apparently there is a different
approach to and understanding of what knowledge is, why would you
spend so much energy on solving this theoretical issue first? Why
not first allow for the diversity and do research on how people
solve issues and what skills/know-how/knowledge/information they
need to do so? And then find a most useful definition that serves
your organisation in this moment? And make sure that you can adapt
it constantly as I doubt you'll be able to get a fixed definition
of the concept of knowledge, as the concept is evolving.
Best,
Christina
Am 17.12.2022 um 18:56 schrieb Hamish
Tacey:
How do you define what is knowledge in your organisation:
Do you give a basic definition of what knowledge is, and
then allow the key department decide to them what is
categorised as knowledge?
How do you explain to users the difference or
integration/overlap between information and knowledge?
And do you start with defining critical areas of knowledge,
breakdown a taxonomy of information types and then go from
there, or make it very simple? can knowledge be based on
perception rather than a clear criteria of definition?
We are struggling to define knowledge in our KM Strategy,
because everyone seems to have a different
understanding/definition of what knowledge is as a concept,
and then what knowledge is for them in the organisation. I
wonder how strict it is, or if it can be robust and more of a
construct?
Any ideas on your own experience would be helpful, or if
you have any resources that specifically tackle the question
on how to define and identify knowledge in an organisation.
Even between two of us knowledge managers, we have different
opinions on what knowledge is, and can bring up and cite lots
of articles on it from googling, so I can imagine every
employee also has their own concept of what knowledge is :)
Thank you
Hamish
--
https://www.poetryinbusiness.cc/
www.christinamerl.com
Twitter: CMerl
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/poetryinbusiness/
|
|
|
Like Martin, I feel some caution regarding Dave's statement.
Sometimes sponsorship can condemn a programme by yoking it too closely to the sponsor - think of how a movie executive's slate might be treated by a studio if that executive moves on.
But as the late, great Claudio Ciborra said in The Labyrinths of Information: Challenging the Wisdom of Systems, sometimes new practices, approaches,
habits, attitudes require organizational hospitality at the outset - which implies a host. As Martin says, part of the dance is moving from sponsorship to sustainability.
(I think Ciborra's loss was a great tragedy for the study of information within organizations).
As the new year comes around, I'm sharing a planning tool derived from the open systems work of the Tavistock's Vega Zagier Roberts.
Warmest wishes to all for the new year,
Matthew
MATTHEW FINCH
Associate Fellow, Saïd Business School
On 27 Dec 2022, at 22:09, Martin Dugage < mrdugage@...> wrote:
I always had a hard time defining knowledge (“the capacity to take effective action”). For me it was more simple to define knowledge management (“a system to convert the individual knowledge of employees into company knowledge”). Managers tend to relate more
easily to knowledge management because it is something you do. They don’t like to waste time defining concepts. Managers are the opposite of philosophers.
And I would tend to question Dave’s statement that “Senior executive sponsorship is normally the death of any sustainable programme.” What I have learned in my entire career is that exemplarity
of leaders is by far the best approach for change management. Indeed, the objective of any corporate change program is to get rid of the need for senior executive sponsorship as quickly as possible to become self-sustainable. But it always starts from there.
I have been leading 3 major KM programs in my career and their success has always been closely tied to the support I had from the CEO against the CFO, the CIO, the legal department, the training department, the marketing department etc.
Le mer. 21 déc. 2022 à 01:52, Arthur Shelley < arthur@...> a écrit :
Disagreement is good as it provides a range of alternatives. Hamish is well advised to explore s range if approaches to see what works in his context.
This is what is encouraged in an early workshop too to get perspectives shared. One of the measurable outputs of an exploratory workshop is a list of possible initiatives that is created by the participants themselves and ghe bap emerges from
that foundation.
The fact that they have cocreated the list themselves rather than being told what the plan is, generates a stronger sense of ownership, which increases engagement (therefore greater probability for commitment to the next steps).
Agree that maintaining momentum is always a challenge, so shorter more frequent workshops to maintain flow is important. Ideally with some actions to be completed in between. I find this is more likely if they are working on "their own" ideas
- prioritised in the second workshop.
Yes, bias is alway present in human interactions and needs to be acknowledged and discussed to ensure participants' ideas are fully understood. Experienced facilitators can minimise this by asking questions rather than telling participants. This
is why an external facilitator can work better (provided their neutral position and approach is made clear - to them before contracting and to participants through their actions).
I have always found the biggest benefit in this approach is the relationships formed through the collaboration. Building the trust between the initiative teams on things they care about, builds momentum and improves outcomes. Nothing is a silver
bullet of course, but when successes start to be realised and stories shared, ownership and momentum build.
Arthur Shelley
Founder, Intelligent Answers
Producer Creative Melbourne
@Metaphorage
+61 413 047 408
I think you could argue that anything is “more effective than asking people to define knowledge as the starting engagement” so I don’t think that is at issue
But yes we disagree I’m afraid - starting a programme with a workshop not a map means (i) you are limited to what the workshop attendees are interested in (ii) facilitators can’t avoid bias so authenticity of initiative is questionable (iii) reporting
impact at the end of a workshop is problematic - they nearly always work in the moment.
Prof Dave Snowden
Director & Founder - The Cynefin Centre
CSO - The Cynefin Company
Social Media: snowded
|
On 20 Dec 2022, at 11:56, Arthur Shelley < arthur@...> wrote:
We
all operate differently Dave and this is what makes knowledge initiatives an exciting place to lead and collaborate around.
I have found such open conversations, when facilitated inclusively, trigger powerful interactions on a range of possibilities. Such collaborative conversation have lead to many valuable projects over the years,
helping to generate greater awareness across a range of challenges. Some shared in previous publications, some in private organisations and many in formal project-based education programs.
Of course it is not the only way to initiate programs, but I argue it is more effective than asking people to define knowledge as the starting engagement. Many do not fully understand the scope and power of knowledge,
until they have greater experiences of seeing its flow in action. This can be more deeply understood through the approach described.
Arthur Shelley
Founder, Intelligent Answers
Producer Creative Melbourne
@Metaphorage
+61 413 047 408
Hello Hamish,
Good question! To paraphrase the old economist joke, if you ask a half dozen KM experts to define knowledge, you’ll gather at least a dozen different definitions. This can quickly lead
to a semantic joust that generates more heat than light.
What Arthur and Dave are (in effect) suggesting is to invert the question and lead from the problems knowledge can solve — the demand side for knowledge (“What are your challenges?”)
— rather than the supply side (“Knowledge is X, we knowledge specialists do Y,” and so on.)
I too favor this demand-side approach and, also like Arthur, have had some successes executing it in an event-based format, e.g., a workshop or other direct intervention. But regardless
of the mechanism engaged, the same Sales 101 principle applies: Sell the benefits — the solutions will follow. FIRST engage as directly as you can with your clients’ responsibilities, problems, and challenges — THEN show how knowledge can provide assistance.
Find examples that are as concrete and value-relevant as possible.
In my experience, business people are, on the whole, pragmatic, empirical, and results-focused. Because “knowledge” does not (for the most part) appear on financial statements, executives
— especially those with financial backgrounds — may regard it as specialized, isolated, mysterious — or, even, frivolous or make-believe.
Given that all-too-common expectation, it doesn’t instill much confidence in us (or our professed discipline) to lead with an admission that, though we can’t define knowledge, we’ll (in
effect) know it when we see it. “We’re here to help you manage what we ourselves cannot adequately define” is not a strong value proposition.
If you favor a broad definition of knowledge (as I do), you could orient them with a reference to these intangible assets:
- data, information, knowledge, intelligence
- patents, trademarks, copyrights
- maps, models, metrics
- policies, practices, processes
- brands and reputation
- communities and networks
That will begin to get them focused — and nailing this down more precisely for your client organization is a primary order of business (as others here have said.) I usually recommend
a census or inventory of knowledge assets and activities as a first step in any significant value-building initiative. I’ve developed various tools and methods to accomplish this, as likely others have here as well.
Good luck, hope this helps you.
Tim
New York City, USA | TEL +1.212.243.1200 |
How do you define what is knowledge in your organisation:
Do you give a basic definition of what knowledge is, and then allow the key department decide to them what is categorised as knowledge?
How do you explain to users the difference or integration/overlap between information and knowledge?
And do you start with defining critical areas of knowledge, breakdown a taxonomy of information types and then go from there, or make it very simple? can knowledge be based on perception rather than a clear criteria of definition?
We are struggling to define knowledge in our KM Strategy, because everyone seems to have a different understanding/definition of what knowledge is as a concept, and then what knowledge is for them in the organisation. I wonder how strict it is, or if it can
be robust and more of a construct?
Any ideas on your own experience would be helpful, or if you have any resources that specifically tackle the question on how to define and identify knowledge in an organisation. Even between two of us knowledge managers, we have different opinions on what knowledge
is, and can bring up and cite lots of articles on it from googling, so I can imagine every employee also has their own concept of what knowledge is :)
--
Rgds _Martin R. Dugage
|
|
|
Beto do Valle
I see great professionals here with interesting points of view, and have learned from all comments.
But in my experience yes, how an organization defines knowledge has a strong influence on how it is approached and managed -- and on the value generated via KM.
As a general principle, in an organizational context knowledge should be defined as an asset.
Defining knowledge as a resource (as in ISO statement) will make the organization use it as other limited resources: buy, use, transform, discard. This may be a valid approach, but limits the potential of knowledge to contribute to business results, because the strategies, techniques and tools used to manage resources (objects) are not enough for all dimensions of knowledge dynamics. (Actually, I find that this approach is one of the main causes of the limited attention that organizations pay to the possibilities of KM, and maybe of its limited success in some cases.)
On the other hand, defining knowledge as an asset puts it in a very different role in the organizational strategy and management. Knowledge is one of the intangible assets that most contribute to value generation, and when this is realized by the organization we create conditions for a totally different approach to KM. An asset requires investment, is used to generate value, is considered as important part of strategy, and so on. Strategies, techniques and tools of intangible assets management can take KM and its contributions further.
Considering that principle, if you start inviting your organization to understand knowledge as an (intangible) asset, and to discuss how it can be better used to generate value, you may be creating more promising ways for KM as an organizational capability.
Beto do Valle
Impakt Consulting
beto.valle@...
|
|
|
Beto One thing I have noticed when doing knowledge retention or transfer is if I talk about money they listen "Sir from the statics, the biggest thing about knowledge is assigning a loss of investment. The total cost of recreating it. It takes time to get new hires up to speed6 on their job. It can take 20+ weeks for entry-level and mid-range positions and 26+ weeks for senior leaders, managers, and executives. The actual cost7 of employee turnover estimate as a percentage of annual salary is 20% for mid-range positions, and 21% for jobs requiring specific skills excluding areas such as doctors or lawyers. At senior and executive-level skills levels. In 2020 intangible assets comprise 90% of the value of the S&P 500 companies. " John Antill M.S. KM MCKM, CKS IA KT 256-541-1229
|
|
|
You’ve got it, John. Start with the client’s problems – with special focus on their economic consequences. Then (and only then) bring in knowledge and its impact.
Good RealKM article, by the way. FYI another source I found useful in developing this theme is Haskel and Westlake,
Capitalism Without Capital – as well as others cited in my own book.
Cheers,
Tim
From:
<main@SIKM.groups.io> on behalf of John Antill <jantill4@...>
Reply-To: "main@SIKM.groups.io" <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Date: Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 8:27 AM
To: "main@SIKM.groups.io" <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Defining knowledge in your organisation: is it simple or hard? #definition
Beto
One thing I have noticed when doing knowledge retention or transfer is
if I talk about money they listen
"Sir from the statics, the biggest thing about knowledge is assigning a loss of investment. The total cost of recreating it.
It takes time to get new hires up
to speed6 on
their job. It can take 20+ weeks for entry-level and mid-range positions and 26+ weeks for senior leaders, managers, and executives. The actual
cost7 of
employee turnover estimate as a percentage of annual salary is 20% for mid-range positions, and 21% for jobs requiring specific skills excluding areas such as doctors or lawyers. At senior and executive-level skills levels.
In 2020 intangible assets comprise 90% of the value of the S&P 500 companies. "
|
|
|
