by Paula Thornton
July 10, 2009 at 10:49 pm
· Filed under Information Management, KM
As conversations continue to go sideways over Knowledge Management vs. E2.0 (with comments bursting forth today on a post from June 2007), I realized that there is a fundamental disconnect in understanding. As one individual kept pressing for a definition of KM from me, I realized that the basis for the definition would fundamentally fail at “Knowledge” — specifically within the context of the Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom continuum. So let’s start there.
I was fortunate 2 decades ago to be taught at the feet of Enterprise Architects from Boeing (where every inch of a plane is entirely designed and constructed from data — they deal with a LOT of data). The distinctions I learned about the Data…Wisdom continuum, fundamental to Information Sciences, have been invaluable throughout my career. These distinctions are relevant to the KM disconnects.
Even Tom Davenport declared in 1997, “I reist making this distinction, because it’s clearly imprecise…for years people have referred to data as ‘information’. Data, information, and knowledge aren’t easy to separate in practice; at best you can construct a continuum of the three.”
Davenport even suggested that data and knowledge take their meanings from information. The man responsible for TED, Richard Saul Wurman (RSW), proclaimed himself in the late ’80s to be in the understanding business: “You don’t have to know everything, you just need to know how to find it.” In his book, Information Anxiety (now out of print) RSW proposes that it’s not information until it informs:
Raw data can be, but isn’t necessarily, information, and unless it can be made to inform, it has no inherent value. It must be imbued with form and applied to become meaningful information. Yet, in our information-hungry era, it is often allowed to masquerade as information.
So the great information age is really an explosion of non-information; it is an explosion of data.
Yet, data can be “imbued with form”, have implied meaning, and still fail to inform. The classic example I share:
You’re in the middle of the Mojave desert. You come upon a gas station, but it’s abandoned. Lying on the counter is a map. Most would consider the map information: data in context. But there’s another criteria. It isn’t information until it’s in individually-relevant context — it has to be both important and understandable to you. In the middle of the desert, with no reference to the gas station on the map, there is no context. The map is useless noise.
Once something informs it allows for action. Knowledge, is the context by which action occurs.
Respected colleague, John Tropea, was hot on this trail when he wrote a piece similar to this one. From one source he quotes: “Knowledge is the stuff in people’s heads which enables them to do things.” But his quotes of Frank Miller and T.D. Wilson provide the basis for the KM disconnect:
Frank Miller
…knowledge was only ever tacit. Once we attempt to make knowledge (i.e., what we ‘know’) explicit, it reverts immediately to an ‘information’ state again and requires human intervention anew for sense to be made of it.
Knowledge is, after all, what we know. And what we know cannot be commodified.
Knowledge (ie ‘what we know’) is only ever ‘tacit’ and can never be ‘explicit’. It must never be thought of as a commodity to be captured, processed, stored, transmitted, managed etc.
T.D. Wilson
‘Explicit knowledge’, of course, is simply a synonym for ‘information’.
…’tacit knowledge’ involves the process of comprehension, a process which is, itself, little understood. Consequently, tacit knowledge is an inexpressible process that enables an assessment of phenomena in the course of becoming knowledgeable about the world. In what sense, then, can it be captured? The answer, of course, is that it cannot be ‘captured’ – it can only be demonstrated through our expressible knowledge and through our acts.
John then goes on to conclude:
This nullifies the concept that you can capture knowledge, as it’s not possible to capture meaning, the meaning is derived by the person encountering it, all the capturing we do is simply information management. [emphasis added]
The term Information Technology has been used for years, but most IT activities focus on data, not information. I would contend that based on the earlier definition of information that in most cases what is labeled Knowledge Management is at best Data Management, but given that term has specific meaning that is different, what we’re really dealing with is Content Management — but that would start an argument with a whole ‘nuther set of practitioners.
As I’ve said before, you can’t manage knowledge — anyone who claims that’s what they’re doing is just…mis-informed.
Knowledge is something that is applied — for action — within specific contexts. This is not the realm of what is portrayed as Knowledge Management, but it something that is facilitated by Enterprise 2.0.
Permalink
21 Tweets 
4 Other Comments
I agree with your quote “Knowledge is the stuff in people’s heads which enables them to do things.” Senge said something similar, when he said “Knowledge is the capacity for effective action”. I find both of these very useful when separating our Knowledge from the rest of the Information, and it illustrates how infomration without context is noise (the map without the gas station), and how information without know-how is also useless (no map an help you if you dont know how to read a map).
I also agree that, by this defintion, there is a lot of data management and information management being rebadged as KM (heaven knows why, I guess they think its an exciting term), but there has also been a lot of good KM done over the years, even before Enterprise 2.0. It’s a confused and fuzzy field, so thanks for helping clarify!
Whether or not you can manage knowledge is a dabatable point, but you can certainly manage with due attention to the value of knowledge, which is my favourite definition
http://www.nickmilton.com/2009/01/managing-as-if-knowledge-mattered.html
http://www.nickmilton.com/search/label/Definition
Paula – great – I never liked the term – knowledge management – and did process related knowledge work before the term came out, as we discussed. In the 90s we usually defined knowledge in terms of actionable information that provides business value or something to this effect. I especially liked your last paragraph. Bill
Great post Paula and, like Bill, I liked the last paragraph. I always keep in mind Dave Snowden’s advice that “you can’t manage knowledge but you can create a knowledge ecology.” This is what social media does for me. Makes it more likely that more useful stuff moves around more. I once described my job as “increasing the quality and frequency of the conversations that help you to get your job done”.
 |
ffblogJuly 10th, 2009 at 10:49 pm |
New Post “Knowledge Must Be Applied” http://bit.ly/17lZZd
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
Attempting to achieve a ‘draw’ the #KM wars: “Knowledge Must Be Applied” http://twurl.nl/v0a5ka
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
@johnt It’s up. You’re famous : ) http://twurl.nl/v0a5ka
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
@VMaryAbraham The theme was too focused to try and reference your piece * sigh * http://twurl.nl/v0a5ka
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
@BillIves Thanks for the RT. This new one may be of particular interest to you : ) http://twurl.nl/v0a5ka
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
The FASTForward Blog » Knowledge Must Be Applied: Enterprise 2.0 … http://u.mavrev.com/ko85
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
Knowledge Must Be Applied http://ff.im/-554uz
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
@rotkapchen on Knowledge Must Be Applied – great read and I agree http://bit.ly/iNr8w
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
Interesting read: “Knowledge Must Be Applied” http://bit.ly/Q6v4t #KM
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
The FASTForward Blog » Knowledge Must Be Applied: Enterprise 2.0 …: In the 90s we usually defined knowledge in.. http://bit.ly/ZJorD
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
“Knowledge Must Be Applied” http://twurl.nl/v0a5ka (via @rotkapchen) > yes! #KM is about augmenting knowledge workers not “management”
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
|
merceJuly 12th, 2009 at 12:27 pm |
Interesante, sobre datos, información y conocimiento http://bit.ly/17lZZd
(vía @fredzimny)
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
@frogpond @VMaryAbraham Heck it’s not so bad. I do it all the time http://twurl.nl/v0a5ka
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
RT @aponcier: Knowledge Must Be Applied http://is.gd/1w6NC >> interesting read
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
@swiertz tks RT @aponcier: Knowledge Must Be Applied http://is.gd/1w6NC
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
Knowledge Must Be Applied http://bit.ly/17lZZd
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
I cringe a little when we paint an entire field, and all of its practitioners, with a broad brush. For instance, the data-information-knowledge-wisdom is just one viewpoint on KM and there are many in the field that feel that this model in particular is highly flawed. Ditto for the name "knowledge management" – many feel that the "management" term is not appropriate.
The field of KM is highly fragmented, with few broadly accepted definitions – even the terms KM and "knowledge" are often debated on the Actkm mailing list. This fragmentation and lack of accepted definitions makes it easy for people to create straw man arguments and apply other rhetorical techniques to point out the failings (and there are many) of KM initiatives.
It’s fair to criticize the shortcomings of KM projects and KM implementations (again, many) that have failed and also very accurate to point out that KM is not a technology issue per se. But it’s important to balance that criticism with some mention that the field is not homogeneous and that practitioners are still learning and evolving methods/practices.
Does Enterprise 2.0 = KM … no, I don’t come down on that side.
Does Enterprise 2.0 enable KM methods and practices to be better applied … yes, definately.
This comment was originally posted on Portals and KM
Mike _ Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I agree with everything you said and have made similar comments in the past. Paula and I have had some discussions on this. Some of our disagreements turn out to be semantic and we have agreed more than disagreed. However, I started practicing KM in 92 and I have seen many KM successes over the past 15 plus years when KM was aligned with business processes. While it is not a perfect term, it has survived longer than most approaches and is still going. I do agree with her concluding statement which I interpreted in a manner that this is consistent with your last comment. I first become excited about the possibilities of what we now call enterprise 2.0 in 2004 when I saw how it could help realize the vision of KM.
This comment was originally posted on Portals and KM
Maybe since we dont have an accepted definition of knowledge, the rest of the disagreements could follow from there? But, given the impact web 2.0 technologies are having, and the direction of e2.0, knowledge must be looked at in a way much larger than before, and this might lead to the management part being a misnomer, at least in the classical sense? Unless we can look at it in terms of management when it comes to the e2.0 paradigm?
This comment was originally posted on Portals and KM
You can capture information, but knowledge is derived from how we individually view information – http://tinyurl.com/m7cull
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
Eric. Thanks. I think that is the end knowledge is practical. If it served a purpose for good (not evil) but later there is something better then it does not invalidate what went before it just changes things going forward. We can them appreciate what people did with incomplete knowledge. Bill
This comment was originally posted on Portals and KM
@gjardimr outro texto legal sobre o “conflito” GC e enterprise 2.0 – http://bit.ly/17lZZd
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
RT @leocianconi outro texto legal sobre o “conflito” GC e enterprise 2.0 – http://bit.ly/17lZZd #recomendo
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
Gestão do Conhecimento x Mídias Sociais: post em ingles interessante – http://migre.me/4I1o
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
@elsua Sure they’re different conceptually http://twurl.nl/0hzmor, but of what difference is the results?
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
» Subscribe to the RSS feed for these comments
HTML-Tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Additional comments powered by BackType
