Comments on: Back to First Principles for Knowledge Management

By: Joel Muzard

Joel Muzard — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:47:09 +0000

Another contemporary source is:

Mirrors in the Brain: How Our Minds Share Actions, Emotions, and Experience by by Giacomo Rizzolatti (Author), Corrado Sinigaglia (Author), Frances Anderson (Translator) (Book)

We can learn by watching other people! And we can teach by doing!

Good reflexion, thanks

Joel
twitter.com/Joel_Muzard

By: Christian DE NEEF

Christian DE NEEF — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 11:08:03 +0000

I unfortunately missed the initial conversation leading to this excellent, thoughtful post. So I may not have the required background to step into the discussion…

Interestingly, I have no problem with the definition of Tacit Knowledge put forward in the 2nd paragraph — “That which has not been recorded, written, printed, or otherwise captured in some medium”. KM as a discipline has always distinguished itself by endless debate about defining its own terminology… However, I strongly disagree with the suggestion (which is presented as an implication from the definition above) that “Knowledge is only transferred through explicit mediums” of course. And I do strongly agree with the principles presented in this post.

I’ve worked in KM (and Competency Development) for over 15 years now, and since its first publication in 1995 I have been applying the approach of Nonoka & Takeuchi (“The Knowledge Creating Company”, New York, NY, Oxford University Press) when it comes to dealing with Tacit and Explicit Knowledge.

When Knowledge is transferred, it is transformed! This transformation can be enriching (e.g., I may expand on the Knowledge that I “receive” applying my personal background and experience), but it is also not lossless (e.g., I will not “get” everything as intended by the author, and I will interpret where required or allowed). Those stating that only Explicit Knowledge can be transferred may not realize that, to be exploited, Knowledge must be interpreted/integrated (in someone’s head, therefore Tacit). Using Knowledge involves context. To quote Nonoka & Takeuchi: “Knowledge, unlike information, is about beliefs and commitments”…

So it is rather the contrary then, Knowledge can ONLY be transferred through successive transformations that inevitably involve Tacit Knowledge! (one may argue that explicit knowledge can be transferred directly between automated devices, but what’s the point?)

Despite advances in cognitive science and semantic processing, it is still largely people that process knowledge, not IT. And it is the context (including background and foreground, in the Gestalt meaning of the word) in which people process knowledge that impacts its nature, value, etc.

So, yes please, let’s take that boy out fishing!

By: drfuzzy

drfuzzy — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:02:53 +0000

Lisa: Hey, the application of these ideas is essential – thanks for the reference!

By: drfuzzy

drfuzzy — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:02:05 +0000

Chris: Very good points, thanks for the comment. Yes, we should absolutely grow information stores such as mathematical relations and such – no question there. Acquiring literacy based on the information produced by prior knowledge processing is essential to success in professions and life in general. I don’t think we’re arguing here, and I didn’t mean to imply there is no value in sharing information artifacts. However, there are some – including myself – who believe knowledge is a thing AND a flow. Knowledge is, for some of us, therefore a paradox. I’ve focused on individual knowledge in this article. However, consider organizational “knowledge” in the examples you used. What, really, does an organization “know?” It “knows” what is in its databases, but also what its members talk about. The sum of organizational knowledge is not an aggregate of what its members know, or what is uploaded to the intranet, but rather what members talk about – or share.

By: Chris Gandy

Chris Gandy — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:52:46 +0000

I think there is still a definitional issue here. KNOWLEDGE is a noun, not a verb. It’s a THING, not a “process”. I believe that making tacit knowledge explicit is possible. I teach my daughter that 2+2=4. Regardless of the context in which I teach it, when she grasps the KNOWLEDGE of that fact, it is a THING that can be passed on again, and can be made explicit (just as I have done here). The PROCESS of *learning* or of *decision making* requires knowledge as an input. Likely, it requires context as an input, as well as many other things not listed here. So Dr Bordeaux’s observations are “spot on” for how *learning* occurs, or what process is used for decision making, but the explicit “thing” that knowledge represents can be passed on. While I may not use the same process as General Patton (though the military attempts to teach that as well in the “Military Decision-Making Process”), I can gain the knowledge he may have passed on about the inputs he used in his decision-making, and the resultant decision he made. That knowledge can be passed on. Will I do it exactly the same way? Probably not. But will I do it differently having had access to General Patton’s explicit knowledge than if I were not privy to it? Absolutely. Does it not then follow that adding to the breadth of explicit knowledge into which one may tap is of value and a goal toward which we shoudl strive as a “first principle” of knowledge management?

By: Lisa McCray

Lisa McCray — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:32:51 +0000

Looks like Suchman is more narrowly focused on the impact of context-based decision-making on computer interface design, so it’s probably not that relevant here. Guess maybe it would have made sense to look the book up BEFORE I recommended it. Heh.

By: Lisa McCray

Lisa McCray — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:23:33 +0000

Another source that supports your conclusions about the role of context in decision-making (if I am remembering it correctly) is Lucy Suchman’s “Plans and Situated Actions.” It’s been a long time since I read but you might be interested in it.

By: Mark Neff

Mark Neff — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:01:34 +0000

Wonderful conversation. I guess ultimately, the thing to recognize is that while we may not ever truly capture any tacit knowledge, we can try to help people understand what we use to make decisions. We can share our opinions, we can share our decisions as we make them with possible links to references or patterns of behavior that we have observed in the past, or other information that may lead us to make a decision and take the corresponding action necessary. I realize this is not perfect and that in each situation, the context is truly the key but at least we can try and by trying gain hopefully better information and be able to reach better decisions than if we had tried to make the decisions based on less than perfect experiences or pattern recognition aptitude. So ultimately, I push back and say while this analysis may be true, what can we do to help people make better decisions and take action instead of waiting until the correct action is clear? (Unless of course it turns out that is the right thing to do based on all supporting inputs.)

By: Jeanne Holm

Jeanne Holm — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:36:27 +0000

Excellent synthesis on the conversations and focus back on basics. It’s always challenging trying to describe tacit and explicit knowledge and how best to share and learn. It’s vital though in that we can’t help our organizations without understanding the basics behind human behavior and successful methods here.