Discussion: View Thread

Colleagues,

Romie Littrell made finding the T.D. Wilson paper so easy that I had to take
a look. (Still avoiding work I'm supposed to be doing.)

Rather than enthusiasm, I find myself distressed by an author who states
three definitions, then bases an assessment of a body of work on those
definitions.
Basically, Wilson says that knowledge cannot be written down and
therefore cannot be managed. Thus knowledge management is nonsense.

If knowledge could (gasp!) be written down, then his arguments fail.
Period.

The hierarchy of data to wisdom goes back as far as the Greeks. This is the
way I've used it.
Data: A measurement
Information: Processed date
Knowledge: Information processed through a human mind
Wisdom: Knowledge tested over time and found useful, perhaps even true.

I won't argue my choices over Wilson's except to note that the issue of
knowledge management changes enormously when we choose slightly different
definitions.
I assume that information can be produced by a computer with no help from
a human. That a series of elevation points (data) can be processed into a
contour map (information). In such a world, information management is more
and more critical.
I assume that we can write down knowledge. That a person can actually
put down an opinion or a value judgment that (for now) can't be computed
from data. We need to capture human judgments to learn from experience. If
not, we will face the same mistakes over and over.
I like to think about the history of human wisdom (knowledge tested over
time) that it takes to get this message from me to you. Think about all of
the trials and errors it has taken over a century to turn basic knowledge of
electricity into virtually instantaneous communication. That you receive
this message is the result of accumulated technical wisdom built into
systems.

Sorry... I'm going on too long.
KM makes all sorts of sense, in theory and in practice. That it has
become a recent fad doesn't change its importance.
It is only logical that, as computer systems evolve to handle
information, they should then be applied to handling knowledge. It didn't
make sense a decade ago, because the systems couldn't even handle
information very well.
Today, the sum of human knowledge (as measured in papers in respected
journals where knowledge is written down) doubles in less than five years.
Some argue that we went from the industrial age to the information age and
have already entered the knowledge age. (Probably some consultant building
a practice.)

In any case, knowledge is an avalanche today. (only, of course, assuming we
can write it down) We already manage it, organizing it into journals,
putting it into texts, making it available through libraries, teaching it.
(assuming that it didn't become information as it was written down)

Now we expect papers to be online. We are using computers to manage
knowledge - information processed through human minds.

KM isn't a fad. It may sound that way, but it's just that the combination
of words are new.

Best to all,

Gary


----------------------------
Change will never, ever again
be as slow as it is today.

Gary Lundquist - The Accelerator
303-840-9929 www.market-engineering.com
garyl@market-engineering.com

I agree that KM is not a fad. I have observed the evolution of terms from "Data Processing" to Electronic Data Processing" to "Information Processing" to "Information Management" - so why wouldn't the next step be "Knowledge Management"? Seems logical to me. The next step will probably be "Wisdom Management." [Only slightly in jest do I say this.]
Edryce
Gary Lundquist <garyl@market-engineering.com> wrote:Colleagues,

Romie Littrell made finding the T.D. Wilson paper so easy that I had to take
a look. (Still avoiding work I'm supposed to be doing.)

Rather than enthusiasm, I find myself distressed by an author who states
three definitions, then bases an assessment of a body of work on those
definitions.
Basically, Wilson says that knowledge cannot be written down and
therefore cannot be managed. Thus knowledge management is nonsense.

If knowledge could (gasp!) be written down, then his arguments fail.
Period.

The hierarchy of data to wisdom goes back as far as the Greeks. This is the
way I've used it.
Data: A measurement
Information: Processed date
Knowledge: Information processed through a human mind
Wisdom: Knowledge tested over time and found useful, perhaps even true.

I won't argue my choices over Wilson's except to note that the issue of
knowledge management changes enormously when we choose slightly different
definitions.
I assume that information can be produced by a computer with no help from
a human. That a series of elevation points (data) can be processed into a
contour map (information). In such a world, information management is more
and more critical.
I assume that we can write down knowledge. That a person can actually
put down an opinion or a value judgment that (for now) can't be computed
from data. We need to capture human judgments to learn from experience. If
not, we will face the same mistakes over and over.
I like to think about the history of human wisdom (knowledge tested over
time) that it takes to get this message from me to you. Think about all of
the trials and errors it has taken over a century to turn basic knowledge of
electricity into virtually instantaneous communication. That you receive
this message is the result of accumulated technical wisdom built into
systems.

Sorry... I'm going on too long.
KM makes all sorts of sense, in theory and in practice. That it has
become a recent fad doesn't change its importance.
It is only logical that, as computer systems evolve to handle
information, they should then be applied to handling knowledge. It didn't
make sense a decade ago, because the systems couldn't even handle
information very well.
Today, the sum of human knowledge (as measured in papers in respected
journals where knowledge is written down) doubles in less than five years.
Some argue that we went from the industrial age to the information age and
have already entered the knowledge age. (Probably some consultant building
a practice.)

In any case, knowledge is an avalanche today. (only, of course, assuming we
can write it down) We already manage it, organizing it into journals,
putting it into texts, making it available through libraries, teaching it.
(assuming that it didn't become information as it was written down)

Now we expect papers to be online. We are using computers to manage
knowledge - information processed through human minds.

KM isn't a fad. It may sound that way, but it's just that the combination
of words are new.

Best to all,

Gary


----------------------------
Change will never, ever again
be as slow as it is today.

Gary Lundquist - The Accelerator
303-840-9929 www.market-engineering.com
garyl@market-engineering.com


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

G Lundquist provides:

" Knowledge: Information processed through a human mind
Wisdom: Knowledge tested over time and found useful, perhaps even
true."


Conna Condon provides this sample for consideration:

A computer problem's information is processed through a human mind to
determine the solution. The solution is implemented and it works. The
trouble ticket is noted with the diagnostics, symptoms, and solution. This
solution is found to be useful and true over time several times.

The expert system is coded with the diagnostics, symptoms, and solution.

Techs use the expert system for several months quite happily

The next year they start to notice that the solution isn't always working.
They realize the new models of PCs have a change that impacts the solution.

The expert system is updated.

Now, I ask you, is this knowledge and wisdom and is it being managed?

Conna Condon writes:

>G Lundquist provides:
>
>" Knowledge: Information processed through a human mind
> Wisdom: Knowledge tested over time and found useful, perhaps even
>true."
>
>
>Conna Condon provides this sample for consideration:
>
>A computer problem's information is processed through a human mind to
>determine the solution. The solution is implemented and it works. The
>trouble ticket is noted with the diagnostics, symptoms, and solution. This
>solution is found to be useful and true over time several times.
>
>The expert system is coded with the diagnostics, symptoms, and solution.
>
>Techs use the expert system for several months quite happily
>
>The next year they start to notice that the solution isn't always working.
>They realize the new models of PCs have a change that impacts the solution.
>
>The expert system is updated.
>
>Now, I ask you, is this knowledge and wisdom and is it being managed?


I see knowledge that was originally generated by the technicians being
coded into the expert system. I see that knowledge being disseminated and
used by the techs. I see the techs again generating knowledge in the form
of (a) awareness of the shortcomings of the expert system, (b) recognition
as to the causes of those shortcomings and (c) new solutions to new
problems that are again coded into the expert system. I see a wee bit of
wisdom on the part of the folks who established, support and maintain the
larger system that makes it possible for this kind of technical support
system to exist and stay relevant. And, yes, I see some knowledge being
managed. What I don't see in the example above is the kind of blind,
IT-centric approach to KM that so many people so rightly
criticize. (Actually, in my younger days as a technician in the Navy, I
had just such a system at my disposal and it was a wonderful job aid. It
existed long before Xerox came up with Eureka.)


Regards,

Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting
nickols@safe-t.net
www.nickols.us