Discussion: View Thread

Dear Colleagues,

Having had a chance to read T D Wilson's article, I'd like to add a few
notes to this thread.

Wilson raises valid issues and offers a useful critique of cognitive and
philosophical misunderstandings. He also demonstrates that knowledge
management is a fad as it is treated in some cirucmstances and by some
groups.

What he does not do is demonstrate that knowledge management is problematic
in the way he feels it to be. The problem is a category confusion.
Knowledge management is a field of inquiry. The label could be better, in
that knowledge cannot properly be "managed," but the field of inquiry is a
valid and important area that brings together a range of themes from
several disciplinary perspectives.

Rather than repeat my earlier post, I'll simply say I posted a note with my
basic view. Posting a comprehensive note on the issues and distinctions
involved in data, information, and knowledge is something for another day.
There is also the issue of the grounds of judgement for action based on
knowledge, and the actions that flow from those grounds, wisely or
prudently, adversely or foolishly. This is sometimes discussed under the
term wisdom, but if that seems too old-fashioned a term, I will refer to
such cognates as prudence, or to the classical Latin term prudentia or the
Greek term phronesis. Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics stills offers one of
the first -- and best -- discussions of the kinds of knowledge.

One value in knowledge management is that of drawing attention to issues
that have long been overlooked in management research and in consulting.
Those of us with multiple backgrounds welcome knowledge management in part
because it has made the discussion of these issues acceptable in a field
that has often focused on technical administration or pragmatism in a
simple or narrow sense.

Where I disagree with Wilson is his rather harsh critique of Nonaka and
Takeuchi. Their work was important work, and their contribution should not
be overlooked. If they had covered everything or developed all the issues
comprehensively, there wouldn't be much left for us to do, would there? I'd
rather look on them as pioneers whose profound contribution had minor flaws
and gaps than look on them as somehow to be blamed for the problems arising
from others who have not used their work well.

It should be noted that T. D. Wilson's paper may be hard to find because it
appears only in an e-journal hosted by the University of Sheffield. The
journal is Wilson's own departmental journal, and he is its editor. The
Sheffield server was down, but Google carries a chached version of the
page.

Best regards,

Ken Friedman
Associate Professor
Department of Leadership and Organization
Norwegian School of Management

Colleagues,

Ken Friedman writes, "Knowledge management is a field of inquiry. The label
could be better, in that knowledge cannot properly be "managed."

"Properly" may be the key.

If we can write down knowledge, (fundamental assumption) then we can use
databases to store it and a wide variety of software tools to organize it,
access it, compare it, collect segments on similar topics. We now use XML
to structure knowledge to be compared across hardware and software systems
so that our "management" need not be limited to one database.
That may not be "proper management", yet it is a beginning. Five years
from now, this discussion might just seem naive.

For fad monitors: A sponsored section in December's Fortune calls it
"content management". Another buzzword. If broadly applied, its
"enterprise content management" with the ECM acronym.

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

From: Marina Dabic [mailto:Marina.Dabic@sfsb.hr]

Dear Colleagues,

I find this discussion interesting, thoughtful, and thought provoking.
This
topic is very close to my heart. Small countrie like Croatia trys to
catch-up the process and my aim is to show how KM is neccessary for it.
Unfortunatly we still didn't have course Knowledge Management on
udegraduate
level, and I am trying to include it on graduate level. I must admit, I
do
not know Ronald Gross's book, nor have I heard of his
typology. Even more i find myself not enough educate on that subject.
Last
few years i tryed to read lot of references but a real word missed. If
you
have any course or summer school with possible schoolarship, or some
good
teaching materials please inform me.
I find that the share of knowledge is our mision, so I 'll try my best
on
small university.Thanks for any assistance
sincerly yours
Marina Dabic
Assistant Professor
University of Osijek
Mechanical Engineering Faculty
35000 Slavonski Brod
Trg Ivane Brilic Mazuranic 18
Croatia
tel:++385 (0)35 446718
marina.dabic@sfsb.hr





----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Friedman <ken.friedman@bi.no>
To: <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Sent: 06. sijeèanj 2003 17:44
Subject: Knowledge management. Notes on T. D. Wilson's "nonsense"
article.


> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Having had a chance to read T D Wilson's article, I'd like to add a
few
> notes to this thread.
>
> Wilson raises valid issues and offers a useful critique of cognitive
and
> philosophical misunderstandings. He also demonstrates that knowledge
> management is a fad as it is treated in some cirucmstances and by some
> groups.
>
> What he does not do is demonstrate that knowledge management is
problematic
> in the way he feels it to be. The problem is a category confusion.
> Knowledge management is a field of inquiry. The label could be better,
in
> that knowledge cannot properly be "managed," but the field of inquiry
is a
> valid and important area that brings together a range of themes from
> several disciplinary perspectives.
>
> Rather than repeat my earlier post, I'll simply say I posted a note
with
my
> basic view. Posting a comprehensive note on the issues and
distinctions
> involved in data, information, and knowledge is something for another
day.
> There is also the issue of the grounds of judgement for action based
on
> knowledge, and the actions that flow from those grounds, wisely or
> prudently, adversely or foolishly. This is sometimes discussed under
the
> term wisdom, but if that seems too old-fashioned a term, I will refer
to
> such cognates as prudence, or to the classical Latin term prudentia or
the
> Greek term phronesis. Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics stills offers
one of
> the first -- and best -- discussions of the kinds of knowledge.
>
> One value in knowledge management is that of drawing attention to
issues
> that have long been overlooked in management research and in
consulting.
> Those of us with multiple backgrounds welcome knowledge management in
part
> because it has made the discussion of these issues acceptable in a
field
> that has often focused on technical administration or pragmatism in a
> simple or narrow sense.
>
> Where I disagree with Wilson is his rather harsh critique of Nonaka
and
> Takeuchi. Their work was important work, and their contribution should
not
> be overlooked. If they had covered everything or developed all the
issues
> comprehensively, there wouldn't be much left for us to do, would
there?
I'd
> rather look on them as pioneers whose profound contribution had minor
flaws
> and gaps than look on them as somehow to be blamed for the problems
arising
> from others who have not used their work well.
>
> It should be noted that T. D. Wilson's paper may be hard to find
because
it
> appears only in an e-journal hosted by the University of Sheffield.
The
> journal is Wilson's own departmental journal, and he is its editor.
The
> Sheffield server was down, but Google carries a chached version of the
> page.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Ken Friedman
> Associate Professor
> Department of Leadership and Organization
> Norwegian School of Management
>