Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [cp] Digest Number 270

Expand Messages
  • Jon Love
    Re: Juan s Insigth: For knowledge systems the label tacit describes the complexity of a knowledge system. The explicit label describes the order with the
    Message 1 of 5 , Apr 30, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Re: Juan's Insigth: For knowledge systems the label "tacit"
      describes the complexity of a knowledge system. The "explicit" label
      describes the "order" with the knowledge system.

      This is precisely my problem with the "tacit" and "explicit" labels. They
      create a mysterious difference rather than a revealing distinction. Knowledge
      is a complex phenomenon, and to re-present it requires a simplification. This
      do-complexifying process does NOT make that knowledge "explicit." In fact it
      destroys that knowledge and replaces it with a set of pointers and signs. Only
      with another intelligent being who has sufficient complex knowledge about the
      context of the original knowledge, is there even a small chance that knowledge
      will be transferred. I believe most KM practitioners grossly underestimate the
      degree to which knowledge transfer depends on the pre-existing level of
      knowledge in the "recipent."
    • david.freeman@rrd.com
      Jon wrote: I believe most KM practitioners grossly underestimate the degree to which knowledge transfer depends on the pre-existing level of knowledge in the
      Message 2 of 5 , Apr 30, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Jon wrote:
        "I believe most KM practitioners grossly underestimate the degree to
        which knowledge transfer depends on the pre-existing level of
        knowledge in the "recipent.""

        That was my point in mentioning the assimilation learning theory of
        Ausubel and Novak in post 1078.
      • Bernard DeKoven
        Jon says: This is precisely my problem with the tacit and explicit labels. They create a mysterious difference rather than a revealing distinction. Bernard
        Message 3 of 5 , Apr 30, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Jon says:

          This is precisely my problem with the "tacit" and "explicit" labels. They
          create a mysterious difference rather than a revealing distinction.


          Bernard muses:

          I have another distinction I'd like to run by this group. It doesn't have
          labels yet.

          It's the distinction between the knowledge we've managed and the knowledge
          our managers have managed to manage for us (forgive the obfuscation - it was
          too fun to keep to myself).

          Let me try it another way.

          I recently observed that the people who get the most out of a textbook are
          its authors. Not just in financial terms, but also in terms of the knowledge
          they've gathered and organized and made conceptually explicit.

          I'm not sure what this means about our understanding of KM, tacitly and
          explicitly. But I'd sure welcome your reflections on said same....

          +++++++++++++++++++++++++
          Bernard DeKoven
          http://www.coworking.com
        • Scott Allen
          Jon wrote: I believe most KM practitioners grossly underestimate the degree to which knowledge transfer depends on the pre-existing level of knowledge in the
          Message 4 of 5 , Apr 30, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Jon wrote:
            "I believe most KM practitioners grossly underestimate the degree to
            which knowledge transfer depends on the pre-existing level of
            knowledge in the "recipent.""

            Excellent point! I've pondered that extensively myself.

            In fact, I think this issue may even blur the distinctions between data,
            information, and knowledge. One man's knowledge is another man's data.

            For example, if I communicate something to three people at the same time,
            and one of them is completely ignorant of the subject, the second one has a
            basic understanding of the terms and concepts, and the third has a deep
            mastery of the domain:

            The first person would record my statement as merely data -- labels that
            have no meaning.
            The second person might consider it information -- something to store away
            for possible future application, but not highly valuable as and of itself.
            The third could consider it knowledge, because for them, it is actionable --
            the associations with related concepts and experiences trigger a wealth of
            possible actions immediately upon hearing the information.

            If this is true, then whether something is "data", "information" or
            "knowledge" ends up being an attribute ONLY IN CONTEXT! In other words, it
            is dependent upon the buyer and the seller, and is not an inherent property
            of the commodity itself -- just like "value" is in economic terms.

            As such, the hard lines that many KM'ers (usually those trying to justify
            themselves, I think) are wanting to draw between data management,
            information management, and knowledge management are fuzzy, at best. Anyone
            pretending that somehow "knowledge management" can be treated as its own
            beast outside the context of data management and information management is,
            I think, not having a realistic view of the whole system.

            - Scott -
          • Melissiecr@aol.com
            All, Actually, I d suggest looking at Nancy Dixon s work, which does include that as a factor. Her book is Common Knowledge and looks at various forms of
            Message 5 of 5 , Apr 30, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              All,
              Actually, I'd suggest looking at Nancy Dixon's work, which does include that
              as a factor. Her book is Common Knowledge and looks at various forms of
              knowledge transfer.
              Additionally, Gabriel Symanski (spelling? reference is on
              http://www.knowledge-nurture.com and also http://www.apqc.org) also looks at
              the receptivity of the person getting the knowledge, although he found that
              the willingness of the GIVER was more important.
              Regards,
              Melissie
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.