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

Re: [cp] Re: Wanna get provocative?

Expand Messages
  • Chris Macrae
    Love provoking debate- here s the top X reasons for valuing knowledge (whether this is management or unmanagement through everyone s personal network , I know
    Message 1 of 19 , Nov 21, 2002
      Love provoking debate- here's the top X reasons for valuing knowledge
      (whether this is management or unmanagement through everyone's personal
      network , I know not). If you want other spaces to correct me publicly as
      well as this one, please try the one sponsored by the European Union at
      http://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=96743&d=1&h=417&f=56&datef
      ormat=%o%20%B%20%Y (3500 members , world welcome!)

      1) As Drucker predicted we'll soon all be knowledge workers. This raises
      human capital issues . We must include everyone - the knowledge and access
      so there's no digital divide. Also OECD research shows its the least well
      off etc who will most need training help in life long learning. To suggest
      the change challenges of the next 40 years to a blue collar 20 year old are
      less is stunning ignorance and snobbery

      2) Start with the most basic tools like email and I expect content managing
      is one of its forms. These are rather like being able to write. Amusingly
      some of the most educated are totally incompetent at email; how many of them
      know that any person on email is only 4 separations away if an only if you
      have the right privacy permissions to connect the net

      3) Valuation and governance of every organization needs changing from the
      apartheids currentl;y created by governing by numbers alone. The greats of
      KM have made this clearer than any other expertise. We need to build on this
      work fast, especially the conflict resolution elements of organizational
      abilities which are currently so bad that there may be no world in 10 years.

      4) We need a 12 year olds curriculum (as much to teach the teachers and
      everyone) on the capabilities of net and web that now exist for the first
      time; and how they double and redouble community culture if used to connect
      real human events, or destroy it if technology and humanity become 2
      different walks of life. We need the simple elements of whole systems
      thinking , aka learning organization

      That will do to start. Cops have roles to play in many of these things
      though I must admit I believe the community or network of person, open
      agencies through to CoPs and then to larger less situated but more whole
      market or social service forms (once called companies and governments but
      which need a lot of blurring and morphing) is a more inclusive model

      chris macrae wcbn007@...
      Transparency Open Governance www.valuetrue.com



      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Chris Kimble" <kimble@...>
      To: <com-prac@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: 21 November 2002 15:35 PM
      Subject: [cp] Re: Wanna get provocative?


      > --- In com-prac@y..., Brownyn Stuckey <bstuckey@u...> wrote:
      > > Couldn't resist sending you this URL...
      > >
      > > http://informationr.net/ir/8-1/paper144.html
      > >
      > > The nonsense of 'knowledge management'
      > > T.D. Wilson
      > ...
      >
      > Hi Brownyn,
      > much as I might enjoy seeing this discussion revived, haven't we
      > been here before?
      >
      > See the thread(s) "Knowledge Management - the Emperor's new clothes?"
      > and "Re(2): [cp] Re: Knowledge Management - the Emperor's new
      > clothes?" starting at:
      >
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/com-prac/message/2616
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ::: http://www.egroups.com/group/com-prac
      > ::: Email com-prac-unsubscribe@egroups.com to unsubscribe
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
      >
    • tony@companycommand.com
      In a message dated 11/23/2002 4:14:32 PM Central Standard Time, nickols@safe-t.net writes: if you assume that tacit knowledge can t be made explicit... ...
      Message 2 of 19 , Nov 24, 2002
        In a message dated 11/23/2002 4:14:32 PM Central Standard Time, nickols@... writes:

        "if you assume that tacit knowledge can't be made explicit..."

                 It leads to a focus on better means of developing tacit knowledge
        instead of futile efforts to capture it


        Cool thought!

        In a community of practice in which the members are seeking to improve their effectiveness in the "practice," it makes sense that the CoP "cultivators" would be very interested in design that would create tacit knowledge within their members. 

        As my buddy Nate has said, "people's knowledge does not reside in a data base.  It resides in their minds."

        So, how can we design/create opportunities for people to learn/develop with the goal of their being more effective in a particular practice?  In doing so, I make the grand assumption that they will emerge with more tacit knowledge than they started. 

        Here are a couple thoughts, and I would love to hear some practical ways you are doing it--that is, creating opportunities for your members to gain tacit knowledge, or any knowledge for that matter :-)

        Our team believes that learning and development are centered around experience.  However, people enter experiences at different levels.  We want to help people think about experiences before they have them and, in the process, improve their capability to live in and learn from the experience.

        As I've shared previously, you can put people in a short scenario that is relevant to their "practice" and cause them to make a decision.  "What would you do if..."  Then, create conversation about the scenario.  When people articulate their thinking, they reveal, even to themselves, the assumptions underlying their thinking.  They make visible the things that drive their choice-making.  As "experts" in the practice reveal their thinking inside this conversation, it opens new ways of thinking to the "novices" who emerge from the experience better understanding themselves and the complexities of the scenario.  And, they enjoy doing it!

        Tony

      • Scott Allen
        Tacit knowledge isn t knowledge that can t be made explicit - it s knowledge that s not cost-effective to make explicit. Scott Allen
        Message 3 of 19 , Nov 24, 2002

          Tacit knowledge isn’t knowledge that can’t be made explicit – it’s knowledge that’s not cost-effective to make explicit.

           

          Scott Allen

           

          -----Original Message-----
          From: tony@... [mailto:tony@...]
          Sent:
          Sunday, November 24, 2002 6:30 AM
          To: com-prac@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [cp] Re: Wanna get provocative?

           

          In a message dated 11/23/2002 4:14:32 PM Central Standard Time, nickols@... writes:

          "if you assume that tacit knowledge can't be made explicit..."


                   It leads to a focus on better means of developing tacit knowledge
          instead of futile efforts to capture it



          Cool thought!

          In a community of practice in which the members are seeking to improve their effectiveness in the "practice," it makes sense that the CoP "cultivators" would be very interested in design that would create tacit knowledge within their members. 

          As my buddy Nate has said, "people's knowledge does not reside in a data base.  It resides in their minds."

          So, how can we design/create opportunities for people to learn/develop with the goal of their being more effective in a particular practice?  In doing so, I make the grand assumption that they will emerge with more tacit knowledge than they started. 

          Here are a couple thoughts, and I would love to hear some practical ways you are doing it--that is, creating opportunities for your members to gain tacit knowledge, or any knowledge for that matter :-)

          Our team believes that learning and development are centered around experience.  However, people enter experiences at different levels.  We want to help people think about experiences before they have them and, in the process, improve their capability to live in and learn from the experience.

          As I've shared previously, you can put people in a short scenario that is relevant to their "practice" and cause them to make a decision.  "What would you do if..."  Then, create conversation about the scenario.  When people articulate their thinking, they reveal, even to themselves, the assumptions underlying their thinking.  They make visible the things that drive their choice-making.  As "experts" in the practice reveal their thinking inside this conversation, it opens new ways of thinking to the "novices" who emerge from the experience better understanding themselves and the complexities of the scenario.  And, they enjoy doing it!

          Tony


          ::: http://www.egroups.com/group/com-prac
          ::: Email com-prac-unsubscribe@egroups.com to unsubscribe



          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

        • Chris Macrae
          and Cost-effective is the doorway to hell when opened indiscriminately, as well as the power used to cut down people with gay abandon, even though as far as I
          Message 4 of 19 , Nov 24, 2002
            and Cost-effective is the doorway to hell when opened indiscriminately,
            as well as the power used to cut down people with gay abandon, even though as far as I know people is where knowledge emanates from
             
            then of course we have tacit knowledge's neighbour "learning" without whose tacit understanding most people wouldn't be able to write, which in a very few cases might be a good thing but in most cases would not
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: 24 November 2002 14:37 PM
            Subject: RE: [cp] Re: Wanna get provocative?

            Tacit knowledge isn’t knowledge that can’t be made explicit – it’s knowledge that’s not cost-effective to make explicit.

             

            Scott Allen

             

            -----Original Message-----
            From: tony@... [mailto:tony@...]
            Sent:
            Sunday, November 24, 2002 6:30 AM
            To: com-prac@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [cp] Re: Wanna get provocative?

             

            In a message dated 11/23/2002 4:14:32 PM Central Standard Time, nickols@... writes:

            "if you assume that tacit knowledge can't be made explicit..."


                     It leads to a focus on better means of developing tacit knowledge
            instead of futile efforts to capture it



            Cool thought!

            In a community of practice in which the members are seeking to improve their effectiveness in the "practice," it makes sense that the CoP "cultivators" would be very interested in design that would create tacit knowledge within their members. 

            As my buddy Nate has said, "people's knowledge does not reside in a data base.  It resides in their minds."

            So, how can we design/create opportunities for people to learn/develop with the goal of their being more effective in a particular practice?  In doing so, I make the grand assumption that they will emerge with more tacit knowledge than they started. 

            Here are a couple thoughts, and I would love to hear some practical ways you are doing it--that is, creating opportunities for your members to gain tacit knowledge, or any knowledge for that matter :-)

            Our team believes that learning and development are centered around experience.  However, people enter experiences at different levels.  We want to help people think about experiences before they have them and, in the process, improve their capability to live in and learn from the experience.

            As I've shared previously, you can put people in a short scenario that is relevant to their "practice" and cause them to make a decision.  "What would you do if..."  Then, create conversation about the scenario.  When people articulate their thinking, they reveal, even to themselves, the assumptions underlying their thinking.  They make visible the things that drive their choice-making.  As "experts" in the practice reveal their thinking inside this conversation, it opens new ways of thinking to the "novices" who emerge from the experience better understanding themselves and the complexities of the scenario.  And, they enjoy doing it!

            Tony


            ::: http://www.egroups.com/group/com-prac
            ::: Email com-prac-unsubscribe@egroups.com to unsubscribe



            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


            ::: http://www.egroups.com/group/com-prac
            ::: Email com-prac-unsubscribe@egroups.com to unsubscribe



            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
          • Hans-Peter Korn
            ... Your experience to let emerge, try out and reflect ideas about possible solutions in a scenario is a very good way. I also had very positive experiences
            Message 5 of 19 , Nov 24, 2002
              tony@... wrote:
              ..... I would love to hear some practical ways you are doing it--that is, creating opportunities for your members to gain tacit knowledge, or any knowledge for that matter :-)

              Our team believes that learning and development are centered around experience.  However, people enter experiences at different levels.  We want to help people think about experiences before they have them and, in the process, improve their capability to live in and learn from the experience.

              As I've shared previously, you can put people in a short scenario that is relevant to their "practice" and cause them to make a decision.  "What would you do if..."  Then, create conversation about the scenario.  When people articulate their thinking, they reveal, even to themselves, the assumptions underlying their thinking.  They make visible the things that drive their choice-making.  As "experts" in the practice reveal their thinking inside this conversation, it opens new ways of thinking to the "novices" who emerge from the experience better understanding themselves and the complexities of the scenario.  And, they enjoy doing it!

              Your experience to let emerge, try out and reflect ideas about possible solutions in a "scenario" is a very good way. I also had very positive experiences do create knowledge in such a process. I call the "enironment" for it "Solution Stage".

              Here you find more about it:
              http://www.TheSolutionStage.com
               

              Best regards
              Hans-Peter Korn
               

            • tony@companycommand.com
              Tacit knowledge isn’t knowledge that can’t be made explicit – it’s knowledge that’s not cost-effective to make explicit. Scott, If your focus is on
              Message 6 of 19 , Nov 25, 2002
                Tacit knowledge isn’t knowledge that can’t be made explicit – it’s knowledge that’s not cost-effective to make explicit.

                Scott,

                If your focus is on making money (and you heard the warning from Chris as to the dangers there), I would offer up to ya that the organizations that discount the intangibles won't survive in today's environment.  You can't afford
                not to study and tap into the tacit knowledge that your most effective people are applying to their work and relationships.

                Experts in a practice (or field) often make decisions based on what they would describe as intuition or gut instinct.  They have a hard time describing their thought processes.  In fact, when questioned, they may describe rules of decision making that they in fact don't use because they aren't fully aware of how they actually make decisions.  You can see how this becomes very complex.  How do experts become so effective?--Through a combination of ability and tons of experience in the practice.  By getting the experts involved in conversations with each other and other practitioners around the things that matter most to the practice, you unearth the unspoken ways of thinking and share them across the practice.  Now that is valuable.

                It seems like there are two "camps" on this forum:  1.  Tacit knowledge can be made explicit and therefore transfered to others and 2. Tacit knowledge, by its nature, can't be made explicit and we are kidding ourselves if we think it can.

                So, which one is it?  And why does it matter to this forum?

                Here is another question for this forum:  Do community of practice "cultivators" have the inherent obligation to help improve the effectiveness of the community members--individually--and, in so doing, improve the effectiveness of the practice collectively?

                Tony


              • Chris Macrae
                I wrote this elsewhere. But then I started wondering could it be some assumption as fundamental as this one that is dividing whatever these camps are.
                Message 7 of 19 , Nov 26, 2002
                  I wrote this elsewhere. But then I started wondering could it be some
                  assumption as fundamental as this one that is dividing whatever these camps
                  are. (Incidentally, I am also trying to abstract anything from communal
                  proceedings said so far on how trust comes into knowledge as its a main
                  theme of the European Union web where I do some conetent managing across one
                  or five sigs)
                  http://www.knowledgeboard.com/community/zones/sig/kmei.html chris macrae

                  Somebody asked me about how I practice email. My draft answer revealed an
                  extraordinary line of questioning about trust; at least I think so, how say
                  you?


                  Community of email practice

                  Very easy really:
                  every time you see an important email; reply to it and b'cc anyone you know
                  who you think might find it important too

                  anyone got a better practice rule?

                  sad thing is how few people practice this way;

                  I guess this leads us to the biggest question in the knowledge business:
                  when is it correct not to share information with someone who you know may
                  benefit from it?

                  I hope people will tell me if they have another view but...

                  In a digitally connected business, I think trust depends on sharing unless
                  you can prove you shouldn't. I see this as the opposite of old businesses
                  where the process of circulating information wound have been so
                  time-consuming that no decisions would ever get made. But these days the
                  information that needs to be shared is around all of the company's people
                  anyhow; those closest to serving customers have more valuable customisation
                  news than anyone sitting in head office;anyone who says that local cultural
                  information is not of critical import to a global organisation is a sight
                  more dangerous to our whole world than Dr Straneglove; young people usually
                  understand technology options better than old; and so forth. The more rules
                  you have on keeping information secret, the less practical everything
                  becomes; the less trust there is; the more emotionally depressed most people
                  will become; the more time will be wasted as customers ask again and again
                  for a believable answer rather than a foggy off one

                  Perhaps the new economy can be this simple except culturally it means
                  changing from command and control, to everyone taking co-responsibility of
                  knowledge and the behaviours this begets

                  Of course, I am not saying that there isnt some information that needs great
                  care how openly its circulated and when. But I am saying the miniscule
                  quanity of that is now the exception not the rule. And if we agree so far:
                  the really interesting question is what sort of information should not be
                  openly shared?
                • Lilly3653@aol.com
                  In a message dated 11/26/2002 1:40:38 PM GMT Standard Time, ... Fred, Thanks for being lucid as always. The exchange so far brings me to another broader
                  Message 8 of 19 , Nov 26, 2002
                    In a message dated 11/26/2002 1:40:38 PM GMT Standard Time, nickols@... writes:


                    In short, whether
                    or not tacit knowledge can be articulated, articulating it isn't
                    necessarily central to developing it in others.  Thus, the basic reason the
                    issue is important is that if you think tacit knowledge can be articulated
                    and if you think articulating it is important, it is my view that you will
                    be spinning your wheels instead of moving forward.


                    Fred,

                    Thanks for being lucid as always.

                    The exchange so far brings me to another broader conversation in the public arena in UK - the problems arising from demise of Apprenticeship schemes.  We have in recent years had an exponential growth in exams for young people and great encouragement for them to follow into University education. 

                    These policies seem to me to stem largely from the assumptions that Fred shows will not be productive.  Apprentices learn by doing - you only have to watch a highly popular series following up for a year a bunch of 15 troubled teens who have been taken on by a leading young chef to run his new restaurant  to see what this entails!  And those coming out of university education where they have done subjects previously learnt through apprenticeships are found quite inadequate by their future employers.

                    I think someone should do some reasearch here.  No substitute for a dose of reality to settle theoretical arguments.

                    Lilly Evans
                  • marco_cesare
                    Toni, ... knowledge can be made explicit and therefore transfered to others and 2. Tacit knowledge, by its nature, can t be made explicit and we are kidding
                    Message 9 of 19 , Nov 26, 2002
                      Toni,

                      to your distinction I would add a third "camp". You write:
                      > It seems like there are two "camps" on this forum: 1. Tacit
                      knowledge can be made explicit and therefore transfered to others and
                      2. Tacit knowledge, by its nature, can't be made explicit and we are
                      kidding ourselves if we think it can.
                      So, which one is it? And why does it matter to this forum?
                      <
                      My camp is as follows:
                      3. There are two kinds of tacit knowledge: that which can't be made
                      explicit and that which can be made explicit. Making tacit knowledge
                      explicit provides only a "shadow" of the original tacit knowledge.
                      So, what can be transferred can only help in "orienting" the
                      interpretation.

                      My distinction is based on an autopoietic model of cognitive
                      processing inspired by Humberto Maturana, Jean Piaget, Ernst von
                      Glasersfeld, Silvio Ceccato, Walter Freeman and Immanuel Kant.
                    • Hans-Peter Korn
                      ... I also. And in addition I experienced, that tacid knowledge can be transfered (I would call this: can be shared and created in a co-creative process ) -
                      Message 10 of 19 , Nov 26, 2002
                        Fred Nickols wrote:

                        > Tony writes in part:
                        >
                        > >It seems like there are two "camps" on this forum: 1. Tacit knowledge can
                        > >be made explicit and therefore transfered to others and 2. Tacit knowledge,
                        > >by its nature, can't be made explicit and we are kidding ourselves if we
                        > >think it can.
                        > >
                        > >So, which one is it? And why does it matter to this forum?
                        >
                        > Until persuaded otherwise, I belong to the second camp.

                        I also. And in addition I experienced, that tacid knowledge can be "transfered"
                        (I would call this: "can be shared and created in a co-creative process") -
                        without making it "explicit".
                        This - for me - is the 3rd camp.

                        > ....As a practical matter, I don't know that the two views, even if opposing,
                        > are all that significant. If knowledge, tacit or otherwise, is reflected
                        > in the capacity for action, it seems clear to me that any given capacity
                        > for action can be developed in people who don't currently possess it. In
                        > other words, they can learn it and we can help them learn it.

                        Yes. For me this is part of the "3rd camp":

                        In my KM-workshops I sometimes start with this experiment:

                        I ask all participants to form a circle with the chairs and balance them only on
                        the two back chair-legs. The participants stand outside the circle touching the
                        chairs to balance them.
                        And then I ask the participants to find a solution that all can go clockwise
                        around outside the chair circle - and no chair must fall down.
                        After a short while (about two minutes) all groups find a way to do this -
                        sometimes with different strategies.... And they find it without a lot of
                        discussions and without "exchanging a lot of words".

                        Reflecting the process makes it clearer, how "tacid knowledge can created in a
                        group".

                        Best regards
                        Hans-Peter Korn
                      • Chris Kimble
                        OK when I wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/com-prac/message/2739 ... I was wrong. But, to take up the point about Tacit and Explicit Knowledge that
                        Message 11 of 19 , Nov 27, 2002
                          OK when I wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/com-prac/message/2739

                          > Hi Brownyn,
                          > much as I might enjoy seeing this discussion revived,
                          > haven't we been here before?

                          I was wrong. But, to take up the point about Tacit and Explicit
                          Knowledge that seems to be becoming a theme here and elsewhere, I
                          would like to add my (should that be our) views.

                          I the same issue of the journal as Tom Wilson's paper, is a paper
                          by Paul Hildreth and myself called "The duality of knowledge"

                          http://informationr.net/ir/8-1/paper142.html

                          This put forward a view of the tacit - explicit debate that I have
                          not seen represented here or elsewhere.

                          Like others, we start from the view that the obsession with
                          technology in KM is a bad thing. At best, it is no more than
                          Information Management re-badged and, at worst, it is an expensive
                          and misleading route to failure.

                          However, the bulk of the paper is taken up with our analysis of the
                          supposed tacit – explicit dichotomy, Nonaka and the so-called
                          knowledge conversion process and, of course, Polanyi and his view of
                          tacit (implicit) knowledge.

                          The conclusion of our analysis is that all of these approaches
                          (including those that focus exclusively on tacit knowledge) are
                          flawed, because in reality tacit and explicit knowledge are
                          inseparable. One can not exist without the other: both need to be
                          taken into account. Knowledge is in fact a duality.

                          The paper concludes with a discussion of Wenger's participation
                          – reification duality and our own hard knowledge/soft knowledge
                          duality and the suggestion that Communities of Practice provide an
                          environment where knowledge can be both created and nurtured as well
                          as preserved and sustained.

                          In the introduction we say:

                          > It is not our intention in this paper to prolong the
                          > seemingly interminable debate as to what constitutes
                          > knowledge, what is data and what is information.
                          > Our position is that this debate, although
                          > intellectually stimulating, is ultimately fruitless

                          I guess this is really our view on this topic – as long as we
                          continue to argue about what is and what is not tacit knowledge we
                          are missing the wider point that the two are inextricably linked.
                          Thinking of one in isolation from the other in KM is a sure route to
                          disappointment and failure.
                        • Walker Geoff
                          ... Sorry, I may be misreading this, but, is this not what Nonaka is getting at with the SECI process? @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ I do not know where we are going,
                          Message 12 of 19 , Nov 27, 2002
                            Chris Kimble (27/11/02 13:20):
                            >The conclusion of our analysis is that all of these approaches
                            >(including those that focus exclusively on tacit knowledge) are
                            >flawed, because in reality tacit and explicit knowledge are
                            >inseparable. One can not exist without the other: both need to be
                            >taken into account. Knowledge is in fact a duality.
                            Sorry, I may be misreading this, but, is this not what Nonaka is getting at
                            with the SECI process?
                            @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
                            "I do not know where we are going, but, I do
                            know this…Wherever it is we shall lose our way."
                            Sagata
                            @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
                            Geoffrey A. Walker
                            Information Systems & ICT Development Officer
                            Operational Support & Special Projects Unit
                            Newcastle City Council
                            6 Jesmond Road
                            Newcastle upon Tyne
                            England
                            NE2 4PQ
                            @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
                            E: geoff.walker@...
                            W: www.newcastle.gov.uk
                            T: +44 191 211 6782
                            F: +44 191 211 6799
                            @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@


                            **********************************************************************
                            This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
                            intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
                            are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
                            the system manager.

                            This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
                            MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

                            City of Newcastle website:- www.newcastle.gov.uk
                            Developing Newcastle:- www.newcastle.gov.uk/devnewcastle
                            Tyne Offshore Suppliers:- www.offshore-suppliers.com
                            Newcastle Schools website:- www.newcastle-schools.org.uk
                            Competitive City:- www.newcastle.gov.uk/compcity
                            Going for Growth: www.newcastle.gov.uk/goingforgrowth
                            **********************************************************************
                          • Marco Bettoni
                            ... Whenever somebody draws a distinction (for instance tacit/explicit knowledge) you can find someone who warns that the two things are inseparable in
                            Message 13 of 19 , Dec 5, 2002
                              --- In com-prac@y..., "Chris Kimble" <kimble@c...> wrote:
                              > <em> in reality tacit and explicit knowledge are inseparable

                              Whenever somebody draws a distinction (for instance tacit/explicit
                              knowledge) you can find someone who warns that the two things "are
                              inseparable in reality".

                              I propose to consider the ability to draw distinctions as one of the
                              most powerful tools of human thinking (see Spencer Brown "Laws of
                              forms" or Humberto Maturana "Biology of cognition")and suggest that
                              we should be more careful in refusing the distinctions it delivers.

                              In the specific case of the distinction between tacit and explicit
                              knowledge I think that "reality" is a bad argument for refusing it:
                              as Maturana said "reality is an explanatory argument that explains
                              everything". On the contrary, if the distinction can be based on a
                              viable theory of knowledge then I think that it will be very useful.

                              Moreover, distinguishing tacit and explicit knowledge does not imply
                              that you must avoid to consider also a tight interconnection between
                              the two.

                              I propose to use both: distinction and interconnection.

                              Marco.

                              # Marco C. Bettoni
                              # Basel University of Applied Sciences
                              # Office: +41 61 4674 238 / Fax: +41 61 4674 461
                              # Home: +41 61 331 47 46
                              # Mobile: +41 79 426 63 59
                              # Email: m.bettoni@...
                              # News: http://www.fhbb.ch/weknow/marco/events.html
                            • Scott Allen
                              ... . Allen s 1st Axiom of Duality: There are two kinds of people in this world: those that divide the world into two kinds of people and those that don t.
                              Message 14 of 19 , Dec 5, 2002

                                Marco wrote:

                                >Whenever somebody draws a distinction (for instance tacit/explicit

                                >knowledge) you can find someone who warns that the two things "are

                                >inseparable in reality".

                                 

                                Allen’s 1st Axiom of Duality:  There are two kinds of people in this world: those that divide the world into two kinds of people and those that don’t.

                                 

                                Allen’s 2nd Axiom of Duality:  Never use binary variables in your data structure, because you’ll usually discover that a third or even nth possible state exists that you haven’t considered.  Unless it doesn’t.

                                 

                                Allen’s 5th Axiom of Duality:  There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can’t.

                                 

                                J

                                 

                                Scott Allen

                                 

                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: Marco Bettoni [mailto:m.bettoni@...]
                                Sent:
                                Thursday, December 05, 2002 2:38 AM
                                To: com-prac@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: [cp] Re: Wanna get provocative? Tacit and explicit knowledge

                                 

                                --- In com-prac@y..., "Chris Kimble" <kimble@c...> wrote:

                                > <em> in reality tacit and explicit knowledge are inseparable

                                 

                                Whenever somebody draws a distinction (for instance tacit/explicit

                                knowledge) you can find someone who warns that the two things "are

                                inseparable in reality".

                                 

                                I propose to consider the ability to draw distinctions as one of the

                                most powerful tools of human thinking (see Spencer Brown "Laws of

                                forms" or Humberto Maturana "Biology of cognition")and suggest that

                                we should be more careful in refusing the distinctions it delivers.

                                 

                                In the specific case of the distinction between tacit and explicit

                                knowledge I think that "reality" is a bad argument for refusing it:

                                as Maturana said "reality is an explanatory argument that explains

                                everything".  On the contrary, if the distinction can be based on a

                                viable theory of knowledge then I think that it will be very useful.

                                 

                                Moreover, distinguishing tacit and explicit knowledge does not imply

                                that you must avoid to consider also a tight interconnection between

                                the two.

                                 

                                I propose to use both: distinction and interconnection.

                                 

                                Marco.

                                 

                                # Marco C. Bettoni

                                # Basel University of Applied Sciences

                                # Office: +41 61 4674 238 / Fax: +41 61 4674 461

                                # Home: +41 61 331 47 46

                                # Mobile: +41 79 426 63 59

                                # Email: m.bettoni@...

                                # News: http://www.fhbb.ch/weknow/marco/events.html

                                 

                                 

                                 

                                 

                                ::: http://www.egroups.com/group/com-prac

                                ::: Email com-prac-unsubscribe@egroups.com to unsubscribe

                                 

                                 

                                 

                                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

                                 

                                 

                              • Chris Kimble
                                ... Hi Marco, ... I agree with you, however, the point we were trying to make in the paper was that while making a distinction between tacit and explicit is a
                                Message 15 of 19 , Dec 5, 2002
                                  --- In com-prac@y..., "Marco Bettoni" <m.bettoni@f...> wrote:
                                  > --- In com-prac@y..., "Chris Kimble" <kimble@c...> wrote ...

                                  Hi Marco,
                                  When you say:

                                  > I propose to consider the ability to draw distinctions as
                                  > one of the most powerful tools of human thinking ...

                                  I agree with you, however, the point we were trying to make in the
                                  paper was that while making a distinction between tacit and explicit
                                  is a useful analytical tool, this should not be confused with a
                                  statement of absolute and immutable truth. What we were trying to
                                  say was that if you do fall into this trap, then your efforts at KM
                                  are bound to fail.

                                  To be successful you *must* consider both the tacit and explicit.
                                  You say:

                                  > In the specific case of the distinction between tacit and
                                  > explicit knowledge I think that "reality" is a bad argument

                                  and quote Maturana. Well, I guess it just depends on what you are
                                  looking for.

                                  This might sound like a strange argument for an academic to make, but
                                  while discussing the distinction between tact and explict, hard and
                                  soft, know how and know what, etc is an entertaining academic game, I
                                  do not think that it contributes much toward practical attempts at
                                  managing knowledge. If you really want to manage knowledge, then I
                                  think that appeals to reality are actually a pretty good basis for
                                  argument!
                                • Marco Bettoni
                                  ... Hi Kim, I understand that in your paper you propose that the distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge should not be confused with a statement of
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Dec 5, 2002
                                    --- In com-prac@y..., "Chris Kimble" <kimble@c...> wrote:
                                    > --- In com-prac@y..., "Marco Bettoni" <m.bettoni@f...> wrote:
                                    > > --- In com-prac@y..., "Chris Kimble" <kimble@c...> wrote ...^

                                    Hi Kim,

                                    I understand that in your paper you propose that the distinction
                                    between tacit and explicit knowledge "should not be confused with a
                                    statement of absolute and immutable truth".

                                    I agree with this. Indeed I agree with Maturana that no distinction
                                    or unity of whatever kind should ever be considered as an absolute
                                    truth. The reasons are explained in Maturana's epistemology.

                                    You say:
                                    > To be successful you *must* consider both the tacit and explicit.
                                    I agree also with this. I have a similar statement as one of my
                                    knowledge management leading principles. But you cannot consider
                                    tacit and explicit together if you do not draw the distinction.
                                    Because if you do not draw the distinction you do not know that there
                                    are two things that you can put into some kind of relation.

                                    Moreover, with people involved in knowledge management projects and
                                    in my own business projects I have experienced that also keeping the
                                    two separated can be very useful in the design and implementation of
                                    KM solutions.

                                    You say:
                                    > If you really want to manage knowledge, then I
                                    > think that appeals to reality are actually a pretty good basis for
                                    > argument!

                                    With my statement that reality is a bad argument I did not want to
                                    criticize practice or deny the necessity that what we conceive must
                                    prove to succeed in practice. I simply wanted to say that considering
                                    tacit and explicit knowledge as inseparable "should not be confused
                                    with a statement of absolute and immutable truth", exactly like the
                                    distinction.

                                    Marco.
                                  • Scott Allen
                                    Sorry about that -- don t know why my reply didn t show up! Here it is... ... ... Allen s 1st Axiom of Duality: There are two kinds of people in this world:
                                    Message 17 of 19 , Dec 5, 2002
                                      Sorry about that -- don't know why my reply didn't show up! Here it
                                      is...

                                      Marco wrote:
                                      >Whenever somebody draws a distinction (for instance tacit/explicit
                                      >knowledge) you can find someone who warns that the two things "are
                                      >inseparable in reality".
                                      ...

                                      Allen's 1st Axiom of Duality: There are two kinds of people in this
                                      world: those that divide the world into two kinds of people and those
                                      that don't.

                                      Allen's 2nd Axiom of Duality: Never use binary variables in your data
                                      structure, because you'll usually discover that a third or even nth
                                      possible state exists that you haven't considered. Unless it doesn't.

                                      Allen's 5th Axiom of Duality: There are three kinds of people in this
                                      world: those that can count and those that can't.

                                      :)

                                      Scott Allen
                                      www.ThinkingForALiving.com
                                    • Marco Bettoni
                                      ... Hi Chris, excuse me for misspelling your name in my message 2781. Cheers, Marco
                                      Message 18 of 19 , Dec 5, 2002
                                        --- In com-prac@y..., "Marco Bettoni" <m.bettoni@f...> wrote:
                                        > --- In com-prac@y..., "Chris Kimble" <kimble@c...> wrote:
                                        > > --- In com-prac@y..., "Marco Bettoni" <m.bettoni@f...> wrote:
                                        > > > --- In com-prac@y..., "Chris Kimble" <kimble@c...> wrote ...^
                                        >

                                        Hi Chris, excuse me for misspelling your name in my message 2781.
                                        Cheers,

                                        Marco
                                      • Chris Kimble
                                        ... No Problem - I have been called much worse.
                                        Message 19 of 19 , Dec 5, 2002
                                          --- In com-prac@y..., "Marco Bettoni" <m.bettoni@f...> wrote:
                                          > --- In com-prac@y..., "Marco Bettoni" <m.bettoni@f...> wrote:
                                          > > --- In com-prac@y..., "Chris Kimble" <kimble@c...> wrote:
                                          > > > --- In com-prac@y..., "Marco Bettoni" <m.bettoni@f...> wrote:
                                          > > > > --- In com-prac@y..., "Chris Kimble" <kimble@c...> wrote ...^
                                          > >
                                          > Hi Chris, excuse me for misspelling your name in my message 2781.

                                          No Problem - I have been called much worse.
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.