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

Re: [cp] Wanna get the Emperor some provocative new clothes?

Expand Messages
  • Hans-Peter Korn
    ... Well, I use in my KM-lectures an other experiment to show what s tacid knowledge. This experiement adresses no physical activity - it adresses our
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 31, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      meinkeb2001 wrote:
      ...While surfing the web I found the name Karl Sveiby (As I'm sure is a
      familiar name to most . I ran across the following page regarding
      tacit knowledge, http://www.sveiby.com/articles/diagnostic.html

      This page includes the following test for tacit knowledge. "Shut your
      eyes. Then try to touch the tip of your nose with your index finger.
      At the same time, concentrate hard........

      .....This, and many of the other examples I've seen, revolve around
      physical abilities (ie: touching your nose; riding a bike, swinging a
      golf club). Is this because most physical activity is so much more
      difficult to make explicit than a cognitive thought process?
      Well, I use in my KM-lectures an other experiment to show what's  "tacid" knowledge. This experiement adresses no physical activity - it adresses our individual (= very different) associations, when we talk about "simple" "facts"  which seem to be "objective". Here is the experiment:

      Show a group of people this text (wirtten maybe on a flipchart):

      A lady is sitting in a garden.

      She goes into the house.

      Than, after a few seconds, ask the people to close the eyes and to imagine the situation. Ask them to to think about (but not tell each other) this:
      • How does the lady look like?
      • How does the house and the garden look like?
      • Why does she go into the house?
      And after about 1/2 minute ask them to open the eyes. And them ask some (or each) of them to tell the answers. You will get very different answers.....

      That means: Each of us has very different imaginations about such simple things like a lady sitting in a garden... And very often in discussions we are sure, that each of us has more or less the same understanding about such "simple facts"......
      It is the tacid knowledge in our brain which makes the difference.

      Sveiby's example went on further with the statement "The conscious
      mind is capable of processing somewhere between 16 and 40 bits of
      information (ones and zeroes) per second, whereas the unconscious can
      handle no fewer than 11 million bits per second." Would this mean
      that tacit knowledge could be best described as an unconscious
      thought process? If so, I would tend to follow the camp the feels
      tacit knowledge can not be made explicit.
      In the experiment with the lady - after having observed, that there are very different views - we can make explicit our views by telling them or writing them down. But: We never will be able to write down ALL our personal imaginations about this lady and the garden. When we are asked to make explicit our views, we will make explicit onnly what WE THINK we have to make explicit.... and this again is a very personal suggestion....

      And this is the reason why distributing "knowledge" with the steps "externalisation" and "internalisation" (-> Nonaka) normaly does not work perfect....
      ""To communicate means to exchange a huge number of more or less useful misunderstandings""

      Knowledge that I feel can be made explicit is "cognitive" knowledge.
      Those things I know because they have been learned, memorized or
      I think, that also "congnitive" knowledge cannot be made explicit completely. Always there is a more or less large area of personal interpretations.... that means: misunderstandings....

      Happy New Year !!!


    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.