Re: [cp] Wanna get the Emperor some provocative new clothes?
- 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 aroundWell, 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:
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?
Show a group of people this text (wirtten maybe on a flipchart):
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:
A lady is sitting in a garden.
She goes into the house.
- How does the lady look like?
- How does the house and the garden look like?
- Why does she go into the house?
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 consciousIn 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....
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.
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.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....
Those things I know because they have been learned, memorized or
Happy New Year !!!