Posted by Yogesh Malhotra on June 23, 1997 at 12:29:14:

In Reply to: Re: Tom Davenport on 'Pitfalls of Knowledge Management' posted by Mezei on June 23, 1997 at 10:35:15:

There are two ways of 'understanding' something. One, by adopting a
definition - effectively adopting a solution - and then trying to
force fit all our problems to the solution that we have found. Second, by
developing a sense of what something is 'not.' In that perspective,
the issues suggested as the 'evils of KM' by Davenport provide us a
perspective of KM in terms of what it is 'not' or what it oughtn't be...
Given that there are so many definitions of KM from various perspectives,
it may be desirable to take all definitions with a grain of salt... and
assume that all these definitions are 'working definitions', subject to
revision and modification.

However, the problems with quick "how to's" and definitions is that often
one gets bound by what is 'given' rather than what it could be or should
be... Effectively one engages in single-loop learning which breeds premature
convergence resulting in 'hi-tech hide bound' thinking, one sacrifices
the learning process of correction and detection of error at the altar
of conforming to the 'accepted definition'... which represents just that
much... a working definition bounded by the assumptions and the contexts
of the 'definee.' [These thoughts resound with extant thinking of writers
such as Argyris, Drucker, Landau & Stout, and Mintzberg.]

In contrast, if one scans the 'messes' then based on an iterative process
of having one's working definition interact with multiple 'realities',
one may fine tune one's working definition... always being open to
revising / modifying it to justify its empirical validity. [These thoughts
resound with extant thinking of writers such as Ackoff, Handy and Hedberg
& Starbuck].

Over the last three years, based on observation of both theory and practice
of organizations that are attempting to tackle the new beast on the block,
I have delineated the following working definition that is displayed on
the KM WWW VL home page:

"Knowledge Management caters to the critical issues of organizational
adaption, survival and competence in face of increasingly discontinuous
environmental change. Essentially, it embodies organizational processes
that seek synergistic combination of data and information processing
capacity of information technologies, and the creative and innovative
capacity of human beings."

Again... this definition is bounded by my assumptions and contexts in which
I have been thinking about the notion of knowledge management, primarily
based on the following premises:

* Technology can be, and is being, used for several predictable knowledge
processing activities ('old world' of 'Brian Arthur') generally ranging
from automation to semi-intelligence. Examples include the notions of
AI, expert systems, genetic algorithms, Big Blue, software agents, etc.

* However, such applications of technology are still restricted to bounded
problem spaces in which future predictions are possible based on history.

* Problems, as well as opportunities, in front of contemporary organizations
are increasingly of 'discontinuous' nature, the environments characterized
by 're-everything' ('new world' of Brian Arthur). Such words defy
predictability and demand anticipation of surprise as noted by Steve Kerr.

* Given the current state of technologies that are bounded by the
pre-programmed heurisitcs valid for pre-defined and bounded problem
spaces, there is need for seeking synergy of technological capabilities
with the creative and innovative capacity of human beings (March's
'technologies of foolishness', the 3M notion of 'intrapreneuring', the
culture of 'heretics', etc. etc.). How else could one generate
'breakthrough thinking'?

This is what the new world of KM is, beyond most current 'definitions'
of KM that are bounded by the assumptions of the 'old world.' This is
the world that challenges us to dance on the 'edge of chaos' while seeking
immediate certainty, predictability and precision in whatever we are
attempting to measure... and being ready to redefine and reassess
*continually* our measures as well as our constructs... since that is
the only means for aligning our 'theories of business' with the
dynamically changing 'reality' (Drucker).

More on this chain of thoughts is available at:

http://www.kmnetwork.com/kmabst.htm

For some current definitions of KM collated from published literature, you
may see:

http://www.kmnetwork.com/kmdefs.htm

Before fitting the 'definitions' to the given problems, we may perhaps like
to clarify our definitions...

What do YOU think Knowledge Management is 'not' or what it oughtn't be...,
forget the 'given' definitions for a moment... just THINK based upon YOUR
experience and your hypotheses... for the sake of 'dialog'...

---

Follow Ups:

• Re: On Definitions and Non-Definitions of Knowledge Management Mezei 15:07:17 6/23/97 (1)
  • 'Reading Between the Lines': It's All In There Yogesh Malhotra 17:05:57 6/23/97 (0)

---

Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

  

 Subject: 

Message: