Posted by prac on April 08, 2003 at 14:27:22:

In Reply to: Re: KM theory and Practice posted by Katie Hawks on March 26, 2003 at 10:56:08:

Hi Katie

Even though I understand why your company prefers the "progressive knowledge" approach, I do think that one would inevitably run into problems, especially one of control.

It is part of our trained mindset to want to control stuff, but knowledge cannot be controlled, even if instances of knowledge-engineering may seem successful. How does one control a dynamic entity? How does a child who cannot read or speak learn?

These are natural abilities, which we need to seriously consider and allow for before we venture into any form of knowledge engineering. Why can't the knowledge not merely "speak" to us?

I do think you have far more knowledge to work with than you probably realise. The level of knowledge referred to in the message could very well be nothing more than data, or information. It may even be non-representative knowledge, meaning you see it and get it, but it simply ain't where reality is at within the organisation.

Knowledge is not fundamental, yet it is. Tough one to figure out. I claim that KM is not abstract. Your claim seems to be that it is, therefore it can be engineered. Knowledge should surprise us.

I am all in favour of "engineering" knowledge, but the type of "engineering" I am referring to transcends the fundamentalist, If x then y, approach. In my sphere of thinking, If X then X is quite possible, and my attention is aimed at producing X to the power X. The discovery process shall determine the end result, as a surprise.

Your reference to context is very interesting indeed. Would like to know more about what you mean by that and how that influences your results?

Best regards.

---

Follow Ups:

---

Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

  

 Subject: 

Message: