Posted by Lars-Oluf G. Nielsen on March 16, 1998 at 15:29:30:

In Reply to: Re: Knowledge management and transfer of best practices posted by Michael Rosetz on March 16, 1998 at 13:47:49:

Michael,

Thanks for the comments.

Reading your comments on Lotus and its applicability in transferring knowledge artefacts made me think of the (great) book by Davenport and Prusak, "Working Knowledge" in which they actually say that Lotus is ofcourse the state of the art, but also contains some problems. Davenport and Prusak describe that "firms knowledge architecture of Notes are a bit haphazard" (p.132) basically finding relevant knowledge artefacts is difficult, even with the built-in 'yellow pages' and other search engines. It can actually become time consuming, which in turn let me to think about Leanodo- Barton notion of how a core competency can become a core rigidity.

If this is the case are the advancements of these intranet systems overtaking us to the extent that we spend more time seeking externalized knowledge artefacts from these systems as opposed to creating them. I realize that this is industry dependant, but holding on to the consultancy industry for a moment, does this mean that the real intagible asset is not the tacit knowledge but rather the tacit information ?

( I understand tacit information as unused explicit knowledge artefacts on the intranet systems)

Please comment,

Lars-Oluf

---

Follow Ups:

• Re: Knowledge management and transfer of best practices Michael Rosetz 12:06:35 3/20/98 (1)
  • Re: Knowledge management and transfer of best practices Lars-Oluf G. Nielsen 16:34:00 4/01/98 (0)

---

Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

  

 Subject: 

Message: