KNOWLEDGE MGMT | FORUMS | EVENTS | HELP | PRESS ROOM | @BRINT


About BRINT | News About BRINT | Help & FAQs | Users Guide | Advertise Here |
Welcome to the World's No. 1 Resource for Business Technology Management and Knowledge Management
@Brint.com
SEARCH [HELP]

Knowledge Management Think Tank is now: BRINT Global Knowledge Network.

Knowledge transfer


[ ] [ Post Followup ] [ Discussion Forums ] [ Discussion Index ]

Posted by Denham on March 14, 2000 at 13:53:08:

Nancy Dixon's new book "Common Knowledge, How companiesthrive by sharing what they know" Harvard Business School Press 2000 gives 5 knowledge transfer methods that result from the interaction between the intended receiver (similarity of task and context), the nature of the task (how routine & frequent) and the type of knowledge (explicit vs. tacit) being transfered.

Serial transfer:
Same team, same task, different settings. After action reviews, learning histories and set meetings, open diaglog, local facilitation.

Near transfer:
Explicit knowledge of frequent & routine tasks moved across organizational boundaries. Electronic dissemination, supplemented by personal interaction, 'push', best practices are shared where context is not an issue.

Far transfer:
Tacit knowledge is moved by coaching and consulting, same task different context, reciprocal exchange, peers travel to assist.

Strategic transfer:
Infrequent and non-routine, complex system, knowledge is gathered by specialists, multiple 'voices' are synthesized mostly in realtime.

Expert transfer:
Explicit knowledge is pulled from forums, summarized and recorded in terms of solutions, rules and distinctions. Context is the same but the task differs, e.g. technical questions to 2nd level helpdesks.

Somehow the whole notion of knowledge transfer does not sit too well with me, feels too much like an object is being exchanged rather than an individual or group learning experience!

Are we starting to see greater clarity and the emergence of some KM theory here? I'm thinking of Dixon's transfer types, KM models from Don, Bo Newman and others, knowledge validation practices from KMCI, ontologies and classifications of tool sets, KM strategy opitions.....

What do you think?


Follow Ups:



Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

Subject:

Message:

[ ] [ Post Followup ] [ Discussion Forums ] [ Discussion Index ]

Download Our Articles and Interviews
[Guru Interviews] [Real Time Enterprise Business Processes] [IT Users Motivation] [IT Users Commitment] [Commitment and Motivation] [Inquiring Organizations] [Social Influences] [Customer Relationship Management] [Supply Chain Management] [IT Adoption and Utilization] [Managing and Measuring Knowledge Assets] [The Real Competitive Advantage] [Why IT and KM Systems Fail] [Myths About Expertise Management] [How 'Best Practices' Become 'Worst Practices'] [Beyond Information Ecology to Knowledge Ecosystems] [Knowledge Exchanges and Social Networks] [Why Expert Systems Aren't Enough] [KM for E-Business Performance] [Does KM=IT? Not!] [Other Articles and Interviews]



Top of Page

BRINT: 'Your Survival Network for The Brave New World Of Business'tm
Recommended by Business Week, Fortune, Wall Street Journal, Fast Company,
Business 2.0, Computerworld, Information Week, CIO Magazine, KM World,
Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and hundreds of other worldwide publications.

About BRINT | News About BRINT | Help & FAQs | Users Guide | Advertise

Make BRINT your Start Page | | Link to BRINT | Submit Articles

Terms of Use | Privacy | © Copyright 1994-2007, BRINT Institute, New York, USA