ARTICLES | 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.

Re: what's the way to represent tacik knowledge of an enterprise?


[ ] [ Post Followup ] [ Current Discussion ] [ Discussion Index ]

Posted by Robert Benjamin on August 02, 2000 at 01:40:31:

In Reply to: what's the way to represent tacik knowledge of an enterprise? posted by deniel on August 01, 2000 at 12:06:15:

Hi deniel

A certain Information Engineering methodology proposed a set of models in order to capture particpants knowledge in a certain context. The knowledge is purely tacit.

Functional views are derived, based on group tacit knowledge of a particular domain. Lots of experience is explicitly gathered via this method.

Once the functional model has been determined, and approved as valid by the participants, it is utilized as baseline for further analysis and design up to computer program level. In this manner tacit knowledge can be guaranteed to end up in a computerized system representing each participant-group domain.

In my opinion, tacit knowledge is nothing more than a systemic domain, complex yes, but systemic none the less. Our knowledge is worth a lot less than what we often think. However, there are certain domains of knowledge which may be critical at any given point in time.

Often, consultants are highly paid knowledge bases due to the tacit domain knowledge they bring to the table. Once the knowledge is transferred and/or made explicit, it is of very little use to the consultant in that particular situation.

I believe that there are complex domains of tacit knowledge which may be extremely difficult to make explicit. These may often be found in highly abstract and complex environments. Codification of knowledge is a de-abstraction exercise. Some tacit knowledge (especially in its art-sense) may be very difficult to de-abstract.

The previous functional analysis model I referred to has an advanced application which enables participants to deal purely in the abstract domain, with a lot of support and help from the facilitator.

I have learned something in my few years around this subject, the quality of information is only as good as the facilitator/interviewer, and if the quality of gathered information is of a poor quality, then the knowledge transforming process can only produce a poor quality of knowledge.

Perhaps KM should focus more on developing knowledge extraction and representation techniques in its followers, and a little less on what information and knowledge is all about.

Best regards

Robert

Follow Ups:


Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

  

 Subject: 

Message:

[ ] [ Post Followup ] [ Current Discussion ] [ Discussion Index ]

Download Our Articles and Interviews
[Guru Interviews] [Real Time Business Processes] [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