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 Reilly Atkinson on September 02, 2000 at 22:52:27:

In Reply to: Re: what's the way to represent tacik knowledge of an enterprise? posted by John Tieso on August 23, 2000 at 21:54:54:

John -- You raise an interesting point about structure. I've built countless mathematical and computer models, from very complex with hundreds of output variables to simple ones with only a few output variables. I suppose there might be a structure to how I've done things, but I'm doubtful since my approach, typical of physicists, is very improvisitory, opportunistic, and highly iterative and varies greatly from problem to problem. Real science, as scientists actually do it, is only systematic with a well defined methodology after the fact,economists notions to the contrary.It is not unknown to have organizational structures change greatly as a large research project evolves.

The only structural element that persists from project to project is the necessity to have clear criteria of success -- preferably by comparison with empirical data.

Now, over my last thirty years I have seen in business and government no end of really dumb research, analysis, bad models (often accompanied by considerable intellectual posturing) and just lousy work. Sometimes these dismal efforts have lead to consulting work, basically to undo the damage. More often than not, the perpetrators of such nonsense are threatened by real professionals, and do nothing about their problems - untill the problems hit the press, and new folks come in to revisit the messes.

The re-engineering craze has done nothing to undo these types of problems. The ultimate issue is not structural anything. Rather, the issue is learning the arts of clear thinking, careful analysis, and problem solving. Note that all these items are centered around "tacit" knowledge.And, when people have these skills down, structure will take care of it self. And, IMHO, knowledge management will never amount to much until these skills are commonplace.


So I bitch too much.
Regards,
Reilly


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