KM - a balance of extractionism and connectivism
There is an “extractionist” school of thought out there which focuses on separating knowledge from an individual, then combining, distilling and packaging in into a convenient and accessible products.
And there’s a “connectivist” school of thought which seeks to turn information into an advertisement for a conversation with the source.
I think the best knowledge assets combine these perspectives. Too much extractionism (is that a real word?), and you can end up a logical but inflexible, self-reinforcing summary of the views of the editor-in-chief.
Too much connectivism, and you can get endless repeating, diverging threads and snippets which can be frustrating to draw insight from, and require too many phone calls to answer the all questions they elicit.
There are some topics which lend themselves to something approaching a “single version of the truth” (we call that known area “best practice” don’t we?), and for them, the logic of an extractionist-oriented knowledge asset will work.
Then there are topics which are more complicated, and benefit from the constant iteration and interaction of a connection-rich asset. (That’s knowable “good practice” in the Cynefin framework).
Nice post Chris on what fits what context…you may be interested in my post from not long ago
http://libraryclips.blogsome.com/2011/12/08/oh-is-that-km-is-it/
hahaha…I just noticed I mentioned you at the end of the post…
I suggest that you can’t do KM, unless you have flow…otherwise what is there to manage
I also differentiate know-what from know-how
…even tips and tricks based on experience which are very valuable in how things are done around here are still “information” (or more precise “informal information”…but I’m happy to call it explicit knowledge…because for me knowledge is personal, it’s the fundamental skills you have to deal with a situation you perhaps have never dealt with before…this becomes obvious in the difference between a chef and someone who follows a recipe, where they may become stuck if something is missing or something changes where they don’t know how to adapt…this (know-how) you can’t extract (more for observation and apprenticeship)…but the connectivist you talk about is the next best thing to have dialogue and re-frame to your context, so you can then action it where it becomes personal knowledge. Therefore knowledge flow (connection) is key to problem solving in life.
Your post is good timing with the KM Aus 2012 debate on whether tacit knowledge can and should be captured using social technologies (which is no different to f2f like anecdote circles…it’s all dialogue in the end)
I’d probably say “no”, because if so, then I would be a millionaire reading self help books on making money, or be a chef just by reading a book on how to be a chef…even if these books have the most awesome little nuance tips and tricks, with a million examples…the fact is we learn by doing, and from this we gain personal (tacit) knowledge..and the moment we share it, it becomes information for someone else
…so the best we can ever do is create conditions for dialogue, which documentation doesn’t have, and from this we can act.
Whoa, sorry about the long comment…
Here’s an excerpt from my post:
“KM is emergent. You can’t do knowledge management without knowledge flow
We achieve this by allowing people to connect; knowledge flow.
Once we have this then we can do knowledge management. By that I mean we can do the “manage” part by gardening, curating. ie. using links in documentation (processes, procedures, guides, etc.) that point to the threads from the knowledge flow. Our documentation is perpetually evolving; which is what KM is.
Knowledge Management needs stuff to manage, as you can’t manage what’s in people’s heads. Instead if we first facilitate knowledge flow, a lot of what people know (ie. stuff) naturally spills out in conversation (mostly based in the context of need, or even proactively via totally engaged people who narrate their work)…and if this is done online, well then we have stuff to manage.”
NOTES
I really like Chris’s quote:
Knowledge is information with the life still in it!
But to me is still refers to knowledge being an asset or object ie. stripped from the owner…I think once it’s stripped it’s just information; but it’s a special kind of information which makes Chris’s quote still useful.
But that’s just my perspective :O
