Sorting the wheat from the chaff with respect to
KnowledgeManagement is best done, imo, but starting with the distinctions between
InformationManagement and
KnowledgeManagement, and more generically, between
KnowledgeAndInformation.
The best starting point for me is my understanding that knowledge only resides in our minds. Whenever we seek to share or transfer knowledge, we create information as the means of sharing it, and often store the information in some other medium.
With this starting point, it is much easier to make some clear distinctions as to whether the claims being made about
KnowledgeManagement are in fact about
KnowledgeManagement, or would more appropriately be named
InformationManagement.
Far too many of vendors do not believe there is a difference between
knowledge management and information management. They recognize only
that market hype has shifted public opinion, so they are morphing to catch
up and reposition their products. Can you blame them?
Much of what purports to be knowledge management is in reality information
management. Just the other day I heard a rep selling scanners as a core
KM technology, "essential for knowledge sharing," without which the
organization was doomed to be bypassed by every other firm going down the
knowledge track.
The distinction I like to make, is working with objects (data or
information), is IM and working with people which is KM. Information
Management is about documents, CAD drawings, spreadsheets, program
code. IM means ensuring access, security, delivery, and storage. It deals
exclusively with explicit representations. Creation, use, learning, meaning,
understanding, and negotiation are NOT core issues but efficiency,
timeliness, accuracy, veracity, speed, cost, storage space and retrieval
ARE central concerns in IM.
Knowledge management recognizes value in originality, innovation,
agility, adaptability, intelligence and learning. It seeks to leverage
the capacity of the organization in these areas. KM is concerned with
critical thinking, innovation, relationships, exposure to ideas, patterns,
competencies, and collaboration. It supports communities and individual
and group learning. KM strengthens alignment and encourages the sharing
of experiences, failures, and best practices. KM may use technology to
foster dialog, increase communication, share context or negotiate
meaning but this is not the core focus.
A people focus in KM extends to recruitment, rewards, retention,
recognition and reification. KM is about intangibles, intellectual
capital, competitive advantage and innovation-- NOT objects.
The division between information and knowledge management is not
clear cut, take knowledge artifacts with their grounding in information
systems but their value depending on alignment, belief and negotiated
meaning. The role and representation of concepts often tend to blur the
distinction between inference and intuition. Meta-data plays an
increasing a part in supplying context, while subtle differences
between data translations and information transformations often help to
keep us guessing. Negotiation and social conventions around boundary
objects then carry and convey meaning between communities helping
learning and understanding.
Knowledge management operates at a more abstract level than IM. This
often makes the causal links with benefits and tangible assets difficult to
grasp and explain but that does not render them less real or lower the
strategic importance of KM.
DenhamGrey
Well said and on target. -
DougAcker
CategoryKnowledge