From:
Mark W. McElroy
(
mmcelroy@vermontel.net)
Date:
09/20/03
..
..
Replying to LO30591 --
Dear Jan:
Thanks for the reply. I've only responded to parts of what you wrote,
since I think most of it was settled. See my further comments below.
..
You wrote:
>So the paradox reads: "KM aimed at
controlling behaviour inhibits KM".
>New or not. Is New
Knowledge Management aimed at generating knowledge for
>its own
sake? Is NKM a liberating movement trying to get people to think,
>judge, know for themselves? Does NKM want to solve a problem
because
>problem solving is fun? Is NKM a game to play a game to
win or to play?
>Does NKM wait for people to show were New
Knowledge Management might run
>ashore? I like this thread
because i want to understand knowledge
>management,
understanding KM will set me free. Understanding KM, mind you,
>not KM.
..
Good. One key difference between the New KM and the Old KM is that TOKM
is deferential to management strategy. It seeks only to foster learning
and knowledge sharing with respect to a current strategy, or management
point of view. This is a kind of totalitarianism, isn't it?
..
The New KM, by contrast, seeks learning not just for its own sake, but for
the sake of people in organizations who are trying to solve problems,
including people who may disagree with current strategy or management's
point of view. Thus, the New KM transcends strategy and management
regimes of all kinds. It is a child of transparency and openness, of
"open enterprises." The Old KM is a child of closed enterprises, which
most organizations today happen to be.
..
>>This is all very neat, but it fails to (a) address the problem of
how we
>>know anything, and (b) assumes that all knowledge is
subjective.
>
..
>For me that is one and the same
problem and it is the problem i want to
>address - thanks for
showing it so clearly. It occurs to me now that
>knowledge is
about self management. There is a hidden loop. KM tries to
>communicate two things at the same time: the knowledge itself
and that the
>knowledge is true. It denies - or tries to deny,
or wants to deny, or just
>ignores for certain reasons- that
knowledge is also partly subjective and
>that we might have a
choice in what part is and what isn't subjective.
..
Yes, quite right. We always have a choice with respect to the knowledge
we have or that we are asked to accept. Still, most KM approaches do not
acknowledge this. Rather, they commit the mistake I often refer to as the
"strategy exception error," which is to say that management's strategy and
all that it entails should be regarded as true without question, or should
at least be treated as such. This has the effect of stifling learning in
organizations, in favor of developing or sharing only that knowledge which
happens to serve current strategy. That's the Old KM, not the New KM. It
is dangerous and irresponsible because it increases the likelihood that
false ideas, or even illicit ones, will survive much longer than they
should, thereby exposing all of us to their deleterious effects. This
dangerous and irresponsible approach, incidentally, is the one advocated
by Nonaka & Takeuchi. They are "Old KMers" in the finest tradition.
..
>>This is all a step backwards, not forward.
>
>Well, it will be obvious that i cannot agree
with this. Perhaps you're
>rhetorically right and i wrote it
somewhat clumsy. But to know that
>knowledge is both subjective
and objective and that there is a problem of
>knowing anything
is a step forward. Knowledge might be just an opinion,
>like the
"Earth is the centre of the universe" or "all life is evolution"
>or "..." etc. Perhaps the NKM seeks to share messages
("knowledge")
>together with a script on how a person can verify
this message and learn
>something about him or herself.
..
Not sure I know what you mean here, but I can say that there is no magic
formula for separating truth from falisity, only theories about how to do
so, which themselves may be true or false. This is one of the reasons why
New KMers are so committed to Fallibilism, the doctrine that we can never
know the truth with certainty. Old KMers effectively practice the
opposite point of view, by adopting strategies and building related
systems and programs that are utterly predicated on a faith in management
or some current strategic point of view. Thus, they do not support us in
our quest to hold strategy accountable to criticism; rather, they require
us to obey it without question.
..
>One and one makes two, that's true, but only when you have specified
"and"
>and "makes". Because one cloud and one cloud makes a big
cloud when
>merged, you cannot make a desert less lonely by
adding one and two rabbits
>of the opposite sex can make a whole
bunch. I try to oppose that somebody
>is telling me that one and
one makes two, that this is good for the
>organization and now
buzz off. Without giving me the opportunity to see if
>this
holds water. I hope to find this in the NKM - which i still have not
>read thoroughly. Truth - to me - is unimportant i can not check
the truth
>finding process, knowing - Popper - that only the
falsity of a statement
>can be proven.
..
No, not even the falsity of a statement can be proven. Rather, we can
make choices of one belief or claim over another, and our choices may be
justified by the evidence we have. But just because we've made a choice
doesn't mean the choice we've made is true.
..
>>When did we agree that that was the basic
problem of KM? The basic problem of The New
>>KM is Knowledge
Process Management and the process of differentiating
>truth
>>from falsity, not knowledge management.
..
>But, but, but ... differentiating between truth and falsity
isn't that a
>subjective, social, cultural dependent phenomena?
Some things are always
>true, some are always false and a large
set of things false in between
>(remember the three referees?).
Surely you do not think that i think that
>there is an absolute
truth. (An absolute false might be proven, but to
>prove that
not-A is false doesn't always prove A is true). And i have
>nothing to say about this, only about the management.
..
Actually I do think that beliefs or claims can be absolutely true. They
would be absolutely true if the assertions contained in them correspond
perfectly with reality. All I'm saying is that we can never know for sure
whether they do or not, because we are irreparably fallible in this
regard.
>>The New KM is about that and nothing else. If you have
>>some other competing point of view to put forward, pick
another name for
>>it.
>
>knewless management: the knowledge that starts with: "i dunno"
and ends
>with: "it might be different, thank you".
..
I have no idea what that means.
..
>>And is the organic farmer who
>>admits to not
being able to "manage" plant growth, but who strives instead
>>to manage soil conditions, not engaged in management of a
sort? Do you
>>condemn organic farming too?
>
..
>Not all management, only management that doesn't allow people
to grow for
>themselves, that loves to see how people develop
themselves only for the
>purpose of developing. The "amateur
(amare = "to love") manager".
>Organic farmers are renowned for
their love of farming. Who is now putting
>words in somebody
else's mouth? And off course i think that everybody
>manages, is
a manager, applies KM and even NKM. That's why - i think now -
>i'm so against use of Management in any concept. There is only
one manager
>and that is you!
..
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with management, only the theories
behind it may be criticized. In the New KM, we manage the learning
environment; in the Old KM, they do not.
..
>Summary:
>
>Understanding the New
Knowledge Management made me aware of my own
>understanding of
the processes at work: we continuously try to persuade
>others
to behave in ways that benefit ourselves ("manage = manipulate").
>We use our processed information ("knowledge") to that end. We
also try to
>persuade others to supply us the knowledge with
which they manage
>themselves and others, so we can even better
manage. That is not wrong, as
>long as we offer others a choice
to comply or not. The New Knowledge
>Management offers a way for
everybody to openly check whether this is the
>case (true) or
not (false) when such is verifiable.
..
This is close, I think. I would say that the New KM is based on a
"knowledge ethic" of fallibility, and that it therefore stresses the
importance of continuous and open learning in organizations. It's not
about managing knowledge so much as it is about managing knowledge
processing and the environment behind it that either helps or hinders
problem solving and performance. The Old KM seeks to enhance the sharing
of existing knowledge; the New KM starts by questioning the validity of
existing knowledge, and seeks instead to create a quality control system
for knowledge that is pervasive and perpetual. No knowledge is sacred in
the New KM, not even current strategy or management's point of view.
..
Regards,
Mark
Mark W. McElroy
President, KMCI, Inc. [www.kmci.org]
CEO,
Macroinnovation Associates, LLC [www.macroinnovation.com]
(802) 436-2250
..
--
"Mark W. McElroy" <mailto:mmcelroy@vermontel.net?subject=Re: Understanding 'The New Knowledge Management' LO30617&replyto=001201c37f9a$9cfddd80$7be4dc42@mark7f9fxziwhq>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <mailto:Richard@Karash.com?subject=Re: Understanding 'The New Knowledge Management' LO30617&replyto=001201c37f9a$9cfddd80$7be4dc42@mark7f9fxziwhq>
Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com/>
..
..
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are
trademarks of Richard Karash.