I define Knowledge and KM as so:
In other words, knowledge is about making good decisions based on evidence, and knowledge management is half about building that capability and half about improving the quality and access to good evidence.
Why is that important?
Well, there are many different aspects of KM and many have a strong focus on the explicit side of things. They believe "Unless you write things down they will be lost". But while knowledge may be captured as information, it usually loses it's depth, context and impact. It's like comparing the French Riviera to a painting of the beach in Nice. It might be a lovely painting, even stir some emotion, but it can never encapsulate everything that is the French Riviera. Knowledge is the same way, and in the end, an outcomes focus means it is useful to look at knowledge not in terms of what it is, but in what it can do. It is evidenced by good decisions. Decisions that make sense, that consider multiple factors, viewpoints and evidence sources. Some of that is access to good information, but when you study experts in the field, they seldom stand with a fire hose in one hand and an instruction manual in the other. When push comes to shove, whether it's a ditch digger or a corporate accountant, most people act from knowledge not information.
If we want to manage knowledge, we must manage around the lived experience of knowledge workers, not the imagined world of written processes and procedures followed everyday to the letter.
0 Comments