thinking about KM as an academic activity or KM’ing KM

thinking about KM as an academic activity

or KM’ing KM

JC

key question/s for KM

• does the KM approach add insights not otherwise obtainable ?• if no, why use its language – confusing at best ?

– IT, decision-making, strategy, OT, economics, etc. more or less manage OK without K-word

• but if yes, how and why ?

• can we use the term ‘knowledge’ without also ‘engaging uncertainty’ ?

• Simon is not alone – Knight, Nelson & Winter, Archer, etc. – to say nothing of Proust, Whitman, Tolstoy, Shakespeare, etc.

15 - Apr - 08 Monieson KM seminar 2

first – the rationalist KM’ers• core premise – no consideration of uncertainty • complete data is available – at least in principle – no

prescriptions for dealing with critical absences• conceptualizing and bridging between data, information,

knowledge and purposive action. grounding in Ackoff (1989)• principal problematics:

– transformation of data into reasoned / optimal action– transfer of data, information or knowledge (the K-sharing agenda)– reverse-engineering of best practice into appropriate data, information

and knowledge

• KM as a general (non contextual) methodology to address these

• e.g. Gloet & Berrell JoKM v7 #1 2003; Waddell & Stuart TQM v20 #1 2008


Gloet & Burrell JoKM 2003

15 - Apr - 08 4Monieson KM seminar

Waddell & Stewart TQM 2008• KM important to SCA (Daniel Bell etc.)• KM process turns data into info and K• IT versus Humanist paradigm• KM defined as means to gather & share info & improve performance• 77% - employees communicate about customer needs• 15% - incentive schemes• 56% - ‘best practices’ were measured, reported & followed• 58% - a feeling of teamwork• 70% - their organizations had sound financial performance indicators• 47% - employee satisfaction• 67% - customer satisfaction• KM – fosters info sharing and learning from each other


Simon APSR 1985• substantive versus procedural rationality• substantive – actor’s goals and situation’s characteristics• these cannot be determined – thus:

• procedural – actor’s ‘subjective representation’ of both

• cognitive approach versus ‘behavioral’

• bounded rationality is not irrationality • rational versus humanist - abstract versus political• Simon is considering alternatives - NOT working the distinction


Simon versus G&B or W&S• G&B / W&S see no problem with BR• discussion around ‘tacit K’ leads to ??• org. communications – org. as mechanical system

• Simon’s project is to ‘engage uncertainty’ in human affairs• types of U (Spender 1989)

– ignorance– indeterminacy– others

• engaging uncertainty means Δ implicit Model of Man• ‘bringing the men back in’ – but what ‘men’?• humanism versus hyper-rationalism• no collision of paradigms


Boisot & Canals / Carlile• Boisot & Canals – JEE 2004 - info and freedom of choice (agency)• info as capacity for work (in-the-world)• subjectivist versus objectivist (situated versus abstracted)• Bayesian (learning)

– pass-through from tacit to explicit as learning mechanism• no collision of paradigms

• Carlile Org Sci v15 #5 2004 collides positivism, interpretivism and pragmatism into three K-types:– logical– situated semantically– situated politically

• boundaries to knowledge & communications across boundaries• boundary objects

– shared language– specified actor concerns (admits the individual)– negotiate a practice (re-situate in both in-the-world dimensions)


bottom line: KM is what you make of it• admits you (the individual theorizing) as

– a mentalizing abstraction – experiencing the world – acting in it, passively– being an agent, actively– constructing it

• > an excuse to ‘re-language’ what we do already ?• an opportunity to ‘engage uncertainty’ e.g.

– Cyert & March (1963)– Nelson & Winter (1984 p.4)

• what strategies are open to you?


thinking about KM as an academic activity or KM’ing KM

Documents

Transcript of thinking about KM as an academic activity or KM’ing KM