Organizing knowledge ?

Getting the perspective right

Far too many times KM efforts focus on information attributes. We slice and dice our explicit knowledge assets to deliver JIT information and believe we have met our knowledge related goals - wrong!

Knowledge, we all know (or maybe feel), is different and distinct from information. It's properties are less stable, more difficult to validate, less easy to identify, more closely tied to intangibles, heavily dependent on context, often unarticulated. Sometimes knowledge is situated, distributed, emergent, latent, ephemeral, dormant, unrecorded, tacit, embedded, found in 'flow' not as a static object, follows relationships rather than residing in any particular location.

When we 'organize' knowledge we also lean heavily toward the view of knowledge as an explicit already existing object, a static slowly-changing thing, something tangible, locatable, we start to focus on ownership, access, indexing, navigation, classification, metrics, value. These qualities make knowledge organization problematic.

Let's start by looking at the range of representation(s) you may be working with:
* Stories
* Patterns
* Distinctions
* Metaphors
* Rules
* Frames
* Schema
* Concepts
* Events
* Beliefs
* Mental models
* Cases
* Good practices
* Lessons learned

Each of these has optimal ways for organization (sequencing, indexing, clustering, classifying, browsing) that in turn depend on the range and intensity of the practices / operations that may be applicable or which are to be performed consider:
* Awareness
* Synthesis
* Reflection
* Sharing / transfer
* Critique
* Learning / making meaning
* Understanding
* Taking decisions
* Clarifying meaning
* Inquiry / searching

In addition these issues may muddy the waters:
* Context
* Application
* Feedback / followup
* Interpretation
* Users / audience buy-in
* Needs
* Time limitations

Could we be looking in the wrong place when we seek to organize knowledge?, we may be asking the wrong questions, adopting a rather poor model or applying an ineffective metaphor.

Perhaps we should seek to understand the flows, characterize the dynamics, map the relationships that foster emergence, find the connections that promise awareness, search for those tacit foundations that nurture knowledge creation, pinpoint mavens, hubs, connectors, and locate learning friendly communities?

Would conducting an inquiry be a better way? Just a thought