Reflecting on knowledge spaces

What makes knowledge spaces so special?

Nonaka etal 2000, "Integrated IT systems to capitalize on market knowledge" in von Krogh etal (eds), "Knowledge creation: a source of value", St Martin's Press, (pp89-109). 

Draw attention to ART cycles (attention - reflection -trigger) in knowledge creation and suggest autonomy, redundancy, creative chaos, requisite variety and intention, are the key drivers. The authors expand the SECI model and explain the social, dialog, explicit and integrating components of ' Ba'.

I'm of the opinion that we need to 'front-load' our knowledge creation rather than having a focus on validation, as I see Ba - a supporting environment, as the key to knowledge generation. Validation tends to look after itself to a large extent and is best handled via informal practices of social conformance.

Nonaka and his co-authors highlight the emphasis on explicit information in western culture and I think they are correct. They illustrate the concept of a commercial Ba with a case study of a Japanese Seven-Eleven. Showing how building customer relationships, listening, engaging & exchanging with customers and co-construction with suppliers even competitors leads to competitive advantage and increased profits.

If there is no Ba, no environment, no trust, no connections, no relationships, there will be no knowledge, learning, new meaning, innovation opportunity and most likely no business.

This is not chicken and egg stuff, it is fundamental to working with knowledge - the profit, ROI, IC mindset is the wrong foot to start the race, it sets you off in the wrong direction, it 'forces' you to cut corners and take the quick gains, gather the low hanging fruit and to skip over the learning, awareness, community building, the "soft" stuff that can save your entire company, show you how to come down from your profit mountain and cross the desert plains in search of another mountain to climb.

See Knowledge landscapes

An organization that puts their energy and attention into documentation, validation & teaching of knowledge assets, without cultivating and supporting the community that generates and refreshes that knowledge, would have a false & brittle token and no deep competence.

So what are your opinions around the conditions and affordances necessary to create value via knowledge generation?

What theory and principles would you use to build the best knowledge space!!

Comments

[David Locke]

Validation is a separate layer from that of creation.

In the software world, testing is seen as a sequential process following validation, but in recent years, validation has become a standing layer that persists from one version of the software to the next. This is important, because the investment in testing is allowed to persist. Which means that subsequent investment extends the rang of testing.

In the business world, SMART goals are written before anything happens. The metric component spectifies validation, before development. This is always done even in software as you have functional (WHAT) requirements and non-functional (HOW WELL) requirements. The metrics drive the decision support system. The investment here are best left to a persistent layer.

When you consider that issues around hacking, testing beyond the economic limit of the firm, mean deailing with many more validations than ever before, and an ever increasing number, the persistence of investment becomes critical.

Validating knowledge isn't necessarily done by the knowledge creators. Separating the two give independence to both.