« More KM questions | Main | KM & e-Learning »

January 23, 2004


David Locke

Why can't KM just manage knowledge rather than IC, competivite advantage, or ROI? Is it because you can't sell it without these things? If so then we aren't manageing knowledge, but rather the secondary effects of knowledge and the processes of those secondary effects.

Language issues:

1. KE means destroying all KE outside that approved by the central core of the corporate executive. This is contrary to any real effort to enhance the KE. Even the niche players are selected externally rather than by natural selection.

2. Best practices are actually only practices. It remains to be seen whether they are BEST practices.

3. Creative and generative learning / knowledge is a problem, because again you are talking about the creativity of the approved core. Generative learning does not result in knowledge. It is a generalized process that creates information and might create knowledge, but it doe not inherently create knowledge.

4. The social validation process can facilitate commuications of patterns, but not all patterns are going to be socially validated just because they are patterns.

5. A local oral history would mean that you can't write it down.

6. Giving voice to their values is insufficent and a power-based manipulation. The only thing that results is "I was heard, I was ignored." Dialogue provides a better mechanism, but dialogue only occurs in the absense of power.

7. If trust is required, then the system will fail. There is no trust in today's business environment. I know that I will never trust an employer again.

8. Annealing, what better way to impose a power expression over any insights.

9. Distill local ontology as practiced today is to make meaning conformant to the will of the central core. This destroys the ability of non-line organizations to do their job. This will kill companies like reengineering did.

The comments to this entry are closed.