Seems there are a number of avenues to explore here.
Let's start by looking at what we mean by 'new knowledge'. For me this takes us beyond information sharing,
(although this may result in new knowing for individuals) knowledge is produced
when new worlds are brought forth, when we make sense of our environment, when
claims are socially validated and meaning is negotiated & shared.
New knowledge starts with the adoption of different frames / schema
/ ontologies / concepts by the community. In essence, the group will bring
forth a 'new world' through their physical interactions and dialog. Ed Schein
points to surfacing individual and group assumptions as the key to
reformulating models and frames. He advocates for action research and
involvement with the group to co-design new ways of thinking and acting rather
than 'forcing'interventions
There are a large number of practices than
can assist with knowledge generation. Here are some that work for me:
Mining
past experiences for
patterns that show the 'best' solution to repetitive issues, participating in
pattern writers workshops to surface, document and validate such patterns,
arranging patterns in hierarchical level (structural coupling) and crafting a
pattern language to improve group communication and recognize gaps.
Making key
distinctions: calling
attention to subtle
differences that make a difference,
making the group aware, sharing signs, assigning names and sharing meaning
around new conceptualizations. Distinctions can evolve into more formalized
patterns with the recognition of repetition, addition of context, specification
of forces and solutions and validation.
Sharing
ontologies: developing
agreement and sharing the meaning behind key concepts, bounding a discourse
domain, deciding what is 'in' and what is 'out', surfacing relationships
between and giving names to concepts and abstractions.
At a higher level the community needs to
engage in practices such as language experimentation, building prototypes,
teaching each other, structured inquiry, group reflection. They can recognize
idea generations, i.e. time delimited, divergent - convergent - summary - critique
- consensus formulation, and use this to bootstrap the next generation
[Engelbart].
Part of these practices can be to record
rationale, structure a corporate memory around key issues, capture 'as is' key
situational descriptors and answers as Paul
suggests in his descriptive enumeration, [DE] practice.
There are a number of affordances that can
help here. Facile annotation, interactive (living) repositories, intuitive
navigation, privacy gradients, many to many communication, persistent conversations,
shared (situated) spaces, instant notification and presence detection.
Before any community can make use of these
practices, there must be some 'attractor' to support alignment, encourage
engagement, allow the formation of trust and to help with the formation of both
group and individual identities. The ability to hold identity in check, engage
in creative abrasion, enter deep dialog and having permision to fail forwards, is far more
influential than any technological affordance.
This 'innovative social capital', as Mark McElroy calls it, is
helped by having a shared purpose, empowering policies, leadership that walks
their talk, open communications, equal access to information of market
conditions and customer contacts.
Knowledge generation in communities requires
a balance, it is not for the faint-hearted or for those with frail or
ultra-strong identities, it requires hard work, empathy and a continuous thirst
for learning. CoPs are formed through self-selection, many come, but very few
stay to form the core, teach the periphery, build quality knowledge, and generate
true innovation or really new knowledge.
Innovation may come from a variety of
sources e.g. problems & issues (internal or external to the firm), from
scanning the environment, from identification of gaps and deliberate attempts
to fill them, from a strong group desire for learning, from a drive to be 'the best'
or a vision to be the market leader, or the most flexible firm in an industry
segment, or a policy to have 30% of revenues derived from new products each
year......
Behind all
this, knowledge generation is fundamentally a social human pursuit, an art, a
tacit elixir, a fine balance and much mystery.
Ontologies cannot be shared. They can be bridged, but not shared. The act of building these shared ontologies is a management intervention, which only serves to politicize, ostricize and create oscillations that look like constant change.
Posted by: David Locke | October 29, 2005 at 05:53 AM
Knowledge generalization is the destruction of knowledge.
Posted by: David Locke | October 29, 2005 at 05:51 AM
When have you ever been in a meeting that didn't force interventions? As a management tool a meeting is intended to force interventions.
Forced interventions give rise to such things as requirements volitility.
Posted by: David Locke | October 29, 2005 at 05:50 AM
Hello Denham,
Thanks for your comments at my site last week. They opened my mind to things I was not considering in my research.
Yes, creating knowledge in communities seems to be the essence of KM, I think. But there are so many things to consider, so many concepts, so many techniques... I inevitably come back to your question: what would be the key topics, the key concepts, the key ideas? Would it be possible to make it simpler? I am struggling with it...
Posted by: Andre Saito | October 11, 2005 at 07:46 AM