« KM failing? | Main | KM, decisons and problem solving »

February 26, 2006



Knowledge is not just local. It is not just two people sitting in a room talking about their explicated knowledge and building agreed, but hardly useful definitions that ignore the participants knowledge.

"Yeah, if you buy lunch, I'll agree that x means y, so we can get on with it." That's executive sponsored, empathetic, consensus building today. It is not dialogue. Dialogue can only build agreements at the level of commonality by ignoring details. If you build a spec on the basis of these agreements, you end up with requirements volitility. The assumption that gets hid is that developers can't respect everyone's details. They can. And, today, they can do that economically.

So what, we aren't talking about building applications. But, here it is, we are operating with burried assertions. Here that produciton efficency is more important than operational efficency. Once some sees these constraints and surfaces them, they have to be sold, they have to be corrected. The real value is in seeing the constraint. That is where a business can leverage their asymetical realization and make bucks. Sharing such realizations doesn't make much sense to the business. Yes, knowledge must be free. But, only after the public buys it. Like in the stock market, once the public knows, the value is gone.

Explication is the behavior, it is the benefit. The explication of knowledge is what KM should be about.

As far as it being local. No. You can buy implicit knowledge and do so every time you buy something that you couldn't build yourself. So when you buy a drill, you bring the drill maker's knowledge into your business. It is implicit. It will remain implicit. It doesn't need to be explicated, but you get value from that knowledge. This is another area where knowledge needs to be managed. But, in the uproar about local, social, data, info, content, we never get any closer to the true value of KM.

The comments to this entry are closed.