Many years ago now I formulated three rules or heuristics of Knowledge Management. The first of these reference the fact that you cannot make someone surrender their knowledge in the way that you can make them conform with a process. It was originally coined in reference to individuals but I have come to realise that it also applies to organisations. We are currently working on a major software development which requires sharing data across agencies. The goal is noble but there is no way that one agency is going to make all of its data visible to the others on the basis that they might need it. It would break ethical principles and some cases the law for them to do so. It is one of the reasons why I don't panic too much about Government agencies gathering data, the likelihood that they will put it together or share it is not high.
All of this brought me to an extension of my first rule, which also encompasses the whole notion of gifting which has been so much a part of human evolution. So a new formulation, or possibly extension of the first rule would be: if you ask someone, or a body for specific knowledge in the context of a real need it will never be refused. If you ask them to give you your knowledge on the basis that you may need it in the future, then you will never receive it.
Having seen this extension, I briefly revisited the original three rules. These are more fully explained in a paper Complex Acts of Knowing but I repeat them here.
1. Knowledge will only ever be volunteered it can not be conscripted
2. We only know what we know when we need to know it
3. We always know more than we can tell and we will always tell more than we can write down
Now the first of these was inspired by Peter Drucker. I had the honour to share a platform with him twice, and on one occasion we led an Executive Retreat together along with one other teacher. I think I learnt more from those two days of interaction than I did through reading his books, and I probably learnt more from those books than from most other management textbooks. One of the great things about Drucker is that he made you think, he did not provide you with answers. He could also be savage in the most gentle of ways. On the first occasion I made the mistake of criticising Fredrick Taylor to an audience with him looking on. I then received the equivalent of the famous put down of Dan Quayle “Son I knew John Kennedy”, but I was allowed to return.
The third is an extension of Polanyi’s famous quote we know more than we can tell and the second is, so far as I know entirely my own.
Now its been interesting over the years to see these quoted, sometimes with acknowledgment sometimes claimed (or at least the claim is implied) as the author’s own. In one case the authors went back to the original source on two of them and failed to acknowledge my extension or formulation (full marks for low cunning there).
What interests me is firstly that they have propagated so well, for which I am naturally pleased, acknowledged or not. What puzzles me is this. Despite that fact that people agree with them, they still design idealistic systems on the assumption that this time the rules will not apply.
It appears that we can know something without necessarily learning from it.
Comments (5)
I first ran across your name and these three heuristics while researching and reading James Suroweiki's "Wisdom of Crowds". Sorry it took me so long to find your weblog.
I believe we should consider your final sentence to be the fourth heuristic in this series! Sad, but too often true! :-)
Posted by Robert Hruzek | August 10, 2006 8:49 PM
Posted on August 10, 2006 20:49
Nice to hear from you and I look forward to more comments. Interesting in the connection to Suroweiki (which I think is one of the few good pop science books around at the moment).
I hadn't thought about the final sentence as another heuristic, although it is (as you say sad but true). The other three reflect what I think is a "reasonable state of affairs" while knowing but not learning is undesirable.
Posted by Dave Snowden![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/dave/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 11, 2006 12:26 AM
Posted on August 11, 2006 00:26
Regarding the extension of your first rule: Isn't this the issue of trust and minimalization of both risk and costs? If I know what you need it for now, my effort helps you with a real (not potential) need, so if I am altruisticly motivated then there is no risk of not really helping you and wasting my effort. And since I know what you need it for, I also have no risk that you will later misuse it for another purpose, out of my control. But if you want it "just in case for future use", I can neither trust that I would not waste of my effort and you don't benefit, nor do I know what you will use it for, and if I would have approved of that use. So far this would be perfectly classical rational behavior.
The other issue (knowing without learning) I find much more interesting, conceptually. With my background in natural sciences, I tend to regard the "external" world as more real than the world of mental concepts (while "internally", I tend to be quite far on the side of the radical constructivists). So we see and we agree that a lot of strange things happen. Over and over again, people draw idealistic plans, then prescribe some desired behavior, then it does not work, then they (we) start again. I we assume that people's actions are the net sum of all internal "motivations" - given the circumstances - then, obviously, there are reasons why we may know (abstractly) but not demonstrate "true" learing when we act.
Or could it be the other way around that, in the end, the "nonsense", "idealistic", "hypocritic" way, in the real weird world, is perfectly adequate, and deeper insights are just romantic dreams, surviving in academic (or other) ivory towers but not in a sloppy thinking business?
Related thought: is not "the lord of the flies" the perfect example of learning? The fact that a sophisticated culture, given appropriate circumstances, is inferior to the archaic, "primitive" one?
Posted by christianhauck | August 11, 2006 12:23 PM
Posted on August 11, 2006 12:23
A fan of Peter Drucker and his ruminations, particulary when he is on stage, the put down you cite is so align with his philosophical foundations.
From my perspective as a an executive coach, your "volunteering of knowledge" aptly applies to a CEO's sharing of their internal persona"- Kevin Cashman in "Leadership from the Inside OUt" dicusses Personna vs Character... Helping executives discover their true purpose comes only when they volunteer their core self --it cannot be conscripted...No matter the insight the coach brings to the table.
Posted by Bob Handwerk | August 11, 2006 3:56 PM
Posted on August 11, 2006 15:56
Linked to from http://h20325.www2.hp.com/blogs/garfield/archive/2007/09/18/4442.html
Posted by Stan Garfield | September 20, 2007 11:07 PM
Posted on September 20, 2007 23:07