 by Flemming Funch
Denham Grey: Documentation & knowledge. A oft repeated question / assertion in KM is the link between explicit documentation and knowledge. The point I'm trying to make, is documentation alone does not = knowledge. To retain knowledge against attrition you have to have a community that can appreciate the context, understand the issues, talk the language, adopt the assumptions, share the tricks, interpret and adapt the explicit stuff to changing external circumstances."
Matt Mower: "I have formed the view that it is intrinsic to knowledge that it be actionable. By this I do not mean that it necessarily provokes action, but that it enables it. From this viewpoint the question is documentation knowledge? doesn't matter very much. Any particular document may, or may not, be knowledge; to different people, and at different times. Everything depends upon the context." How about if no document can possibly be knowledge. Knowledge is meaning and shared understanding. Some representation of data might contain more or less information, depending on how much signal is there, and if there's a way of reading it. And the information only becomes knowledge to the degree that I draw meaning from it. If it is in a language I don't understand, there would be close to zero knowledge for me. But does it have to be actioable? I don't necessarily think so. It has to enable the action on my part of acquiring, possessing and changing meaning. I might find some new meaning, or I might be reminded of what I already know. But, depending on the context, I might or might not be happy with the mere knowledge, without having anything particular to go and do with it. It might just become part of me, and thus become wisdom. Which might mean that I might be more able and capable to act or not in the future, without any longer having to keep track of what information or knowledge enabled me to do so.
|
|