Knowledge Matters™

Several posts ago I introduced the notions of “truth types” and “belief ” , and in a later post I introduced the idea of “justified true belief ” . I closed these two posts with the uncomfortable proposition that knowledge can be whatever we believe it to be! I also suggested this is precisely why 80% of all knowledge management initiatives fail – we simply don’t have shared understanding and meaning. Despite these difficulties increasingly I find knowledge practitioners, and by default their initiatives, can be positioned into one of three schools.

The first school is the Autopoietic School. This school’s position is that knowledge belongs to individuals since information, which is mere data in context, needs to be interpreted according to the individual’s internal mental model. This means that knowledge as such is extremely difficult to transfer. I think those practitioners whose emphasis is narrative fit into this school.

The second school might be called the Cognitivists. This school focuses on the collection and central distribution of knowledge as the main knowledge development activity. In this school knowledge might be considered to be facts and is based on the philosopher’s argument of “justified true beliefs”. Practitioners who build data repositories and then display that data in multiple ways clearly fit into this category.

The last school is the Connectivists who believe that knowledge can and does reside both in individuals and in the team. For the connectivists interactions within the team, and between individuals and teams is key. Enhancing communication and flow of information is the focus of knowledge management. I think practitioners who emphasis Web 2.0 and other forms of social connection belong to this school.

Now of course this typology is a little too absolute, and there are overlaps, but I think the discipline of knowledge management (if there is such a thing) is moving towards the Connectivist School. As evidence I present the many social software developments in recent years – all of which seek to increase connectivity, and arguably dissolve organisational boundaries. The emphasis is moving to voluntary participation and sharing, and knowledge management is about accessing experts or those who know experts.

In terms of the Six Knows Knowledge Management Model those who camp in the Autopoietic School seek ‘know why’ knowledge; those in the Cognitivist School seek ‘know what’, ‘know when’ and ‘know where’ knowledge; and those in the Connectivist School seek ‘know who’ knowledge. This in part explains the trend towards the Connectivist School because ‘know who’ knowledge provides information about the gatekeepers to ‘know what’ knowledge, the owners of ‘know how’ knowledge, and the possessors of ‘know why’ knowledge.

So which school, or schools, are you affiliated with? Does this typology provide a way forward in defining the knowledge management discipline? Does it even matter?

Regards Graham