Bookmark me NavigationRecent blog posts |
Knowledge Management and Time
Time, like the term knowledge, is an elusive concept. Like knowledge, a definition of time that is satisfactory to everyone has defied the greatest minds from Antiphon to Newton, and on to Einstein and Planck. Yet time is pervasive across cultures, and at least in the Western world, drives much of what we do. Time is also intrinsically linked to knowledge management, and provides some insights as to why knowledge management is so difficult. Take for example the common platitude –“just in time knowledge management”. I take this to mean that the right information (I have chosen my words carefully) should be available to decision-makers at the right time and in the right place, and not before or after the time it is actually required! Now this begs all sorts of questions, like:
I could go on but you should get the idea of just how difficult, if not impossible this is. This brings me to my second idea – knowledge management is about the effective use of data or information at some future point in time. Our knowledge management activities collect data, or information, or even anecdotes, from the past and try to make sense of them so we can do something in the future. We use these collections and apply previous experience, and perhaps some context, to predict an outcome. In other words we expect a better outcome as a result of our efforts. Again this begs all sorts of questions, like:
It seems to me that knowledge is both descriptive and predictive. (I’ve blogged about this idea previously at - The Knowledge Conduit – so I won’t expand on it). On the other hand knowledge management is predictive but uncertain. It is uncertain because ahead of time we cannot know what information we require, and more importantly how or for what purpose that information will be used. We can make some informed guesses (predictions), but we just don’t know. How often are we asked to provide statistics, which were never collected in the first place, or if they were collected are incomplete? How often do we collect data for one purpose only to find it used for something completely different? So where does this leave us? Well I think we need to consciously consider the time dimension in any knowledge management initiative. We need to recognise information can and does decay with time, and will be used for unforseen purposes. We need to constantly re-evaluate our data repositories, always with an eye to the future. We need to recognise that information is descriptive, but knowledge is both descriptive and predictive. It is the predictive element that is most useful for decision-makers, and predictions reside in the future. Sometimes we get the predictions right and sometimes they are wrong. Knowledge management is about reducing the error rate in our predictions. We do this by ensuring our descriptions are as accurate as possible, and rich in context. We do this by collecting facts, noting that facts can be falsified over time as new data becomes available. For me the time dimension matters. It isn’t given enough consideration in knowledge management circles. Perhaps the knowledge management system of the future will include the means to travel backwards and forwards in time – just like Dr Who’s TARDIS . Alas at the moment this seems to be an impossible dream because of the Grandfather Paradox , but I live in hope! Regards, Graham
categories:
|
An organization can never know what it thinks or wants until it sees what it does. |
Re: Knowledge Management and Time
Good article,I love your site !
Re: Knowledge Management and Time
Hi Solarium,
I'm glad you found the article useful and like my site.
Regards Graham
Re: Knowledge Management and Time
Graham - yes time is important: http://engineerswithoutfears.blogspot.com/2007/05/overtaken-by-events.html
I would also suggest that the predictability of the situations we find ourselves in is a key driver. The Black Swan By Nicholas Nassim Taleb is both provocative & instructive in this area.
Re: Knowledge Management and Time
G'Day Matt.
Thanks for the comment, the link and the reference to the book. There is no doubt in my mind time is important. I agree your notion of predictability, noting it of itself has a time component - a prediction says something will happen at some time in the future!
Where I work at the moment we can predict with a large degree of accuracy the annual work cycle. We know with great accuracy when our senior executives will have to attend the Senate Legislative Committee hearings. We even know what the subject matter is and collect data around the topic space. What we cannot predict with any accuracy are the Senators' questions, and we simply can't predict the chain and sequence of follow-on questions.
How this tension is addressed depends a great deal on the knowledge management school the organisation subscribes to. In this case the organisation in question has a Cognitivist approach - that is data is collected, held centrally and retrieved and displayed in multiple ways as the requirement arises, but more often than not in anticipation of the requirement. This raises all the questions I presented in the initial post.
Regards, Graham
Re: Knowledge Management and Time
Graham,
It does raise the questions you ask - and as you allude to in your post, there are no simple answers to them. The point about the future is that it is unpredictable - but it's not consistently unpredictable.
I'm not sure that I agree with the injunction: "We do this by collecting facts, noting that facts can be falsified over time as new data becomes available."
Facts are good but we can drown in facts. In the example you give in your reply - you cannot collect all the data that might conceiveably be asked in a senator's question. You can do the following things (and I am sure much of this goes on already):
I do not believe we will ever have complete predictive control over our environment - but that does not mean that we cannot improve it. Which school does that put me in?
Matt
Re: Knowledge Management and Time
Hi Matt,
Thanks for the comprehensive reply. You are right in recognising the activities the organisation conducts, and you are right in recognising that organisational learning is the primary weakness.
Unfortunately Senate Legislative Committees deal in facts and want more and more of them. My experience is an appearance before the Committee is generally an unpleasant affair with all the power residing with the Senators, who are often unreasonable in their expectations. (Review the "children overboard" affair for a good example, or look at some of the questions surrounding health care seeking statistics that haven't been collected in the first place).
I agree not all situations are completely unpredicatable, and I agree unpredictability is not the excuse to do nothing.
Finally I am careful with ascribing labels, and more so with people I do not know well, but since you ask I think you fit largely in the Connectivist School. I base this on our few e-mail exchanges, my observation of exchanges on actKM and other forums, your blog, and the content of your presentations to the Ark Group. Of course I could be very wrong!
Regards Graham