Don't know that I can agree with you on this matter, whether or not it is actual management, it is very important that a company has some process by which it can "recall" the methods by which it resolved issues. The Western Australian Govt publishes the following in terms of the public service and you will see their definition of knowledge management, and their ideas.

http://www.publicsector.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/guide_to_managing_knowledge_0.pdf Borrowing from their writings

Knowledge isn't simply that acquisition of data but how that data relates to the company, individual, task. Knowledge is the intellectual property of the company that helps to keep that company in the position it is in the market.

The old adage "knowledge is power" is realised when particular employees either retire or move to other companies. When it is "Bob" who was the fellow that always resolved a particular situation is completely lost when Bob retires.

As another example think about the number of times that you can google a particular question and someone else has found the solution. That to a degree is knowledge management, applying a similar approach within a company means that Bob's replacement can always utilise Bob's expertise even after Bob's retirement.

Thank you Lindsay for your comment.

Really I did not expect an agreement, as I just made a question...

But since your comment implies a judgement on the usefulness of knowledge management I looked to the link you sent and I must say that just the title of the document "A guide to managing knowledge" is enough to raise me many concerns.

Anyway, I fully agree (except with the last two words: "usefully applied") with the definition of knowledge in the same document - "...Knowledge is often confused with the concept of information or the gathering of data. But information on its own means very little. Information and data can only evolve into knowledge when they are interpreted and usefully applied." Does it mean that when that interpretation of information in not "usefully applied" we are not talking about knowledge anymore? Who does establish what is useful or not? That is where management of knowledge comes into place?

The same document definition of knowledge (as a cognitive process) is contradictory with it´s own definition of knowledge management in which knowledge is something that can circulate (?): "Knowledge management can help identify and manage gaps in the ways that knowledge circulates within an organization". We know that what circulates is information, not knowledge. When I transmit a legacy on my expertise or when I write on my scientific achievements or make a speech in a company management meting, I am transmitting information, not knowledge. Otherwise, It would be possible to by a package of knowledge in a specialized store...

But we can by a package of information.

These may seam semantic questions but I tend to give it special attention when the traditional confusion between knowledge and information (which is once more presented in the document you refer) evolves to the level of guidelines...

Even at companies level, knowledge resides on people, as a cognitive construct which is fed by contextualized pertinent information. If we determine the usefulness of the application of that cognitive construct (following guidelines or not) are we not interfering with each one´s ability to acquire knowledge?

A different thing will be the use each one makes of it, weather at micro (enterprise) or macro levels (society). Taking this use into account, would it be better to establish some guidelines, in advance? I think it as a risk of being a too reductionist approach.

Ok, I will concede that I was a little bit over enthusiastic about knowledge management, I did add that little bit that said "whether or not it is actual management" but I didn't really deal with the knowledge bit that well. The document unfortunately does contain somewhat flowery terminology which, to an extent, is because of the audience it is directed towards however the document is based strongly upon the Australian Standard AS5037-2005. I can see your point about semantics, we are most likely just talking more about information management rather than knowledge management and maybe I didn't do myself many favours by quoting that document. The way I have read and "understood" the document is greatly influenced by my scientific background, I read some sections and in part dismiss the statements as "management speak" without real tangible substance. I suppose it is a bit like saying "well it's just common sense", which is far from being common. It is indeed possible that I have fallen into the trap of applying my own perception of the question rather than looking at it as purely a third party observer. In reading your response, it may be worthwhile to examine some my ideas of knowledge (and its possible management) and determine if what I perceive as "knowledge" is simply information backed by group-wise understanding of particular tasks. I don't believe that following the guideline will necessarily interfere with one acquiring knowledge although I guess there is always a possibility it could have a negative effect.

Hmmm a lot of "food for thought"!

Hi Lindsay

In fact, since knowledge construct is mainly fed by the available information (together with environmental perception, cultural background, past experiences, mental framework, etc. trough a complex cognitive process) ultimately it would be possible to frame knowledge within certain boundaries or direct it towards specific objectives by "managing" the information it is fed of, in direction to the "Knowledge Organization / Society" (whatever it may be).

But, these are not scientific approaches, which are the ones I am interested in.

Cheers,

Jose

Hi Hsu

I fear I have not understood your question well.

Anyway I will try to clarify the concepts of decision making and knowledge formation.

What happens is that the decision process is fed from the information obtained from the external environment in a given spatio temporal context, including its different dimensions of a socio-cultural nature. The information thus obtained is framed by pre-existing knowledge (experience) or contributes to the formation of new knowledge.

That is why the process of decision making may develop within a pre-existing knowledge framework or, outside such a framework, assume the nature of a non-predictable process, ie creative.

So, clearly, the process of knowledge construction and decision-making process are not the same thing

Regards,

Jose