I've been attempting to wrap my brain around some of the challenges which continue to plague the knowledge workers in my workplace. I think much of the problem lies in the difficulty some of our decision-makers have in grasping the nature of knowledge, sharing it effectively and applying it in context. Each one may be very knowledgable indeed in their own area -- but cannot seem to communicate the information effectively with others who must then translate it into meaningful knowledge which can then be effectively applied. (Yikes! It even sounds complicated!)
There is a real NEED to build an individual and a collaborative approach to address knowledge gaps and the potential applications of new information. An article that explores this need can be found at:
http://www.roell.net/publikationen/distributedkm.shtml
As I continue to keep my field notes (of course I look at knowledge from the perspective of an Ethnographer / knowledge worker) and continue to analyse the behaviour patterns I've observed surrounding the creation and sharing of knowledge - I become increasingly convinced that the toughest problems CAN indeed be resolved with effective knowledge sharing.
What IS knowledge sharing?
> It's personal. Each individual has their own method of extrapolating meaning from information, then translating it into effective actions.
> It's collaborative. In discussion with others, the data is appropriately contextualized thus allowing the discussion members to check and balance the meanings extrapolated by individuals with regard potential applications.
What is NOT knowledge sharing?
> It's NOT a series of commandments. This is just information of a black/white nature -- there is no application or value here. (Consider "Ethical Guidelines" which are essentially a list of do's and don'ts -- none of which may be particularly helpful in the plethora of contexts not covered in the list).
> It's NOT "re-programming" people with a new process. People are not computers!! A computer will "think" what you tell it to think -- a human exposed to the same commands and data sets will choose to accept/reject or qualify the information in their own unique way. (Consider the plurality of biblical interpretations - one data set with infinite possiblities for interpretation and application -- including complete rejection of the whole set)
> It's NOT even the old carrot/stick approach to behaviour modification. With all due regard to the Watson/Skinner crowd, humans do not respond the same as pigeons! Humans often know when they are being manipulated, or they may be powerfully influenced by their suspicions of hidden agendas. We are selective in choosing which carrots or sticks we are willing to pay attention to. (Consider the underground economy, smoking, or high risk investing)
What happens when we are exposed to new information?
With the sum of all human knowledge doubling every 2.5 years, and the need for life-long learning increasingly critical at the individual level; knowing how to construct personal knowledge is an essential skill - both for individuals and groups. The construction of knowledge, like the construction of a building, must begin with an evaluation of the materials available. Think of the three little pigs: which house would YOU take refuge in? Straw, sticks or bricks?
Scenario:
I must choose a service provider. The service is one that I personally perceive as essential. The competition is fierce among potential suppliers - each of whom bombard me with "information" to enhance my "knowledge" of the services they offer. Some will attempt to discredit the competition with assurances that I'll never suffer the inconvenience of "X" as most customers do with other service providers. (Think of the recent commercial: "Sorry ma'm, looks like you've got bankers")
How do I choose? How do I sculpt bare data into applicable knowledge? How do I evaluate the material presented to me?
Being a of an introverted nature - I talk to myself as I shuffle through the information presented. I ask questions, gather information to cover the gaps, survey the experiences of others, and always, always read the fine print with a critical eye. I don't like surprises! I don't like being pressured to make a decision when critical information is vague or missing. I immediately distrust and reject some data, and readily accept and embrace others. (If I've received trustworthy information from a source in the past, I'm more likely to believe them next time. Whereas, if I've heard inconsistent, false or deliberately misleading information from a source, I'm more likely to reject what they have to say in the future.) This is part of the personal process of extrapolating meaning from presented information.
By surveying the experiences of others, I can reduce the time consuming process of accruing personal experience. This is the collaborative aspect of knowledge-sharing. I do not have the time, money or desire to experience the service of each provider first hand. However, if I speak with those who are willing to candidly share their own first hand experience, then I quickly and cheaply get to benefit from their experience.
The greater the risk I'm about to undertake, the more intently I will examine and question the material available to me. If I catch a whiff of anything I don't like - I'll dig deeper to get my information from more reliable sources and may change or modify the criteria required for "success" based on what I believe to be true.
... To be continued in: Knowledge, Belief and Truth
No comments:
Post a Comment