Is knowledge management a science? How should we define it? These questions may look simple but are not so easy to answer for both individuals and the collective. How can we apply the scientific method in a constructive way to knowledge management activities such as successfully managing communities of practice, transforming community of practice activity to community of innovation activity, or building next generation IT systems for the more successful support of knowledge management activities such as organisational culture transformation, innovation, change management, collaboration, sustainable trust between stakeholders, and leadership transparency? (as discussed in our Knowledge Cafe last week in Basel (agenda)
(If interested in this topic and wishing
to add to the discussion, please follow the links and read on!)
Early in the Certified Knowledge Manager (CKM)
class last week in Basel,
the subject of the scientific method arose and I made the comment that the
scientific method could not prove that something was true only that something
was false. We create theories from which
we formulate hypotheses and then we test experimentally through observation
whether the hypothesis is consistent with data we collect or whether it is
false.
To take an example from physics, Newtonian
theory correctly explains what we experience when we observe the movement of
objects in the world we live in. For
example it explains how the Ferry moves across the Rhine in Basel from one side
to the other, as we experienced together during our “Knowledge Ferry” evening
last week (and whose experience combined with a re-reading of Herman Hesse’s
Siddartha in German prompted me to name this blog the Ferryman when I started
it in 2003: http://barryhardy.blogs.com/theferryman/2003/11/launching_this_.html). This very useful theory has been shown to be
consistent with many experiments scientists have made on the classical movement
of objects in the physical world that we experience. However it is not an absolute truth. When we study the behaviour of light we need
to consider light as a wave based on Maxwell’s electromagenetic theory so as to
explain how we experience it; e.g., that water in the atmosphere can create a
rainbow as light diffracts through it. When we examine the atomic world of the very small, Newtonian theory also
breaks down and we need a new theory that is consistent with experiments
(quantum theory) or when we examine the effects of gravity at a large scale we
need to use Einstein’s theory which correctly explains the effect of gravity in
the world of the “very large” relative to us and tested very accurately by
astronomical measurements.
Dirac and Feynman combined quantum theory
and electromagnetic theory into quantum electrodynamics to explain correctly
how light and electrons interact at short distances; neither theory on its own
could do that. To date no one theory has
been developed that is consistent with all the experiments we can carry out
from the scales of the very small to the very large. Einstein himself was deeply unhappy about
this and spent many years of his later life unsuccessfully looking for a “grand
unifying” theory. Today physicists have
new theories that attempt to do that (string theory, braneworlds) but they
cannot be fully tested until the Large Hadron Collider comes online at CERN in
Switzerland and creates experimental data starting in 2008.
The following story from his paper provides
insight into his radical constructivist view of a knowledge management
methodology operational in practice:
A blind hiker would like to reach the river
beyond a forest; he can find many ways between the trees which would bring him
to his destination. We are now like this blind hiker with respect to reality:
we go through this forest - that is the world - and we stumble. The stumbling
is when our knowledge fails or when our idea, I could do that so and so, or
that is so and so, did not work: we bump against the given (as the hiker
against the trees) and do not know then indeed anything about it. But we do
know that at that point we cannot continue and so we change our idea. The hiker
changes his walking and we change our logic. So, that would be the analogy with
viability being the capability to walk on a way that leads us through the
forest; the steps, which lead through the forest, are viable (summarized from
von Glasersfeld, 1992).
From this viewpoint he then reflects on 7 useful
practice guiding principles for community managers:
1. Negotiating how things really are leads to an
illusory agreement.
2. We cannot know how people really are, only how we
experience them.
3. To negotiate a "What" I must talk about
my "How".
4.
Even if we experience (live a situation) objectively, we are always part of
our experiences => {objectivity} in
brackets.
5.
Shared meanings (or models) require acknowledgment and appreciation of
individual meanings.
6. Shared meanings require participation in a
cooperative, creative process.
7. Behind a statement do not forget the substance of
the tacit knowledge it refers to.
and the following excellent wisdom for KM practitioners:
“What I know does not describe things as they are in
themselves, it only describes things as I experience them, in my life, as I
construct them mentally. Reality is objective only for me - and it is then the
system of my validated (therefore not random) ideas, the system of the ideas
that were successful in my lived experience. We cannot therefore rely on a
reality which should be identical for all of us, we can only take seriously
many {objective} realities. In a
community many realities are indeed always simultaneously available. For every
individual community member it is always a question of an objectivity in
brackets. Now, if an agreement is sought in this community, it should be
considered that it cannot be about how things are in themselves. Rather, what
should be sought is an agreement about how the objective realities of the
community members could be collectively incorporated and could provide a
collective experience of meaningfulness. We have here to do with a process of
negotiation of meaning. But from a constructivist point of view there can be no
single shared meaning, only the process can be shared. I can therefore never
assume or expect that all community members see the things in the same way as I
see them. If I have the illusion that there could be a single meaning for all,
then in my community interactions I will experience many disappointments and
frustrations.
….
Hence our {objectivity} never means that what is said
is absolutely valid for everyone. By making an idea become {objective} we do
not achieve a statement or a knowledge that is absolutely valid. We may achieve
a timeless knowledge, but even that we can never prove, because we do not have
any grip - at least rationally - on existence.
Negotiated or shared meanings are very important in
community interactions: there is a need to agree on meanings and to use also
common models. However, these negotiated meanings presuppose recognition,
appreciation and acceptance. Why? The reason is that they are built up from
individual meanings; these are basically all meaningful, i.e. make sense, in
the experiential field of the individual who developed them through her
participation, reification and other processes and has become their owner. “
Interestingly this thinking also provides insight into
requirements for IT solutions that can support KM activities successfully,
especially I believe if one also considers the organisation as an ecosystem and
use non-linear, complex, biological and network principles (as exposed by Dave
Snowden, see www.cognitive-edge.com and for example: “The New Dynamics of Strategy: Sense-making in a Complex and
Complicated World”, C.F. Kurtz and D.J. Snowden, IBM Systems Journal, Vol 42,
Number 3, 2003; “Complex Acts of Knowing: Paradox and Descriptive
Self-Awareness”, David Snowden, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol 6, Number
2, pp 100-111, 2002.) to guide technology development rather than a logical linear
thinking alone. It also provides an
important insight on the limited knowledge that is captured in any IT system
that is only a “shadow” of the combined wisdom, conversations and interactions
of community members.
I recommend
a full read of Marco Bettoni’s paper by both KM theorists and practitioners.
So what do you think “Is
knowledge management a science?” Is it a radical constructivist approach to
navigating our individual and organisational paths along the knowledge flows of
the river or the blind hiker’s walk through the woods of resistance to
successful outcomes from a knowledge management set of processes? Welcome
your comments!
Barry
KM Institute KM Institute Switzerland meeting workshop training management executive CKM KM Knowledge Management Knowledge Management Training Management Training Basel Innovation Switzerland Community Douglas Connect Radical Constructivism Science Shared Meaning events
PS: For those community members particularly interested in our healthcare industry-related community activities there is clear guidance above to our recent and current activity e.g., on the issue of improving the performance of the healthcare industry on drug and patient safety. From InnovationWell community of practice activities we developed a shared meaning and understanding on a strategy for advancing our confidence in safety through a combination of scientific areas of innovation and knowledge management (e.g., creating a drug safety body of knowledge: see http://www.innovationwell.net/comty_drug ; also B. Hardy, P. Elkin, J. Averback, A.L. Fontaine, S. Kahn, Improving Confidence in Safety in Clinical Drug Development: The Science of Knowledge Management, The Monitor, Association of Clinical Research Professionals, p. 37-41, October 2006.). To transition this community of practice activity (co-learning) to community of innovation activity (creating value both inside and outside the community), we will look to combine the shared understanding and meaning from InnovationWell with eCheminfo discovery informatics community of practice activity (http://www.echeminfo.com/ ) which together could create the required network with the competency to carry out the new required R&D to make progress on this challenging problem. Subject to validated success of the R&D in predictive toxicology, this network in turn will serve as an innovation incubator for the creation of new virtual organisation-based services. Finally, international cooperation has the potential to add a final key ingredient required for success. (See “International Cooperation in Predictive Toxicology“, http://barryhardy.blogs.com/cheminfostream/2007/03/international_c.html ). The radical constructivist view of a knowledge management methodology should guide the significant role of KM in such initiatives.
Barry
Posted by: Barry Hardy | April 30, 2007 at 08:53 PM
Is it not a common goal for KM professionals to articulate as much tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge as possible? Or should more of the efforts be applied towards methods to capture the “HOW” as to provide context to form a “negotiation of meaning”.
Posted by: Mark Runyan | May 03, 2007 at 12:44 AM