|
|
| (11 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | == Sam Lanfranco ==
| |
| | | | |
| − | With regard to the good question "knowledge generated by whom?" there is an old construct that I find useful when doing workshops and training. In simple terms it starts with the idea of organizational structures and social processes surrounded by a cloud of DATA which only becomes INFORMATION as it is organized through some process of analysis, concern and possible intent. Information becomes KNOWLEDGE when it becomes part of the SKILLS SET/CAPABILITIES of an individual, an organization, a process or a community.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The analysis frequently stops there with DATA>INFORMATION>KNOWLEDGE. We take it one step further and argue that knowledge only has meaning in CONTEXT and with used with WISDOM.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | One advantage of this simple construct is that it blends any aspect of KNOWLEDGE use, transfer, whatever, with two necessary real tasks,
| |
| − | # properly identifying the CONTEXT in which it is to be used, and
| |
| − | # assessing the relevant individual, organizational or community WISDOM to properly apply knowledge in context.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Sam Lanfranco (from Mumbai)
| |
| − | Distributed Knowledge Project
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Jaap Pels ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Hi,
| |
| − | To go from data to information you will need some knowledge (on how to do that), but knowledge came after information ... Now what is wisdom? I think we get confused by this 'linear logic' data -> etc. I think information stems from dialogue between people where now and then some data in added. Even worse, a lot of times the data and information are denied (genocides) to access the dialogue or ignored (fish population decline) or made up (WMD by Irak). To me people share information and knowledge while talking to (and doing action research with) each other. In the mean time they develop skills / experience and hone their mental / instrumental capabilities. This process can be documented to result in information (from personal notes to wikipedia). To learn this information has to be fed back (versioned) into the dialogue (the conversation, the discourse, the knowledge sharing process) and then the cycle start a new. Best,
| |
| − | (Jaap Pels)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Dave Snowden ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I would reject the DIKW pyramid, aside from the fact its just plain wrong, its difficult to explain and leads to bad albels
| |
| − | Better to think that KNOWLEDGE is the way we create INFORMATION from DATA. If we share knowledge then we can understand information. Anyone talking about wisdom as a higher level of knowledge should be taken out and shot for the good of the field (Dave Snowden)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Jaap Pels ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Let us give the DIKW pyramid a ritual burial in the KM4Dev community.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Patrick Hall ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I have been surprised by the resurrection of this debate about data-informaton-knowledge-wisdom. For me these are well understood ideas within the community, though tacit with clear definitions being elusive, and possibly unnecessary. Of course when discussing the ideas within a client organisation or with students it is useful to talk about these, give examples, and give the pyramid. This is transferring knowledge by a kind of story-telling.
| |
| − | What is most unhelpful, and counter to all notions of knowledge sharing and open discussion, is the remark by Dave Snowden - "Anyone
| |
| − | talking about wisdom as a higher level of knowledge should be taken out and shot for the good of the field". Perhaps he should take his own medicine for the good of the field.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Dave Snowden ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | If you can show me any example of wisdom management or so called higher levels of knowledge which is not shot through with pretension then I will happily withdraw the comment. In the meantime I have my shotgun primed, and have not intention of using it on myself
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Jaap Pels ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I knew knowledge was a dangerous thing...
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Johannes Schunter ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Hi all,
| |
| − | Looking back , I don't think the hierarchical DIKW model added much value to my KM work in the past. However, I do find it important to have good working definitions to distinguish these terms when talking to management or other non-KM people, as they often use some of the terms interchangeably, which causes a lot of confusion language-wise.
| |
| − | I would also tend to say that the idea of wisdom doesn't add value to our work as KM practitioners. Wisdom is simply the capacity to make right decisions on the basis of whatever is known and available. One could also put it as "applied knowledge". The capacity to make good decisions is surely something every human being should strive for, and as such is not particularly KM-related. It may be something we can learn, but it is surely nothing which can be "managed". As such, David is right that a term like "wisdom management" doesn't make any sense.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Benjamin Kumpf ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Hi,
| |
| − | I agree that the wisdom component did not add value to KM work and that being said, it is often very useful for a KM-practitioner to have good reply at hand when discussions on knowledge and wisdom pop up. However, I don't think that 'wisdom' can be regarded as a concept that follows objective and universal categories. What are "good" and "wise" decisions"? Do the same standards for such "wisdom" apply for the political, societal and individual levels alike? To what extent do national interests, power relations, ideologies and resource conflicts influence "wise" decisions"? Obviously, values and norms are not shared worldwide, also constructs such as the Human Rights Declaration are de-facto not accepted as universal, let alone globally respected. KM every so often falls into the trap of treating human decision-making as intrinsically wise, provided that it is based on sufficient information and knowledge.
| |
| − | Thus, KM risks to overlook, at least in parts, that neither knowledge nor wisdom are constructs that can be universally defined. At least not outside certain in-groups. Especially KM for Development and Peace should reflect debates on what norms and decisions can be considered wiser than others and on what norms and values these decisions are based, under what circumstances they are made, while knowing that these foundations are being constantly contested. By people that are equally convinced that their values, norms and decisions are wise.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Chris Burman ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Depends on the context .... metaphorical or real
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Sebastiao Mendonça Ferreira ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I do agree with the point of view of Dave Snowded. The pyramid DIKW is based on the analogy of processing data bases, as if knowledge generation followed that pathway. Most knowledge that is useful for development is not dispersed in data, inside data bases, but structured in a diversity of forms such as stories, feelings, patterns, rules of thumb, analogies, concepts, narratives, insights, guesses and portfolio of cases, inside living brains, expressed in specific languages. The challenge is to have enough sensitivity, openness and intelligence to interact constructively with these forms of knowledge, that at first glance, looks like dissonances.
| |
