Weinberger
(2011) said “The network can make us smarter if we want to be smarter” (p. 91) yet
suggests that we are losing the ability to collect, control or predict
knowledge. My first inclination, reflecting
on Russel Ackoff ‘s DIKW (data-information-knowledge–wisdom)
hierarchy discussed by Weinberger, is to ask, “ How much of what we have on the
network really knowledge?” Based on this
hierarchy it would seem that what we have available on the internet is data;
many points of data which need to be processed and connected in order to become
information. This information then needs
to be culled, prepared, judged and refined in order to filter out the non-essential
and determine which information is most helpful. The information which makes it through this
filter then becomes knowledge. In the
past, because experts were always part of the filtering process, people could
assume knowledge to be true and for justifiable reasons. Such curated knowledge could help us gain a
better understanding of the world.
Furthermore by comprehending and sharing knowledge we could become
wise.
Experts
are no longer a guaranteed part of the knowledge formation process which still
begins with connecting data points. Now,
instead of experts, networked individuals connect the dots and what was once
the realm of the few becomes accessible to all. Knowledge will never be contained again; it
is free and expanding and morphing. But
since networked knowledge is no longer static – how do we ever hold onto it
long enough to turn this knowledge into wisdom?
And for the same reasons how can we even begin to contemplate managing
it?
Wienberger
uses another pyramid analogy in discussing how we amass
knowledge. The masses are at the base with no particular organization or
focus. However these crowds of
individuals naturally come together in affinity groups (made very easy with
social media) and discuss and share the data which yields information. But the next step, where the information
would become knowledge, could be perverted if our affinity groups are too
homogenous. In such cases we could
instead get an echo chamber. Since it is only under the condition of
diversity of opinion that knowledge can be formed echo chambers will not result
in knowledge.
Expertise,
previously so valuable in determining knowledge, loses its value because change
is so rapid and also because everyone proclaims expertise. Bill Fisher in HBR argues
that knowledge simply may no longer matter since it changes so quickly. However, soft skills and being human to one another
will gain in importance. Thus we see
that networked knowledge is facilitated by stronger human bonds. The focus on the importance of the human connection in knowledge creation and management is
reinforced by Nancy Dixon in her discussion
about knowledge management. She
explains that initially knowledge management was about connecting people to content. In its next iteration it brought people
together to learn from one another. In
its present phase knowledge management requires leveraging collective knowledge
and derives largely from conversation both virtual and face-to-face.
This Collective Knowledge is obtained
from the convergence of varied perspectives which, through evolving
conversation, come to a point of joint sensemaking - a hallmark of
Leveraging Collective Knowledge. Heifetz and Laurie in their 2001 article in HBR explain that this integrated thinking
is critical to solve today’s issues, which
he calls adaptive challenges – things for which there are no definitive answers. Adaptive challenges are ideally suited for
diverse conversational learning because they are unpredictable, the problem is
loosely defined and there are many views on an acceptable solution.
Davenport in Whatever
Happened to Knowledge Management explores the possibility that the web has destroyed the need
for knowledge management and mentions that Google trends indicate that interest
in searching for knowledge management has dropped off precipitously in the last
several years. There is an irony in this fact because in so many ways Google is
an incredible knowledge management system.
Considering the ways that knowledge management has evolved, rather than
killing it, I feel the web has enhanced it.
The web has minimized the importance of an organization seeking to cull
and store all of its data in any static form or attempting to limit access to
anything other than proprietary information.
But it is certainly maintaining a
very agile and diverse database and enabling us all to connect in a myriad of
ways to access, share, process, and evolve that information into knowledge.
The democratization of knowledge demands we stay
connected to others in order to make sense out of the data. This reality alters
the role of a leader Nancy
Dixon reminds us the leader needs to play a key role in fostering the
conversation rather than providing the answer.
To help achieve this Heifetz
discusses several components that leaders need to take to foster adaptive
learning and effective knowledge management.
He recommends that leaders can promote conversation by helping frame the
issues, challenging roles and unproductive norms, allowing flexibility, and exposing
conflicts so they can be assessed and addressed by a diverse group.
Building
on Jarche’s
emphasis on the importance of sharing, reflection and social learning, a leader
needs to create opportunities for all levels of learning to occur; opportunities
which depend on expertise as well as opportunities to co-solve problems. Jarche refers to several elements of learning
including Intra-Organizational Learning which moves the organization from personally-directed to group-directed learning and creates strong learning
networks. These
discussions reminded me of the concept of conversational space which I
had featured in a class I designed a few years back. Kolb, Baker and Jensen discuss the concept which I feel has particular relevance for leaders
trying to foster networked knowledge creation and management. A
main element of conversational space focuses on a leader establishing a safe
space where people with differing opinions can deepen their understanding. How well a leader prepares the conversational
space will determine the degree to which the conversation in the space promotes
learning or gets in its way. The full
theory is fascinating and I believe very relevant to a discussion of present
day knowledge management. However, for
this current piece I will conclude by mentioning conversational learning’s
emphasis on learning occurring in the tension that exists between listening and
speaking. These tensions are created
through the interface of various opposites and results in integrated knowing
very similar to Heifetz’ collective knowledge mentioned earlier. Therefore
a leader will foster networked knowledge management to the extent she enables
conversation, creates the space and encourages the dualities.
What is the next phase of knowledge management? Are our brains ready to connect to the extent
the network can avail? How do we select the elements of knowledge
management that will serve society tomorrow?
And finally, can knowledge be managed anymore?
No complete answer to any of these but certainly some new elements to
consider.
Reference
Weinberger, D. (2011). Too big to know: Rethinking knowledge
now that the facts aren’t the facts, experts are everywhere, and the smartest
person in the room is the room. New York: Basic Books.