thinking about KM as an academic activity or KM’ing KM

1. thinking about KM as an academic activityor KM’ing KM JC

2. key question/s for KM • does the KM approach add insights not otherwise obtainable ? • if no, why use its language – confusing at best ? • IT, decision-making, strategy, OT, economics, etc. more or less manage OK without K-word • but if yes, how and why ? • can we use the term ‘knowledge’ without also ‘engaging uncertainty’ ? • Simon is not alone – Knight, Nelson & Winter, Archer, etc. – to say nothing of Proust, Whitman, Tolstoy, Shakespeare, etc. Monieson KM seminar

3. first – the rationalist KM’ers • core premise – no consideration of uncertainty • complete data is available – at least in principle – no prescriptions for dealing with critical absences • conceptualizing and bridging between data, information, knowledge and purposive action. grounding in Ackoff (1989) • principal problematics: • transformation of data into reasoned / optimal action • transfer of data, information or knowledge (the K-sharing agenda) • reverse-engineering of best practice into appropriate data, information and knowledge • KM as a general (non contextual) methodology to address these • e.g. Gloet & Berrell JoKM v7 #1 2003; Waddell & Stuart TQM v20 #1 2008 Monieson KM seminar

4. Gloet & Burrell JoKM 2003 Monieson KM seminar

5. Monieson KM seminar

6. Waddell & Stewart TQM 2008 • KM important to SCA (Daniel Bell etc.) • KM process turns data into info and K • IT versus Humanist paradigm • KM defined as means to gather & share info & improve performance • 77% - employees communicate about customer needs • 15% - incentive schemes • 56% - ‘best practices’ were measured, reported & followed • 58% - a feeling of teamwork • 70% - their organizations had sound financial performance indicators • 47% - employee satisfaction • 67% - customer satisfaction • KM – fosters info sharing and learning from each other Monieson KM seminar

7. Simon APSR 1985 • substantive versus procedural rationality • substantive – actor’s goals and situation’s characteristics • these cannot be determined – thus: • procedural – actor’s ‘subjective representation’ of both • cognitive approach versus ‘behavioral’ • bounded rationality is not irrationality • rational versus humanist - abstract versus political • Simon is considering alternatives - NOT working the distinction Monieson KM seminar

8. Simon versus G&B or W&S • G&B / W&S see no problem with BR • discussion around ‘tacit K’ leads to ?? • org. communications – org. as mechanical system • Simon’s project is to ‘engage uncertainty’ in human affairs • types of U (Spender 1989) • ignorance • indeterminacy • others • engaging uncertainty means Δ implicit Model of Man • ‘bringing the men back in’ – but what ‘men’? • humanism versus hyper-rationalism • no collision of paradigms Monieson KM seminar

9. Boisot & Canals / Carlile • Boisot & Canals – JEE 2004 - info and freedom of choice (agency) • info as capacity for work (in-the-world) • subjectivist versus objectivist (situated versus abstracted) • Bayesian (learning) • pass-through from tacit to explicit as learning mechanism • no collision of paradigms • Carlile Org Sci v15 #5 2004 collides positivism, interpretivism and pragmatism into three K-types: • logical • situated semantically • situated politically • boundaries to knowledge & communications across boundaries • boundary objects • shared language • specified actor concerns (admits the individual) • negotiate a practice (re-situate in both in-the-world dimensions) Monieson KM seminar

10. bottom line: KM is what you make of it • admits you (the individual theorizing) as • a mentalizing abstraction • experiencing the world • acting in it, passively • being an agent, actively • constructing it • > an excuse to ‘re-language’ what we do already ? • an opportunity to ‘engage uncertainty’ e.g. • Cyert & March (1963) • Nelson & Winter (1984 p.4) • what strategies are open to you? Monieson KM seminar