Reshaping business and the world by leveraging knowledge intangibles
The enemy within KM - Overcoming technology's fifth column
Hello all,
The latest blog offering from the ALKaME Research Group - Nonaka: The wonderful Wizard of KM http://wp.me/pUfyy-1v
We're developing an article (The enemy within KM...) that looks at the dominance of technology within the KM field, and the perception that KM 'is' technology. This has led to an enquiry into the foundational theories of our field and Nonaka in particular.
This particular blog is a summary of some of the work we're doing in this area and is designed as a conversation starter for those who are interested in the foundationalist aspects of our field.
Also, we're looking for ideas for future blog topics...let me know if there is something you would like to see us cover.
Thank you again for your valuable feedback and support
David
David Griffiths
The University of Edinburgh,
College of Humanities and Social Science
Tel. 44 (0)7500 966998, Fax. 44 (0)131 651 6111
www.alkame.eu.com
http://edinburgh.academia.edu/DavidGriffiths
Twitter: kcoreresearch
Skype: DavidALKaME
Blog: http://theknowledgecore.wordpress.com/
Email: d.a.griffiths@ed.ac.uk
Views: 6
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Mary Adams on
-
David - I come at the field of IC from a completely different perspective as my background is in finance and strategy. So I am not well versed in the foundations of KM and was confused by your critique of Nonaka.
To me the beauty of the IC perspective is that knowledge is recognized in its different forms:
Human Capital is knowledge held internal to the organization by employees and manager
Relationship Capital is knowledge held by and shared with external stakeholders
Structural Capital is knowledge that is "captured" and becomes a re-usable shared resource of the organization
...and, further, these elements work together in a dynamic system that holds the potential for continuous learning. There is an incentive to create structural capital because it is more scalable. But there is also a recognition of the fact that all three forms of knowledge are necessary for an organization to be sustainable. To me, some knowledge (pure knowledge, experience, competencies) will and should always remain tacit.
Is that your point?
-
Permalink Reply by David Griffiths on -
Hello Mary and thank you for the response...
I understand your point on IC and value drivers; something I disccused in an earlier blog: http://theknowledgecore.wordpress.com/2010/05/22/show-me-the-money-...
This particular blog on Nonaka was designed to point out one of the potential root causes of practitioner dissatisfaction that we experience in the field of KM - Nonaka's SECI model being one of the founding models in the field, focused on the spiral of knowledge creation. The problem with Nonaka's work, from the perspective of value creation, which is where I think you are coming from, is that he fails to operationalise knowledge and he doesn't connect with the value streams that organisations would be familiar with (IC, Process Capital, Structural Capital and Organisational Capital). If you compare his work on SECI to the value model I mention in the link above, it becomes difficult to understand how we actually operationalise his work to exploit knowledge as a resource.
The other thing, which is suggested in one of the blog comments, is that Nonaka has authorship of a KM concept, but his theory is founded on misinterpretations of key texts on tacit and explicit knowledge (Polanyi) and is insufficiently tested, which I believe gives rise to ambiguity and fads. That's the awareness that I'm trying to raise in the blog.
Hope that helps contextualise the blog and I would love to hear any other thoughts you might have...
David
© 2012 Created by Mary Adams.
