Now when I passed through this famous quote by Albert Einstein (who?) - German born American Physicist who developed the special and general theories of relativity, I was much aghast (why?) I want to get more deeper into the quote. As to what has been said has a more deeper roots then what we analyse in common parlance.
Tried a bit researching on "Knowledge Management" and posed a question before myself. Do I really have knowledge about the subjects or things for which I claim to have sufficient information? My self answer is ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ both. Yes because I have studied about a particular subject; No because I don’t have a deeper understanding of that subject.
Then what exactly is this "Knowledge Management". Lets find out: Developing a ContextThe data can be viewed as an abundant, vital and necessary resource. With enough preparation, and by utilizing new ways we can channel raw data into meaningful information. That information, in turn, can then become the knowledge that leads to wisdom ( quote by Les Alberthal)
Before attempting to address the question of knowledge management, it's probably appropriate to develop some perspective regarding this stuff called knowledge, which there seems to be such a desire to manage. Consider this observation made by Neil Fleming as a basis for thought relating to the following diagram.
(A collection of data is not information. A collection of information is not knowledge. A collection of knowledge is not wisdom. A collection of wisdom is not truth.)
The idea is that information, knowledge, and wisdom are more than simply collections. Rather, the whole represents more than the sum of its parts and has a synergy of its own.
We begin with data, which is just a meaningless point in space and time, without reference to either space or time. It is like an event out of context, a letter out of context, a word out of context. The key concept here being "out of context." And, since it is out of context, it is without a meaningful relation to anything else. When we encounter a piece of data, if it gets our attention at all, our first action is usually to attempt to find a way to attribute meaning to it. We do this by associating it with other things. For example, If we see a single word, such as "time," there is a tendency to immediately form associations with previous contexts within which I have found "time" to be meaningful. This might be, "being on time," "a stitch in time saves nine," "time never stops," etc. The implication here is that when there is no context, there is little or no meaning. So, we create context but, more often than not, that context is somewhat akin to conjecture, yet it fabricates meaning.
That a collection of data is not information, as Neil indicated, implies that a collection of data for which there is no relation between the pieces of data is not information. The pieces of data may represent information, yet whether or not it is information depends on the understanding of the one perceiving the data.
Thus information is quite simply an understanding of the relationships between pieces of data, or between pieces of data and other information.
While information entails an understanding of the relations between data, it generally does not provide a foundation for why the data is what it is, nor an indication as to how the data is likely to change over time. Information has a tendency to be relatively static in time and linear in nature. Information is a relationship between data and, quite simply, is what it is, with great dependence on context for its meaning and with little implication for the future.
This example uses a bank savings account to show how data, information, knowledge, and wisdom relate to principal, interest rate, and interest.Data: The numbers 100 or 5%, completely out of context, are just pieces of data. Interest, principal, and interest rate, out of context, are not much more than data as each has multiple meanings which are context dependent.
Information: If one establish a bank savings account as the basis for context, then interest, principal, and interest rate become meaningful in that context with specific interpretations.Principal is the amount of money, $100, in the savings account. Interest rate, 5%, is the factor used by the bank to compute interest on the principal.
Knowledge: If then you put $100 in savings account, and the bank pays 5% interest yearly, then at the end of one year the bank will compute the interest of $5 and add it to the principal and account will have $105 in the bank. This pattern represents knowledge, which, when I understand it, allows me to understand how the pattern will evolve over time and the results it will produce. In understanding the pattern, I know, and what I know is knowledge. If I deposit more money in my account, I will earn more interest, while if I withdraw money from my account, I will earn less interest.
Wisdom: The principle is that any action which produces a result which encourages more of the same action produces an emergent characteristic called growth. And, nothing grows forever for sooner or later growth runs into limits.If one studied all the individual components of this pattern, which represents knowledge, they would never discover the emergent characteristic of growth. Only when the pattern connects, interacts, and evolves over time, does the principle exhibit the characteristic of growth.Now, if this knowledge is valid, why doesn't everyone simply become rich by putting money in a savings account and letting it grow? The answer has to do with the fact that the pattern described above is only a small part of a more elaborate pattern which operates over time. People don't get rich because they either don't put money in a savings account in the first place, or when they do, in time, they find things they need or want more than being rich, so they withdraw money. Withdrawing money depletes the principal and subsequently the interest they earn on that principal. Getting into this any deeper is more of a systems thinking exercise than is appropriate to pursue here.
A Continuum : Note that the sequence data -> information -> knowledge -> wisdom represents an emergent continuum. That is, although data is a discrete entity, the progression to information, to knowledge, and finally to wisdom does not occur in discrete stages of development. One progresses along the continuum as one's understanding develops. Everything is relative, and one can have partial understanding of the relations that represent information, partial understanding of the patterns that represent knowledge, and partial understanding of the principles which are the foundation of wisdom. As the partial understanding stage.
Extending the Concept: We learn by connecting new information to patterns that we already understand.
Knowledge Management: Knowledge management should simply be one of many cooperating means to an end, not the end in itself, unless your job turns out to be corporate knowledge management director or chief knowledge officer.
According to Mike Davidson, what's really important is:Mission: What are we trying to accomplish? Competition: How do we gain a competitive edge? Performance: How do we deliver the results? Change: How do we cope with change? As such, knowledge management, and everything else for that matter, is important only to the extent that it enhances an organization's ability and capacity to deal with, and develop in, these four dimensions.
The Value of Knowledge Management : In an organizational context, data represents facts or values of results, and relations between data and other relations have the capacity to represent information. Patterns of relations of data and information and other patterns have the capacity to represent knowledge. For the representation to be of any utility it must be understood, and when understood the representation is information or knowledge to the one that understands. Yet, what is the real value of information and knowledge, and what does it mean to manage it?Without associations we have little chance of understanding anything.
The value of Knowledge Management relates directly to the effectiveness with which the managed knowledge enables the members of the organization to deal with today's situations and effectively envision and create their future. Without on-demand access to managed knowledge, every situation is addressed based on what the individual or group brings to the situation with them.
If you feel what has been said above does or doesn’t make sense, please do revert through this post or my personal email ID vandanakandari@yahoo.com
(Vandana Kandari )
Reference for the quotes and content taken from
Alberthal, Les. Remarks to the Financial Executives Institute, October 23, 1995, Dallas, TX
Bateson, Gregory. Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity, Bantam, 1988
Davidson, Mike. The Transformation of Management, Butterworth-Heinemann, 1996.
Fleming, Neil. Coping with a Revolution: Will the Internet Change Learning?, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand
Senge, Peter. The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization, Doubleday-Currency, 1990.
No comments:
Post a Comment