Summary: I revisit the scene of an earlier interchange. In that interchange Matt Mower and I bemoaned the futility of many intranets (and the social psychology that can be implied by those intranets). If we're talking about good, fluid, deep knowledge-making collaboration, those intranets were seen to be less than they could be. I revisit my earlier entry and extend and document some of those thoughts. I provide references to authors who webpublished, for me, pivotal readings and writings (These will be found at the bottom of this entry).
Sometime ago I agreed with Matt Mower that we lose collaborative power if we only show finished products to our coworkers or the "world". At that time Matt noted that,
... many intranets are a reflective tool rather than a creative one. In this I mean that, quite often an intranet lags behind what an organisation does. Documents will be put up, after the fact. A department or project will create a view that must be updated and infrequently is. Basically the intranet is an afterthought and not a living breathing part of the work of the organisation. More like a gallery than a factory.
I think that it is safe to say that Matt believes that the intranet would be "living and breathing" if at least coworkers, if not interested external spectators, were invited to watch each other's knowledge production processes. (It can be argued that, within limits, some mutual product inspection by competing organizations might accelerate and refine growth for all competing parties.) Such access --like being given access to an athlete's or actor's or judge's processing as s/he moves through a diffiicult performance--might well speed the dissemination of useful algorithms amongst the full population of practitioners with similar responsibilities. (I may have put words in Matts mouth, but even if so, I forward these thoughts for debate.)
In my earlier entry I tried to think my way through social realities in such a way that I could guess why such sharing might NOT occur, inspite of our belief about klog worth. Those thoughts [with editing for enhanced clarity] were:
Klogging Requires Learning and Time Investment
Not everyone is proficient at either the technology or the reflective documentation of thought that is involved in , for example, using a knowledge log to document the evolution of a particular, just forming, piece of knowledge.Thus if the klogging is to be done it adds workflow and learning time to the knowledge worker's day.
Acquiring a responsible job in some form of knowledge work does not 'cause'a magical transformation; i.e., knowledge workers are not necessarily the 'reflective' sort. It is possible for one to be extremely facile in some branch of thought and at the same time to have relatively low access to how one comes to a given conclusion or to how she transforms a piece of established knowledge into an altered form that is more suitable to a particular context. Whether klogging involves sharing of established knowledge and its application or of documenting the formation of substantially new knowledge, it should be assumed that training and practice will be involved before an individual's klogging process will achieve it's desired effect. Training requires a trainer, practice requires time!! Thus,it may be that the intraorganizational problems created by klogging are perceived to be greater than the benefits. and/or
Klogging is Seen to Increase Personal or Organizational Risk
Worries about two sorts of risk result in two forms of distrust: first,that others see one's work product as it evolves means that one's work is seen before it meets traditional criteria for completeness and elegance. The klog writer might be well anticipate that [until organizational expectations are adjusted] he or she risks criticism and loss of status within the work group by exposing a developing work product to group inspection. (Call this intra-group distrust.) .
Second, there is the more obvious security concern--that if our notes are taken or copied by a competitor then that competitor could (with a more massive assignment of person power) solve the problem sooner and thus get to copyright/patent and market sooner.(Call this inter-group distrust. Or call it by it's flashy name, "fear of industrial espionage".)
Relevant Articles from Others Thinking and Writing within the Same Area
I would like to back up a bit and reframe the klogging enterprise. It occurs
to me that we all, my mentors, who are listed above, and I, should constantly
look at klogging in the human [as in pre-weblog and even more archaicsense). We should look for procedures which are supportive
of the discovery and development of human organizational truths. We should cultivate
our abilities to make wise choices. As far as I can tell, these are the desired
ends, whether or not a technology assists. It follows, I think, that these ends should be the ultimate products
of our group and individual klogging procedures (or any other technology-boosted
process).[more in indented material.]
Research and Development and even Operations, as departments, have not responsibilities
which include enhancing competetive advantage and controlling organizational
risk. Certainly formal literature and various networks must be continually
queried in order to evaluate, select and import new organizational procedures
[organizational learning has occurred when they are successfully installed;
the learning is successful if the set of all organizational goals sets
are more fully realized] . Importing new organizational behaviors is itself
an art as is recognizing those organizational behaviors --when seen as descriptions
in the literature or as behaviors in another context-- that might have potential
within the home environment. The whole process of development, if it's not to be a "random walk"
pursuing only appetite, e.g., profitability, must be infused with focused
and compassionate rationality--a rationality steeped in ethical concern for
all, however disparate, fellow humans. Any organization must search for truths
which will allow successful accommodation to difficult situations. As multiple
paths around or through a situation are found or created, the wiser [where
Wisdom takes account of a broader,deeper set of constraints] of them should
be be applied. Even when the wiser choice is less profitable and more difficult
we can try to remember the broadest and deepest goals; maybe that recollection
will give us the fortitude to bear the higher costs for the sake of the greater,
if later, benefit. Thus it has been that with my own disciplinary and institutional background,
and with my personal experience, I suggest that we should bring the issues of
organizational learning, organizational truths and organizational wisdom to
the forefront as we attempt to collaborate (via klogs, wikis, and whatever other
means) our way into individually and collectively enhanced futures. My weblog entries that tie in here: Summary: I spin tales about the utility of Instant Messenger's
in Knowledge-Making/Research (KMR) endeavors. They, too, like wki's, weblogs,
email, listserves and telephones seem to have a "proper" place in the process.
Naturally there are misuses of Instant Messengers too. For example, techno-love
struck IM chatterers will get as little research accomplished as the compulsive
phone networker. Too much of the talk; too little of the idea wrestling.
Summary: First, I share Zwiki.org's outline for Wiki-based
project documentation. Then I share what was for me the rediscovery of writing
as it allows visions of the complex realities underlying present, action-dominated,
moment-to-moment experiences . Writing about life is not recording faithfully
and somewhat emptily, no, it is , or can be --if you're "listening"
, a recreation and often a discovery of the deeper meaning, the undercurrent,
beneath immediate experience. Summary: A set of pictures and some comments relating to
"making actionable sense", sociality of knowledge-making, networks. I work
to extend thoughts of knowledge-making thinkers Ton Zylstra, Denham Grey
and Lilia Efimova, by interpretation of their thoughts and adding a few
of my own. Summary: Research (aka knowledge-making in my weblog),
that is on other than the personal-and-tacit level, eventually requires
that findings and methods be published. Publication allows potential users
to determine, first, the credibility of the research results and, second,
the applicability of research findings (generated in one context) for use
in the other, broader perhaps simply different, contexts. When others accept
that a research-based knoweledge claim has broader application [they checked]…
then it can be said to be certified (or warranted).
(More below on the publication in electronic journals and particularly on
the use of weblogs and wikis in the research process). Summary: A set of pictures and some comments relating to
"making actionable sense", sociality of knowledge-making, networks. I work
to extend thoughts of knowledge-making thinkers Ton Zylstra, Denham Grey
and Lilia Efimova, by interpretation of their thoughts and adding a few
of my own. Summary: I list several of the hierarchy issues involving
knowledge and truth after sharing several points that Denham Grey has quite
recently shared in Corporate
memory - the hard way. My additional points, which conclude this entry,
can be summarized as: knowledge and truth are contextual and situational;
part of context and situation is the complexity of living system for which
knowledge or truth are claimed. One must conclude that an individual
truth (see my recent definition)
is not the same as either truth at the Small Group level or truth for a
System (company, division, etc.). I explore reasons why in the table below
Denham's listing of KM confusions at the corporate level. Summary: Ethics has bearing on what should be done, even
when we too rarely apply [name your ethical belief(s) here] in real situations.
Ethically speaking,and on the topic of my entry, I think it is wrong for
there to be vast differences in individual or group access to the goods
of life. Further, I believe that (I'm making a truth claim about ethical
practices here) if we behaved efficiently and ethically the good things
of life would NOT concentrate in the hands of the few. In this entry I describe
how one might try to live up to both the ethical and truth sides of the
value/ethic that I have stated. Summary: Denham Grey has made important observations about
learning within work-groups. I liberally quote some of his observations
and then note parallels with the work on Naturalistic (now 4th Generation)
Evaluation and Research. Some things simply may only be learned together.
Summary: Since the distinctions seem worthwhile to make...
I'm spending time distinquishing between knowledge, truth, wisdom (in one
dimension) and seeking and making in another. The distinctions are necessary
before we can blogologically extend/ edit/replace in some constructive fashion.
Summary: About six weeks ago I drafted two hypotheses concerning
the effect on knowledge-making at the individual level (see below). As you
can see I also announced the intention to put together a comparable hypothesis
concerning accelerated community learning as affected by klogging. My cut
at that hypothesis is stated at the bottom of this entry. Summary: Knowledge grows a) from the foundation of prior
knowledge and character and b) in response to the demands of problem-centered
activity and in proportion to the frequency of access to relevant information.
As will be argued below klog-based knowledge-making in formal or informal
groups can be expected to result in the most accelerated learning. I have
summarized my thinking below and in detail at on a web page linked below.
The personal knowledge-base builder brings her/his knowledge
and character to the stage. The activities with which the player is involved
and the information that is available interact with the player to produce
new knowledge. Summary: Understanding 'knowledge' is no simple thing. The
lead that T.D. Wilson
(thanks to Seb
Paquet ) has provided us can give us a good start. In this entry I sketch
an outline not only of what knowledge is but how, in general, one recognizes
knowledge when demonstrated by individuals or groups of individuals acting
as 'one'.
Klog Author's Name
Article and Link 1
Article and Link 2
Lilia Efimova
The Power of Visible Loose Ends
Open Ended Manifesto on Research and Learning
Julian Elvé
Learning Organizations
Cylical Knowledge Development
Denham Grey
KM & Competitive Advantage
Community of One?
Matt Mower
Collaborative Business Culture
Making Projects a Little Bit Easier
Seb Paquet
The Case for Using Klogs in Research
Towards Solving the Interdisciplinary Language Barrier Problem
Dave Pollard
New Collaborative
Enterprises: Life After Capitalism The Blogging Process
Ton Zjilstra
Actionable Sense
Lurking and Social Networks
Re Actionable Sense: A boat maker's skills and tools make sensevia the construction
of a boat. A lawyers tools and skills make sense within the context of a
case. A cook's tools and skills make sense within the context of a dish
or meal. Sense for each and all, or so it seems to me, is realized within
a social context and through the process of stating a specific objective,
a target. Actionable sense is found within the process of realizing the
objective. Thus, tools and processes prove themselves within inevitably
social knowledge-making and knowledge-dissemination/explication contexts.
Re Actionable Sense: A boat maker's skills and tools make sensevia the construction
of a boat. A lawyers tools and skills make sense within the context of a
case. A cook's tools and skills make sense within the context of a dish
or meal. Sense for each and all, or so it seems to me, is realized within
a social context and through the process of stating a specific objective,
a target. Actionable sense is found within the process of realizing the
objective. Thus, tools and processes prove themselves within inevitably
social knowledge-making and knowledge-dissemination/explication contexts.
Summary: We need processes, concepts and standards
for providing supportive and useful responses as we see other's processing
struggles with knowledge-making efforts. I would also suggest that we must
take pains to show our knowledge-making efforts, not just our finished products.
Summary: In this entry I suggest a refined and expanded
definition of k-logs. I do this because it seems to me that knowledge is product,
yes, but also process. Thus, "All k-logs are weblogs. K-logs are a species
of weblogs. K-logs are weblogs used specifically for the purposes of sharing
and/or documenting knowledge and/or sharing the process of knowledge-making
