Its an interesting point as to whether any organisation of size can function with out both ‘Business Intelligence' meaning reporting on how well it is succeeding against the operational measures it has set itself, and its Knowledge Management system as its reference base of experience gained. However both are also strongly internally focussed and make assumptions that activities will happen with in the structure of the internal enterprise operational model. Today external events, and shifting to an increasingly citizen centric view are the challenges in terms of what do we know about these shifting issues. And as a second part to this comes the challenge that our colleagues are already using new technology such as Twitter in some new way that it's difficult for many managers to understand.
Let me try to break this down in practical manner using a metaphor and starting with the challenge that we don't know what we don't know, so have no way of knowing how complete a picture we are using to form our decisions. Think of it this way: you're hungry (event), and see what looks like a good restaurant (opportunity). Then you study the menu (knowledge), and subsequently decide to eat there (decision). The food is okay, but the evening is not great as you are lonely, so the experience is poor (optimisation).
Now add into the equation Twitter, which is up to a staggering number of users now. Our friends are offering continual insights to their activities so now we have the benefit of ‘knowing' more about the whole experience. We could ask for feedback on the restaurant, or others near by, even see that we have a friend nearby with whom we could share the meal. We could describe ourselves as being ‘in the know' - a unique English phrase used to describe someone who always seems to have connections and experiences to be able to do better than most people.
Is this the secret of Twitter's success? That it enables us to feel that we are ‘in the know'? And can this be replicated across an enterprise through social tools? That's what lies behind the title of this post: From Knowledge to Knowing.
I am not sure when I first heard this phrase, but having researched the topic of Business Intelligence at length, I'm sure it's a fundamental supporting concept. Actually, I discovered as I delved into this deeper that this is a topic that has been aired in a number of different ways: ranging from the ‘spiritual issues' to the science. But the real turning point for me is in an interesting book that came out this summer called ‘Knowing Knowledge' by George Siemens. There is a good summarising review to be found here. http://www.freepint.com/bookshelf/know.htm .
If I put all of this together I think I am beginning to understand the power of adding ‘social networking' and other associated tools/technologies to an enterprise, at least for a certain proportion of roles. Not just knowledge workers, but those whose job contains significant numbers of variables. As many of these roles are more frontline, with younger people, than managerial positions which are to some extent more abstracted from the ‘churn' of activities, you can see where and how instant messaging, Twitter and social networks are creeping into the enterprise.
Maybe it's time to stop assuming from a more managerial standpoint that these are distracting ‘toys', but to do some serious investigation into what and how they are being used beneficially. The barrier? It's the fear of managers finding that they are not ‘in the know' and that their staff knows more about the circumstances than they do. Overcome this and with an open mind what might you find?
Think of the potential power of each individual if they're acting as a real time ‘sensor' of circumstances. If this can be harnessed through reference by the individual to past experiences of their enterprise through knowledge management, this can be combined and focused upon to use joint expertise to optimise the opportunity and enhance the quality of the decision. Its not quite ‘crowd sourcing' because it should be a careful selection of a sub-section of the crowd who is relevant and contextual to the situation. Now by most of the definitions I can find that is ‘intelligence'!
As a footnote, just consider that in most enterprises I hear the tale that the smokers are the best informed group. Why? Because they form a social network across the enterprise that meets regularly in their little external circles to exchange information.
Social networks: from facts to questions to knowing
Very interesting topic. Knowledge Management understood simplistically as storing partial facts (such as in a manual) in a database did not take off. Knowing only occurs in practice and this means communities of practice. Knowledge is typically understood as a static property, either you have it or not. Knowing is an emergent property that happens "in practice" - whether you learned it upfront or not - you master the situtation and this is what knowing is about. Managing knowledge didnt take off, because it means managing static facts, such as how to engineer an engine. At best, it can resemble something like a digital manual. But this isnt fancy enough.
The great challenge is managing knowing. Perhaps management is the wrong word, because knowing is an emergent social product - knowing occurs in practice with others. Management suggests control, but control is antithetical to an emergent property like knowing. You cant control what you cant see and grasp. Facilitating knowing sounds much better than managing - and facilitators much better than managers. The single most important factor of facilitating knowing is to present multiple pluralistic and opposing "facts" from which a balanced understanding can emerge. Social networking sites do just that.
Managing knowing means opening up avenues - not closing them. It is opposed to what we do as managers, professors or politicians. Rather than opening up possibilities, we are limiting business opportunities, learning experiences or public debates. We feel obliged to present closures, when in fact we should present possibilities to rethink taken for granted ways of doing things. There is no closure on the net as long as the barriers to entry remain low. Everything will be emergent, unfinished or incomplete as the postmodernists would have it.
The percieved risk of unmanaged and unstructured knowing
Great post that adds a lot of value to my comments. its an interesting point about 'managing'. there seems to be a very definate and recognisable concern that 'knowing' is dangerous as it is inherently 'unmanaged' and therefore must be 'unstructured' versus the 'managed structure' of the static facts.
This point alone seems to be something of a 'sticking point' for adoption and/or acceptance of the increasing amount of unofficial use of social networks.
Online networks provide instant knowing across time & space
Indeed, the inherently 'unmanaged' and 'unstructured' nature of knowing coincides with web culture. This type of emergent knowing had always driven engagement and progress, whether in handcrafts or in science. But typically it occured to one or a few persons who were present in the learning situation.Today, learning and knowing in practice can occur intellectually and must not be confined to the physical world only.
The shift from product to intellectual innovation that you mentioned at the ministerial conference is at the core of it. We can learn and be "in the know" by sharing experiences on the web. This instant "presencing" of knowing across time and space was not possible before and - in aggregation - will be an unprecedented catalyst for generating innovation and wealth.
knowledge in the eGovernment of Tomorrow
If i move this topic towards what is the impact of 'knowing' in terms of citizens' and their rights to various information and servics crom government then the EU has just annouced the Malmo declaration which states in precis that by 2015 any citizen anyware in the EU should be able to find and use the services that they are enttitles to regardess of the country and local government that they originat from.
This introduces a look of questions; and the Swedish research institute Vinnova has published a report with four scenarios of how this might work out. a unique combination of political science and technology. The book is called 'eGovernment for Tomorrow' by Lennart Nordfors, Bo Ericson, Hemming Lindell and Jacob Lapidus and is published by the Gullers Group. You can reach them at vinnova@vinnova.se or www.vinova.se. Its a heavy wieght work of unique value in my opinion.
SENSE knowledge knowing
Sense from knowledge to knowing ? Sense from knowing to knowleledge? Knowing of sense?
That slight shifting from one to another concept could give some visible relief to the difficulty we meet when trying to size the different states we meet when working in the digital sphere.
Most important to me is avoiding the immediate lure of technologies and their effects on human's life: the adaptation of new generations to the digital technology let me wonder if those new users are really well prepared to manage the variety of "impacts" they receive and dispatch.?
The high reactivity of the digital sphere provides in many cases a real and immediate satisfaction of the user , leaving him (or her) eager to open and reopen new doors and strates floating in the sphere! Such a behaviour tends to create a feeling of movement ; the quickest you move and the best you feel!?
Can we admit that life , and especially social and psychological life need much more than movement...? I would say by that way that digital sphere will generate a need of innovation in self evaluation and methodology of thinking (including certainly wisdom). Digital world could be only the first step of a major change of our civilization , why?
it's just a logical fact: first centuries of civilizations let appear a large scope of "abstract thinking" (metaphysical thinking) which was spread and used by the people , even the less educated;the role of technology was very low.
Nowadays , we enter in a world where people have the real possibility to quickly access knowledge from the first year of their life , having no time to measure and "taste" the cultural or metaphysical parts they meet at once!?
Paradox of lure ?
value and society
You make some interesting points; is knowing valuable and does it help our feelings of value, or even self worth? More importantly if everyone knows most things of any prominance in a society what does this do to the society?
Currently the debate is till based on the recognisable and limitedd range of the current working and organisational structure. The Swedish Government research agency Vinnovia has published some very good work on these questions starting with scenarios up to 2016 some time back and now a fully updated one based on the way we have and see new technologies being adopted and used up to 2020.
There are four scenarios in the later one that focus on the results to society and government. it is a heavy read but very worth while in my opinion. i believe copies can be downloaded from the Vinnovia site.