The word “Knowledge” is a good example. In our line of work we obviously use the word extensively – it is part of our business name after all. We promote activities centred on “Knowledge Management” and we like to think that “Knowledge Services” are important to every organisation.

But what is “Knowledge”? Does it matter how we define it? Is it even the right word?

Alavi & Leidner (MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 1, Mar., 2001, pp. 107-136) report on a few different perspectives on Knowledge including:

1. Knowledge can be defined in terms of its relation to data and information. Data is facts, information is interpreted data and Knowledge is personalised information.
2. Knowledge is an object or asset that can be modified.
3. Knowledge is present in the act of doing something, in the act of application.
4. Knowledge is representative of the capability to influence action.

We find the use of differentiating knowledge by comparison to data and information not terribly useful. To begin with the terms data and information are often as elusive to the application of a definitive meaning. Secondly, the comparative definition suggests that there is a hierarchy, with data at the bottom and knowledge at the top. But as pointed out by Tuomi (Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 16, No. 3, Dec., 1999, pp. 103-117) the hierarchy could be turned upside down because knowledge is required to identify what type of data to collect in the first place. Finally, even if we were able to disentangle these issues would we still be any better off in our efforts to leverage knowledge management to improve organisational performance?

The second method for defining knowledge, as an object or asset, is an appealing definition because an object conjures up persistent material qualities that means that it can be ‘stored’ or ‘retrieved’. That is, if it is a material item then it can be ‘managed’. And we’re not adverse to the concept that someone can write a book, and someone else can read it and then claim they have some of the author’s knowledge. We might dispute that they both have the same knowledge, but they definitely now share some knowledge. So somehow the book has ‘carried’ the knowledge of the author to the reader? Following, it is not difficult to imagine that people can create wiki pages or Intranet pages and readers can learn and develop their knowledge. So, therefore the Intranet system is crucible of knowledge. But a warning, though the concept of knowledge as an asset is easy to grasp, and therefore practical, it does not mean that it necessarily stands up under scrutiny. For example does knowledge really live outside of our heads? Let’s take a knowledge management system full of documents, forum posts, Intranet pages from an Australian council. To them it houses knowledge. If we placed that system into the hands of a Brazilian financial corporation in twenty years from now. Would they think it contains knowledge? Assuming none speak English then they would not be able to read the contents of the site. If they could, would find old information for a specific region of Australia. And they would see it as just that, information. It is information because their context is far removed from the originators of the ‘knowledge’. Therefore whether or not we may think of it as knowledge or not depends upon the context of its use, therefore, perhaps we can’t use this meaning at all?

The third meaning, that knowledge is really only present in the act of doing something, not stored in a system or a book, is a sort of ‘know-how’ interpretation. To us it conjures up the culmination of an individual’s past experience applied in the act of doing something. The activity-based meaning also causes us to think about the differentiation between knowledge and skills. For example an experienced painter has knowledge of different colours and how to mix them on her palette. However she also has a type of ‘muscle-memory’ when applying her oils to the canvas. Her hand applies the type of strokes needed for the type of effect required. Similarly a seasoned programmer has commonly built up methods of thinking that translate easily between different languages. These ‘ways of thinking’, or embedded skills, that are a result of repetition- is this different from knowledge or a different sort of knowledge? These thoughts, especially the ‘ways of thinking’, are analogous to the oft-cited endeavour of the new CEO to change the culture of the organisation.

The last interpretation of knowledge is interesting because it takes an agency view on knowledge. It is almost a political agent view that ‘knowledge is power’. Contrast this meaning with the comparatively passive ‘knowledge as an object to be received’ or the here-and-now of ‘knowledge is used in an activity’. With knowledge as a measure of the capability to influence action there is a sense that knowledge is marshalled towards a purpose. This is helpful for our purposes and I’ll summarise next.

So does this discussion help us? Does defining knowledge matter? I believe it does. We’re a long way from completing a longitudinal study of the definition of knowledge, nor have we travelled far back into the Greek philosophical tradition where the matter was first raised. However we have uncovered some interesting lessons from our narrow assessment.

Lessons:

Thinking about knowledge as something storable is helpful because it prepares us for the opportunity to capture and transfer knowledge. But to compliment that thought it is helpful to understand the context that the information will be used. That’s because thinking about the context of the use of information means that we can identify which activities are of high value and have a high dependency on explicit knowledge. It then follows that you won’t unnecessarily attempt to capture everything (not that you ever could) and secondly, with the audience in mind, what you do capture can be thoughtfully stored and presented – i.e. more targeted and more useful at the time it is needed.

Overarching these imperatives for our knowledge strategy is reflected in the last meaning – the power to influence. What is it that we want to influence? I believe this question is important and it points back to the strategy of the organisation. If you’re unable to make a strong case for a knowledge management strategy by using the organisation’s overall strategy then your efforts to thoughtfully capture, store, and publish the organisation’s knowledge may be targeted at the wrong activities and you’ll find your capability to influence is lost.

From a cynical (or perhaps realistic) point of view the proliferation of terminology could be associated with the drive for individual or organisational reputation. There’s definitely a cachet associated with coining a term and so therefore people are motivated to do so. Take for example the need for academics to publish. When fellow academics measure the contribution of a paper they often consider whether it has added something novel to our way of thinking. Novel means something new and often that new thing is coined with a name. That’s why many papers are “Towards…” something. They’re towards a new meme, a new concept. Also take for example Jive’s promotion of Social Business Software. I’m writing about it, and so are others, that’s a win for their marketing department. Perhaps in the future it will be added to Allen’s evolution of social software page? In the same vein I like the quote that Allen has on his evolution of social software page from Adina Levin where she says: “But we’re children of the enlightenment, we want progress, and in order to get the (deserved) attention for new generations of real innovation, we need to use new terms.” I believe the sentiment to be a little vacuous and having the word ‘deserved’ parenthesised seems to support my belief.In fact I think you could look at the English language as a kind of market. There’s competitive forces out there. It’s very similar to Shapiro & Varian’s Standard Wars – who’s term will win supreme? If I were to get into the game I might call it the Meme Market (but unfortunately someone else has already used the term… though that doesn’t stop everyone… see next para).But what is the cost of terminology proliferation? I guess from a business perspective it is a little more difficult to tear away the layers to find value. This is especially true if you must spend so much time trying to understand what a term means. It is even more difficult when those who coin the term do not take into account the fact that it may have already been used for other purposes thereby making it even more difficult to gain understanding. This is just the case with the use of the word ‘social’. If I were to go to a Web Standards Group meeting and chat to someone about Social Technology they would, most likely, believe that I am referring to instant messaging, blogging, wikis and the like. However the term could also mean our national parliamentary system. For someone in the industry it would be easy to disentangle the meaning but what if someone has a degree in law and I wish to convince them of the merits of social technology? We would first need to agree on what we mean.Definitions are not the only problem. With so many concepts how do we effectively corral our thought processes into one area? That is a strength of human capital, the ability to collaborate and produce great works. However if we are fragmented in our focus does that mean that we are also losing the advantages of scale?Now, to cross over and consider the other side of the argument. Firstly, and most importantly, it would be wrong to for anyone to artificially muzzle themselves of new ideas just on the basis that there are too many terms. That’s true but one would hope that they thought before they lept. That is, they had considered the history of their chosen terms to avoid, as far as possible, definition clashes, and further that they had categorically come up with legitimate reasons why other previously coined terms did not satisfy their ideas.Another argument is that the number of terms is simply a consequence of our new sophistication. Our society is more educated and the Internet provides the world’s biggest platform of connected minds and ideas. Therefore memes are going to be conceived more rapidly and disseminated at greater speed. And as with any human endeavour, as more people get involved there is a requirement that we diversify. In essence an opposing motivation to the “let’s all focus on one thing” argument above. These drivers are inevitable and it follows that our job is to thoughtfully select those terms that make sense, interpret their value and advise our clients.

If I had more time and money I’d definitely like to have a play with the GP2X… though it doesn’t seem to be available here in Australia.

Of course, what does this have to do with Knowledge? Well I believe the open source movement, of which a project like the GP2X is a good example, is an exciting area for knowledge management research. For instance what are the KM differences between a closed loop system such as a proprietary product development project and an open source project in terms of:

• knowledge creation, collection and dissemination?
• resource recruitment and motivation?
• KM system innovation?

If I start talking about these things now I’ll be here all day!