The business of
knowledge management
What is knowledge...
Last month we did a special about research. But the aim was to do
more than merely inventory all the research activities we have.
Research and knowledge are two very different, albeit irretrievably
interconnected, animals. This second special is therefore devoted to
knowledge. The idea of a knowledge-driven organization is hardly
new in today's business environment. But most people in the know
agree on one thing - in a world of instant communication and
Information, being knowledge-driven is definitely here to stay. It
will become an essential part of successful organizations. But what
does it mean? What is knowledge? What is knowledge-driven? What
is the difference between research, data, information and
knowledge? In this second part of our research and knowledge
review and the IT systems needed to link them, we try to find
answers to all these questions. External and internal people in the know have contributed to our
efforts to approach the subject from what could be described as a knowledge creating process.
^t seems every culture has its own way of defining the concept that has prompted the
intellectually curious since human beings began painting caves. For centuries, its
acquisition was a goal - often lifelong - in itself. But, like so much else in the last
years of the 20th century, the concept of knowledge itself is changing. We asked an
academie and a knowledge organizer for their take on the subject.
Infinite knowledge
Advancing science
Knowing information
What sNewS Issue 12-December 1998
Professor Werner Ketelhöhn,
a regular consultant and
advisor on knowledge
management believes the way
we see knowledge has been
evolving for the past ten to 15
years - and the underlying
cause is again the high-speed
introduction of IT into almost
every area of our life. 'One of
the old paradigms has it that
^nowledge is deterministic,
finite and static,' he says in
response to the USD 64
million question. 'People
believed that once we rnaster a
craft, there is nothing else to
learn because at that point
"we know". This paradigm
creates space for the
accumulation of knowledge as
a means of learning what is
"known" and in answer to
questions of all kinds.'
Asked for an example of this
kind of structure, he raises the
now imploded Soviet Union as
a perfect example of how
'knowing' is not enough.
'State-run economies, such as
the former Soviet Union, Cuba
and Korea, try to organize
things under the guidance of
an all-encompassing and all-
knowing central planning
unit,' he explains. 'The net
result is that after 50 years of
such regimes, not much
economie progress was made.
Things remain the same,
including the knowledge base.
However, in market
economies, the knowledge
base improves continuously.
So, the paradigm of knowledge
as finite does not work.'
Ketelhöhn is quick to point
out that he is not saying here
that permanent truths do not
exist. 'That would, of course,
be incorrect,' he says. 'Clearly,
there are irrefutable truths in,
say, the physical, the natural
and the social sciences. And
this is my point about
knowledge and what it is.
Knowledge is about making
these sciences, or other
activities, advance. So,
knowledge is more concerned
with the processes that create
and diffuse the sciences,
rather than with a static body
or "inventory of laws" at any
given point in time.'
Our second question to
Ketelhöhn was almost as
abstract and difficult to pin-
