About the About the Growth of Growth of

Knowledge Knowledge

Alan McLeanAlan McLeanUniversiti Tun Abdul Razak, Malaysia Universiti Tun Abdul Razak, Malaysia

(UNITAR)(UNITAR)International School of Kuala LumpurInternational School of Kuala Lumpur

Presented atPresented at

The Knowledge Management The Knowledge Management International Conference and International Conference and Exhibition, June 2006, Kuala Exhibition, June 2006, Kuala

Lumpur, MalaysiaLumpur, Malaysia (www.kmice.uum.edu.my/(www.kmice.uum.edu.my/

Full text available from: Full text available from: http://www.angelfire.com/linux/alan1http://www.angelfire.com/linux/alan1

/about.html/about.html

My contact details & My contact details & aims:aims:

http://www.angelfire.com/linux/alan1http://www.angelfire.com/linux/alan1 016 636 0754016 636 0754

My aims:My aims:Outline some main ideasOutline some main ideasInvite criticismInvite criticismPossibly find collaboratorsPossibly find collaborators

Some interesting ideas:Some interesting ideas:

“ … “ … there are no well-developed … there are no well-developed … measures … to assess the value of measures … to assess the value of … knowledge assets …” … knowledge assets …” (Chong (Chong Siong Choy)Siong Choy)

““Organisations … are … forced to learn Organisations … are … forced to learn at a faster rate in order to remain at a faster rate in order to remain successful …” (Chong Siong Choy)successful …” (Chong Siong Choy)

What the other experts What the other experts say: say:

… … knowledge is growing faster and knowledge is growing faster and faster … (Bodendorf & Schertler)faster … (Bodendorf & Schertler)

You will not understand what is You will not understand what is happening in our intellectual life if you do happening in our intellectual life if you do not see the exponential growth of not see the exponential growth of knowledge as the central intellectual knowledge as the central intellectual fact. (John Searle)fact. (John Searle)

Knowledge is growing faster today than Knowledge is growing faster today than at any period in history. (Julian Cribb)at any period in history. (Julian Cribb)

And Prue Mercer said …And Prue Mercer said …

And Prue Mercer said …And Prue Mercer said …

Knowledge is growing Knowledge is growing faster today than at any faster today than at any period in history.period in history.(So is there any factual basis for this (So is there any factual basis for this idea? Is it just a rumour? An urban idea? Is it just a rumour? An urban myth? Do we repeat it because we myth? Do we repeat it because we heard it … and it sounded good?)heard it … and it sounded good?)

This is the problem:This is the problem:

To say that knowledge is growing suggests that we To say that knowledge is growing suggests that we have some have some way of knowingway of knowing that the knowledge that the knowledge available now is greater than it was in the past. available now is greater than it was in the past. Perhaps the most natural way of estimating the rate Perhaps the most natural way of estimating the rate of knowledge growth is to know the total quantity of of knowledge growth is to know the total quantity of knowledge available at two instants and calculating knowledge available at two instants and calculating the growth rate from that data. Unfortunately, we do the growth rate from that data. Unfortunately, we do not have the capability to do this. Until we have not have the capability to do this. Until we have some credible means of estimating knowledge some credible means of estimating knowledge growth, we should not pretend that we can speak growth, we should not pretend that we can speak sensibly about it. I am not contesting the idea the it sensibly about it. I am not contesting the idea the it is is truetrue that knowledge is growing. Instead, I’m that knowledge is growing. Instead, I’m wondering whether it is wondering whether it is meaningful meaningful to talk about the to talk about the rate of growth of knowledge while we have no rate of growth of knowledge while we have no credible indicator of how much knowledge there is or credible indicator of how much knowledge there is or of how quickly it is growing.of how quickly it is growing.

These claims look to me like These claims look to me like empty talk. They sound good empty talk. They sound good and mean very little. This is and mean very little. This is not academic griping on my not academic griping on my part. Nonsense is nonsense part. Nonsense is nonsense in any context. I do not think in any context. I do not think we should invest our faith in we should invest our faith in it.it.

So … how can we estimate So … how can we estimate the growth of knowledge? the growth of knowledge?

Knowledge Growth Knowledge Growth

5 x 105 x 101818 bytes bytes

of new information in 2002, growing of new information in 2002, growing at around 30% per year. (Lyman and at around 30% per year. (Lyman and

Varian, 2003)Varian, 2003)

(print, film, digital etc.)(print, film, digital etc.)

a DIKW pyramida DIKW pyramid

WisdomWisdom

KnowledgeKnowledge

InformationInformation

DataData

Unresolved problems in Unresolved problems in the theory of knowledgethe theory of knowledge

Speaking coherently about the Speaking coherently about the growth of knowledge is impossible growth of knowledge is impossible without first recognising a group without first recognising a group of unresolved problems in the of unresolved problems in the theory of knowledge. These theory of knowledge. These include the question of what include the question of what qualifies as knowledge and the qualifies as knowledge and the related question of which entities related question of which entities are able to possess knowledge.are able to possess knowledge.

But NO! But NO! Surely it is people who Surely it is people who

know thingsknow things

Yes, that is the traditional Yes, that is the traditional view of knowledge.view of knowledge.

Senge identifies team knowledge as Senge identifies team knowledge as

- more than personal mastery - more than personal mastery plus the ability to work in a team – plus the ability to work in a team – Teams are a ‘larger intelligence’ Teams are a ‘larger intelligence’ which has procedural knowledge which has procedural knowledge that individuals do not possess.that individuals do not possess.

So, what is a So, what is a

learning learning organisationorganisation??

- an organisation that - an organisation that adapts appropriately to adapts appropriately to its environment by its environment by correcting errors and correcting errors and evolving understandingevolving understanding

And in social learning And in social learning theory?theory?

- learning is not a - learning is not a process that takes process that takes place in individual place in individual minds - rather it is a minds - rather it is a matter of social matter of social transitiontransition

A New Framework ?A New Framework ?

• Knowledge that can be Knowledge that can be stored stored

• Personal knowledge Personal knowledge • Communities of PracticeCommunities of Practice• Team knowledgeTeam knowledge• Learning OrganisationsLearning Organisations(… this seems to be about (… this seems to be about different units of analysis …)different units of analysis …)

Knowledge that Knowledge that can be stored can be stored

5 x 105 x 101818 bytes bytes

Personal Personal knowledgeknowledge

A B CA B C

Personal Personal knowledgeknowledge

A B CA B C

Only non-quantitative approaches to Only non-quantitative approaches to modelling growth are available. The prospect modelling growth are available. The prospect

of devising a credible indicator is remote. of devising a credible indicator is remote.

Communities of Practice Communities of Practice

- flatly qualitative theories - flatly qualitative theories

- Quantification of the - Quantification of the growth of knowledge growth of knowledge simply does not arise simply does not arise within this analytical within this analytical frameworkframework

Team knowledgeTeam knowledge

Assessing team Assessing team knowledge is a matter of knowledge is a matter of judgement. There is no judgement. There is no credible indicator for credible indicator for evaluating learning or evaluating learning or knowledge growth. knowledge growth.

Learning Organisations Learning Organisations

- no credible indicator of - no credible indicator of how good an how good an organisation has become organisation has become at learning, or of the at learning, or of the total organisational total organisational knowledge it possesses.knowledge it possesses.

So … what do you think? So … what do you think?

Obstacles to Research Obstacles to Research There are not many people around with a ‘KM’ job title There are not many people around with a ‘KM’ job title

- a low ratio in relation to managers in general.- a low ratio in relation to managers in general. Individuals holding explicitly KM positions are likely to Individuals holding explicitly KM positions are likely to

be IT specialists with an affinity to first generation KM.be IT specialists with an affinity to first generation KM. People who see all or part of their job as being KM but People who see all or part of their job as being KM but

do not have a KM job title are difficult to identify; there do not have a KM job title are difficult to identify; there is no strongly correlated common factor such as job is no strongly correlated common factor such as job title or easily identifiable organisational role.title or easily identifiable organisational role.

People who self-identify with KM (i.e. it is not in their People who self-identify with KM (i.e. it is not in their job description) have feelings of amateurism. They use job description) have feelings of amateurism. They use KM’s ideas and techniques but do not see themselves as KM’s ideas and techniques but do not see themselves as ‘real’ practitioners.‘real’ practitioners.

KM is poorly defined. There is no consensus on the KM is poorly defined. There is no consensus on the function of a knowledge manager which would allow a function of a knowledge manager which would allow a researcher to identify KM practitioners independently researcher to identify KM practitioners independently of their job title or self-identification.of their job title or self-identification.

KM is part of a tradition of storytelling. The selective KM is part of a tradition of storytelling. The selective narrative accounts typical of writing on KM support narrative accounts typical of writing on KM support practitioners but are not useful for compiling a survey practitioners but are not useful for compiling a survey of practice.of practice.

McLean’s Hypotheses: McLean’s Hypotheses:

The purpose of hypothesis The purpose of hypothesis formation is formation is testingtesting. That is to . That is to say: appropriate research design say: appropriate research design would show evidence of an effort would show evidence of an effort to to breakbreak the hypothesis. I follow the hypothesis. I follow Karl Popper in suggesting that a Karl Popper in suggesting that a good hypothesis is likely to be good hypothesis is likely to be bold, well defined and general.bold, well defined and general.

What knowledge managers What knowledge managers do and do not do do and do not do

There seems to be consensus, for There seems to be consensus, for example, that example, that system dynamicssystem dynamics does does not get much use. By contrast, there not get much use. By contrast, there is anecdotal evidence of anxiety over is anecdotal evidence of anxiety over the frequent loss of expert the frequent loss of expert employees. employees.

What knowledge managers What knowledge managers do and do not do do and do not do

There seems to be consensus, for example, that There seems to be consensus, for example, that system dynamicssystem dynamics does does not get much use. By contrast, there is anecdotal evidence of anxiety not get much use. By contrast, there is anecdotal evidence of anxiety

over the frequent loss of expert employees.over the frequent loss of expert employees. This suggests a This suggests a Maslow-like hierarchy of KM needs Maslow-like hierarchy of KM needs according to which managers ensure according to which managers ensure that they have the human resources that they have the human resources they need, that people can communicate they need, that people can communicate effectively and that they have access to effectively and that they have access to appropriate information resources. Only appropriate information resources. Only then do managers attend to the then do managers attend to the functionality of teams, communities of functionality of teams, communities of practice and, finally, to the learning practice and, finally, to the learning capabilities of the whole organisation.capabilities of the whole organisation.

What knowledge managers What knowledge managers do and do not do do and do not do

Can we use the same framework as before to explain Can we use the same framework as before to explain the selective inattention of knowledge managers?the selective inattention of knowledge managers?

• Knowledge that can be Knowledge that can be stored stored

• Personal knowledge Personal knowledge • Communities of PracticeCommunities of Practice• Team knowledgeTeam knowledge• Learning OrganisationsLearning Organisations

This hypothesis is entirely speculative This hypothesis is entirely speculative but if it is correct, it has parallels with but if it is correct, it has parallels with the ability of KM practitioners to track the ability of KM practitioners to track

the effectiveness of their efforts.the effectiveness of their efforts.

Organizational learningOrganizational learning

Communities of Practice

Team learningAccess to informationAccess to information

Personal knowledgePersonal knowledge

The final hypothesis The final hypothesis

Donald Schon points to the doctrine Donald Schon points to the doctrine of technical rationality that still of technical rationality that still permeates our universities, and permeates our universities, and especially the professional schools. especially the professional schools. He contends that professionals often He contends that professionals often practice selective inattention to the practice selective inattention to the ‘swamp’ of tasks that are “messy and ‘swamp’ of tasks that are “messy and confusing and incapable of technical confusing and incapable of technical solutions”. solutions”.

The final hypothesis The final hypothesis

I am suggesting that Schon’s I am suggesting that Schon’s conjecture is part of the explanation conjecture is part of the explanation for the pattern of actual KM practice. for the pattern of actual KM practice. KM practitioners demonstrate KM practitioners demonstrate selective inattention to team learning, selective inattention to team learning, communities of practice and communities of practice and organisational learning organisational learning becausebecause of the of the absence of well defined techniques in absence of well defined techniques in these areas. In particular, these forms these areas. In particular, these forms of learning (and associated bodies of of learning (and associated bodies of knowledge) are difficult to track. knowledge) are difficult to track.

… … I don’t know so much I don’t know so much ……

However attractive this model may However attractive this model may seem, it is a hypothetical one and is seem, it is a hypothetical one and is offered for testing. I am making no offered for testing. I am making no claims about its accuracy. claims about its accuracy.

And I have no intention of studying it And I have no intention of studying it empirically. Are there any volunteers empirically. Are there any volunteers here? Anyone?here? Anyone?

… … I don’t know so much I don’t know so much ……

I think that is more than enough. I think that is more than enough. Thank you.Thank you.