The KM model in D11 (“Tangible versus Intangible Assets”) can be redrawn to distinguish cognitive (=head, IQ) from affective (=heart, EQ or emotional quotient) factors in KM practice:
I pointed out in a previous blogpost (“F5- A Proposed KM Framework”) that a common source of confusion in the field of KM stems from the use of the layman word “knowledge.” To KM gurus, the word “knowledge” has a specific meaning:
- “Knowledge is information that changes something or somebody — either by becoming grounds for action, or by making an individual (or an institution) capable of different or more effective action” – Peter Drucker
“Justified belief that increases an entity’s capacity for effective action” – Ikujiro Nonaka
“I define knowledge as a capacity to act” – Karl Erik Sveiby
“Knowledge is information in action” – Carla O’Dell and C. Jackson Grayson
Therefore in KM, knowledge is capacity for effective action, which includes belief and information useful for effective action. It encompasses whatever helps you do your job well. Thus, information that is not actionable is not knowledge. “Effective action” is the operational, empirical or behavioral indicator of the result of applying knowledge well in a particular context.
In another earlier blogpost (“F1- KM is not enough!”) we saw that capacity for doing a job well depends on cognitive/technical as well as emotional/non-technical factors such as motivation. I saw in one organization (see “Knowledge is NOT enough”) that emotional/non-technical factors’ influence on productivity exceed 50 percent!
(I read a conference paper last July 2008 in Kuala Lumpur on this topic which you can download from http://www.cclfi.org/downloads. It is entitled “Some Stories about How Personality and Culture Come into Our Knowledge Management Practice”.)