In the debate of Knowledge and Information, I cannot fail to notice the growing entrenchment and polarization of ideas. On one side, we can see those who are proposing a definition which assimilates knowledge to the process of knowing (the Polyanyists) and on the other side those who subscribe to the assimilation of knowledge as superior level of information in a value chain (the Davenportists). Both schools of thought seem to be able to support their contentions, and it is difficult to arbitrate without resorting to some common grounds.
The debate could be purely theoretical and without consequences if we did not have as a key goal to develop the competency of managing knowledge. This leads to a question which has not been explored in practical terms, what do we mean by knowledge management? Is it the management of the object of knowledge, the management of the process of knowing or a combination of both. As soon as this question is raised, the debate about the nature of the object (knowledge or information) and the nature of the process (knowing or learning) seems to surface. Each is proposing its own core competency as the key to the solution.
Management is a highly elastic and flexible term. When applied to the fuzzy concepts of knowledge, it becomes a source of debate and confusion. Whether we are dealing with the classicals like Frederick W. Taylor, Lyndall Urwick, or the current gurus like Peter Drucker or Tom Peters, the fundamental notion of management is to establish and execute a process which is intended to achieve results.
Although there are variations around the descriptions of the steps involved, it is basically cyclical and comprised of a planning/conceptual step, an organizing/resourcing step, an action/decision step, and a control/evaluation mechanism which provides the feedback/adjustment loop.
Management is teleological in nature. It is a human-driven process of pursuing goals and creating conditions of success to achieve these goals. Because not all goals are created equal and not all conditions are optimal, there are sound and poor management practices. To be considered as "sound" management proceses or actions must possess a set of attributes of effectiveness, equity, sustainability, equilibrium and abnegation. Otherwise, it is a set of technical expedients which are unable to achive replicable results over time.
Should the management cycle be applied to knowledge, they we would be in presence of a "knowledge management" practice of some kind. Where things can become complicated, is when theorists and practitioners are attempting to describe this practice. In each case, it requires to define the object of management, in this case knowledge, in a manner which is meaningful (or convenient) to the description of the management processes. Of course, if we can rely on a solid base of causal relationships, we could set realistic goals and if we had the expertise of effective means of action, we would have a set of sound knowledge management practices which could be of assistance to a wide range of managers and organizations.
First, there is a group of snake-oil peddlers who are proposing miracle solutions usually based on the properties of a piece of software, an information sharing device or some organizational acculturation training process. In many cases, the products have some virtue, but in most cases they represent neither management practices nor a valid definition of knowledge.
A more serious group of proponents including Peter Drucker and James B. Quinn are approaching the issue from the angle of managing the "Knowledge Worker". They contend that the competitiveness of the new corporation is intimately linked to a better approach at the utilization of the knowledge base of the workers. Form their perspective, knowledge management processes is a question of proper vision, organizational networks, educated decisions and best use of lessons learned as the key to organizational learning. I. Nonaka's model of knowledge creating organizations is similar in nature although referring to a different cultural context as the means of explanation. In a sense, knowledge management is a form of application of sound management practices to an object: human resources which are the carrying vector of knowledge.
In the same line of thought and context, P. Senge's learning organization comes as an appealing tool to generate the desired collective behavior. In this line of thought, organizations are more "learned" whenever their "knowledge workers" learn to apply the appropriate behaviors of systems thinking, personal mastery, use better mental models and share the same vision.
Another group of proponents, including Tom Davenport, some of the gurus from leading consulting firms and the American Quality and Productivity Center tend to focus on the formalisms of knowledge. From their perspective the explicit knowledge of organizations is contained in information holdings, systems, policies and other informational resources. It is materialized in models, schema, analysis and skills which ensure the replicability of the know-how. Their emphasis is to focus on means of optimizing these holdings, improving the methods of formalization and increasing the use or usability of the available knowledge. Peter Senge's and I.Nonaka's references to mental models reflects this type of emphasis. In this context, knowledge management is a form of application of sound management practices to another object: information resources which a different carrying vector of knowledge.
The distinction is important to the extent that the object of management is representative of a cause-effect model which illustrates the proper mind set required from the decision makers. One set of gurus is proposing definition of knowledge management as an organizational transformation process where the relationships between the participants are re-defined according to the value chain of organizational learning.
The other isproposing a re-design of the value chain itself focusing on innovative use of information technologies to increase the "knowledge assets" for competitive purposes. One proposes primarily OD and training solutions, the other mainly systems solutions. Both are seeking similar results: performance in terms of competitiveness and profits. It is not difficult to see why most managers cannot figure what knowledge management is really about.
Let's return to our original debate: knowledge vs information? In his seminal work, Theories of Organizations; From Process and Transformation, as early as 1980, Jerald Hage identified that there are two competing explanatory models of the performance of the firm.
A first set of studies are aimed at explaining the success on the basis of the firm's ressources and how these resources are structurally organized as production systems. The optimal arrangement of these resources normally result in higher efficiency, competitive capacities and predictability of results.
A second set of studies try to explain the firms success on the basis of its capacity to utilize the available expertise. This group focus on the linkages between knowledge, core competencies, vision and focus. Success is normally associated with innovation, quality and management values.
Increasing the rate of success of firms requires to recognize how the firm itself perceives its expected results. This is sometime "confused" by consultants as the understanding of the client organization's culture. In practice, it boils down to understanding through what success criteria the proposed changes are going to be evaluated... and therefore anticipating the degree of acceptability and practicality of recommendations within a given context.
To a certain extend, the central debates of organizational theory are being transposed into the evolution of a body of knowledge for knowledge management. On one hand, there are those who perceive that the "acceptability" of their solution lies in the realm of resources and knowledge assets and there are those who believe it rests in the realm of the enterprise cultural construct (Weltanschauung).
In the first instance, the most easily perceivable attribute of knowledge lies in the form of knowledge assets which are contained in information resources. Therefore the increase in performance of the firm should be achieved through sound management of these assets and particularly their measurable and physical evidence: information.
In the second instance, the privileged attribute is a form of "competency" which enables the firm to address effectively the constraints and problems submitted by the forms environment. The competency is recognized through an appropriate behavior of the firm's participants and therefore, knowledge management consists primarily at creating the behavior corresponding to the expected competency. Learning loops tend therefore to have precedence over knowledge assets.
If your client is a "resources" manager, the first approach will be more pleasing. If your client is a "strategy" or "concept" manager, the second will tend to be more appealing. Catering to the clients immediate need will put the butter on the table, but this may turn out to yield limited if not sporadic results.
Leo Roback, a wise old professor from University of Montreal, use to try to convince his students that organizations were fundamentally a sustained desequilibrium between conflicting expectations. The central bonding of the organization which ensured its sustainability was the desire to continue the fight. Once a point of view would win, the organization would loose its dynamism and collapse under the weight of its pathologies.
Pursuing this line of thought, one comes to realize, that much of the desire to assimilate knowledge management to information management or the learning organization process is essentially a way of taking sides in a larger debate. Sound management of an object called knowledge requires to manage both the object and the processes which create this object.
Our current management practices are designed around a separation of the object and the process. This is one sad think we have inherited from Scientific Management. There are information managers, development managers, policy managers, financial managers, human resources managers, project managers.... Each one is referring to a resource (human, financial, information) or to a process (project, development, strategy...). Each discipline recognized the existence of the other but there is an inherent tendency to discount the relevance of the other discipline when faced with a "problem". Knowledge has proven to be at the same time a resource and a process. Therefore, knowledge management may prove to be a more complex discipline than originally perceived. One thing is certain, it is not a simple technique.