1. thinking about KM as an academic activity or KM’ing KM JC

2. key question/s for KM does the KM approach add insights not otherwise obtainable ? if no, why use its language – confusing at best ? – IT, decision-making, strategy, OT, economics, etc. more or less manage OK without K-word but if yes, how and why ? can we use the term ‘knowledge’ without also ‘engaging uncertainty’ ? Simon is not alone – Knight, Nelson & Winter, Archer, etc. – to say nothing of Proust, Whitman, Tolstoy, Shakespeare, etc. 15 - Apr - 08Monieson KM seminar2

3. first – the rationalist KM’ers core premise – no consideration of uncertainty complete data is available – at least in principle – no prescriptions for dealing with critical absences conceptualizing and bridging between data, information, knowledge and purposive action. grounding in Ackoff (1989) principal problematics: – transformation of data into reasoned / optimal action – transfer of data, information or knowledge (the K-sharing agenda) – reverse-engineering of best practice into appropriate data, information and knowledge KM as a general (non contextual) methodology to address these e.g. Gloet & Berrell JoKM v7 #1 2003; Waddell & Stuart TQM v20 #1 2008 15 - Apr - 08Monieson KM seminar3

4. Gloet & Burrell JoKM 2003 15 - Apr - 084Monieson KM seminar

5. 15 - Apr - 085Monieson KM seminar

6. Waddell & Stewart TQM 2008 KM important to SCA (Daniel Bell etc.) KM process turns data into info and K IT versus Humanist paradigm KM defined as means to gather & share info & improve performance 77% - employees communicate about customer needs 15% - incentive schemes 56% - ‘best practices’ were measured, reported & followed 58% - a feeling of teamwork 70% - their organizations had sound financial performance indicators 47% - employee satisfaction 67% - customer satisfaction KM – fosters info sharing and learning from each other 15 - Apr - 086Monieson KM seminar

7. Simon APSR 1985 substantive versus procedural rationality substantive – actor’s goals and situation’s characteristics these cannot be determined – thus: procedural – actor’s ‘subjective representation’ of both cognitive approach versus ‘behavioral’ bounded rationality is not irrationality rational versus humanist - abstract versus political Simon is considering alternatives - NOT working the distinction 15 - Apr - 08Monieson KM seminar7

8. Simon versus G&B or W&S G&B / W&S see no problem with BR discussion around ‘tacit K’ leads to ?? org. communications – org. as mechanical system Simon’s project is to ‘engage uncertainty’ in human affairs types of U ( Spender 1989 ) – ignorance – indeterminacy – others engaging uncertainty means Δ implicit Model of Man ‘bringing the men back in’ – but what ‘men’? humanism versus hyper-rationalism no collision of paradigms 15 - Apr - 08Monieson KM seminar8

9. Boisot & Canals / Carlile Boisot & Canals – JEE 2004 - info and freedom of choice (agency) info as capacity for work (in-the-world) subjectivist versus objectivist (situated versus abstracted) Bayesian (learning) – pass-through from tacit to explicit as learning mechanism no collision of paradigms Carlile Org Sci v15 #5 2004 collides positivism, interpretivism and pragmatism into three K-types: – logical – situated semantically – situated politically boundaries to knowledge & communications across boundaries boundary objects – shared language – specified actor concerns (admits the individual) – negotiate a practice (re-situate in both in-the-world dimensions) 15 - Apr - 08Monieson KM seminar9

10. bottom line: KM is what you make of it admits you (the individual theorizing) as – a mentalizing abstraction – experiencing the world – acting in it, passively – being an agent, actively – constructing it > an excuse to ‘re-language’ what we do already ? an opportunity to ‘engage uncertainty’ e.g. – Cyert & March (1963) – Nelson & Winter (1984 p.4) what strategies are open to you? 15 - Apr - 08Monieson KM seminar10